Scientific Proof that God Exists

Holographic Universe or Computer Simulation? Big Bang or God?

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Scientific Proof that God Exists

Postby ryguy » Wed May 23, 2007 4:35 pm

This one's for you Ray. I was having a heated argument with my brother recently (he's atheist, I'm not) regarding the reality of God. He keeps trying to use the scientific argument - however, that doesn't fly with me. I believe the scientific method can be used to prove the existance of a greater force of creation.

I've always liked the "Anthropic Principle" argument - that the degree of how fine-tuned our world is for the delicate balance required to generate life represents a degree of evidence for a guiding force. It's much more involved than the simple statement I present here, but it's a powerful argument, in my mind. I find it really funny when I'm talking over religion with someone who is what you would normally call a "non-believer"....yet they recognize particular statistically signficant patterns in their life, but they struggle to explain it away as coincidence...

Anyway - I recently came across another scientific approach - the use of Systems Analysis, and instantly thorugh of you!

I found this book:

"Scientific Proof that God Exists" - by Simon Lee
http://www.lulu.com/content/230876

Comprehensive scientific i.e. logical proof that GOD EXISTS! Yet this is NOT based on either of two more conventional approaches to such proof i.e. the 'anthropic principle' or more recently 'intelligent design'. Instead it is a thorough 'Systems Analysis of (The Holy) Spirit'. Followed by strong evidence that the '666' system established by Roman Emperor Nero is still being pursued today by various top technological companies intent on 'marking us all 666'! Such as barcodes - and latterly RFID tags (Radio Frequency IDentification). In the book I propose a beautifully simple way to stop all this! It ends with suggested reasons and cures for mental illnesses of all sorts. Overall the book aims to provide one way to 'believe only what you know to be true' (logically) - the very first precept of Buddhism. To read lengthy extracts - visit www.author.me.uk or www.lulu.com/AuthorMeUK


Given the recent discussion here of Dan Smith's approach (anti-science/materialist) - I thought people should be made aware of the other approaches out there that do a very good job combining science and spiritual principles very well. And yes, Systems Analysis is absolutely a useful method here - as you've mentioned in the other thread quite often.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension


Re: Scientific Proof that God Exists

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed May 23, 2007 10:25 pm

ryguy wrote:This one's for you Ray.

snip

Anyway - I recently came across another scientific approach - the use of Systems Analysis, and instantly thorugh of you!


Thanks Ry. This does look quite interesting, and the author's focus on "being" is clearly pointing to the functional aspects I have described before which are part of the systems engineering process domain. I will have to read thru the preview, and perhaps even spring for the book.

With this, I would now like to share something that I wrote to Dan (with CC to Caryn) awhile back. I mentioned it in Dan's thread in the UFO forum. It seems now is an appropriate time for it to see the light of day... in my next reply.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

I AM - A Systems Theory Explanation

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed May 23, 2007 10:29 pm

I am going to try to help folks understand something that will reinforce various truths about a branch of science knowns as Systems Theory, and its applicability in being able to “prove” aspects of the truth behind spirituality, and the Pantheistic “definition” of God. And it all relies on beginning with nothing more than the two words which God told Moses best described who/what God is:

I AM

Most theists would likely agree that if God is omniscient and omnipresent, then this means the body of God is the entire cosmos. And so if you are going to try to decompose the entire cosmos into two basic truths, they could only be what God told us they are: I AM.

I = Identification of Self from Not Self = Matter = Noun
AM = Action to Change Self and/or Not Self = Motion = Verb

God is ALL. And ALL is telling us that We are He and He is Us. ALL IS MATTER IN MOTION. This is technically, and from a Systems Theory standpoint, the definitive truth about God & our Cosmos… and therefore this truth is what should guide the quest for spirituality.

So we have God saying “I AM”. ALL is Matter (I) in Motion (AM).

We also know from many spiritual traditions that God is also described as a trinity form. Christian beliefs call these 3 BEings : Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Well this also directly relates to truths from Systems Theory. The isomorphic mapping goes like this (and is a perfect fit):

Operational Domain <=> Father
As defined and used in systems engineering, this is the metrical domain defined and described by ALL Time and ALL Frequencies, which are, of course, mathematically reciprocal metrics. This is the domain of God where I AM is completed and joined together. The Operational domain of a system is what results from the total integration of the Functional and Physical domains that are below it. The totality of I AM cannot “BE” without both components, Matter and Motion. And indeed as we have seen the very definition of I AM is equal to Matter-in-Motion. Truly this is the “Father” level of God.

Functional Domain <=> Holy Spirit
As defined and used in systems engineering, this is the metrical domain defined and described by ALL Motions who find their basis in Space-Time. Indeed the most fundamental metric of Space-Time, as shown by Newton and Einstein is VELOCITY (with units of Space per unit Time). This is one component domain of God where I AM are not joined together. This is the “AM” or Motion domain of God which we experience as separate and distinct from Mass. The Functional domain is where we begin to design (Create) some new system which will some day become active (shift to I AM, or Operational Mode). This Functional domain is my expertise as a flight control system design engineer. I don’t design the physical parts of the airplane, I design its transformations…its functions. I am, by trade, a Functional Architect, if you will. In this domain we define requirements and measure system operation via PERFORMANCE metrics which tell us what level of quality the function must achieve for the WHOLE (Emergent) system of I AM can Operate properly. Seeing the entire structure of Systems Theory yet? And since the Holy Spirit is always associated with the dove, this naturally is a hint at MOTION, indeed FLIGHT. The Holy Spirit is a verb. It is not “something” it “does something”. It is God’s Prime Mover.

Physical Domain <=> Son
As defined and used in systems engineering, this is the metrical domain defined and described by ALL physical forms of Matter. And all Matter finds its basis in Mass-Time, which is otherwise known as Mass Flow Rate (a key physical parameter that defines a jet engine’s physical performance, among so many other systems). Note how the Physical domain is based on a 2-way mix of Mass & Time, similar but opposing to the Functional domain which finds its physical basis in Space & Time. Obviously, physical systems that we define have physical (decomposition) hierarchies, which is the fundamental method of “reductionist physics” as we have known it. But not only does the Physical domain describe the physical objects that come together to make a system, but it also must describe the physical environment within which the physical system must Operate. Thus, the total Physical domain in systems engineering defines the “I” (the system component hierarchy) and the “NOT I” (the system environment that is NOT the system).

Systems Theory meets the mystical Christian definition of God. A perfect fit! :wink:

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby caryn » Thu May 24, 2007 12:10 am

I’d like to offer something too, the reason why I find Ray’s theory of particular interest. This is taken from an email I sent to Ray during some of our discussions.

A brief outline: In 1978 in my late teens I had a profound experience, which eventually sparked my interest in Qabalah. This is a very basic synopsis of that experience. There was an interesting manifest component to this experience – witnessed by my mother. The 'sound' element is important, but a little long and complicated for a forum post.

Synopsis: "I went to bed and fell asleep. I became conscious and found myself in ‘outer’ space. In the far distance I could see a vast brightly illuminated area. An entity to my right speaks - “Be calm, all is well - this is I Am”. We arrive at the periphery of the illuminated area. We wait for a while, and then the Light absorbs me. I lose self-awareness.

I became self-aware again and found myself back at the periphery, the entity still at my right-hand side. Words are shared. I turn and we (the entity and I) begin to move. I became acutely aware of movement – the motion of the Cosmos, and sound.

This is part of what I heard:

‘I’ = the first point of Self-realisation. Mind.

‘Am’= the physical representation of the ‘I’.

‘I Am’ the complete living organism – Mind and Matter. Self-awareness (Matter in Motion)."

There can be no experience of ‘Being’ without both components – Mind and Matter – Matter in Motion.
caryn
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: London

Postby caryn » Thu May 24, 2007 12:30 am

Meant to add. The ‘Holy Spirit’ = Motion. Gimel, the third letter of the Hebrew alphabet also shares this function.
caryn
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: London

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu May 24, 2007 3:10 pm

caryn wrote:Meant to add. The ‘Holy Spirit’ = Motion. Gimel, the third letter of the Hebrew alphabet also shares this function.


Thanks for that, Caryn! I should make clear (lest someone get the wrong idea about my beliefs) that I was raised Catholic but I am no longer a strict believer in Christian dogma. Rather than listen to an "infallible" (as if!) pope, I prefer to allow science to guide my spiritual beliefs. I only offer the "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" description above as a means to illustrate how there are scientific truths embedded in a great deal of mystical knowledge. In fact, I would hazard to guess that most all spiritual traditions have elements of scientific truth buried in them. I think it is now time for humanity to "un-bury" them and properly align them with science to get "the full picture" of reality so we can achieve our next quantum evolution of BEING.

With regard to the Hebrew letters, I am certain Caryn is aware of the "coincidence" (not) that there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet and there are also 22 pairs of asexual (i.e. shared by both sexes) chromosomes in the human DNA structure. The 23rd pair determines sexuality. Could it be that someone (?) designated the Hebrews as the "Chosen People" for no other reason than the science of our human structure is encoded within the letters of their language?

I have another interesting coincidence related to chromosomes and an ancient people with ancient knowledge. Let me dig up those references and I will post them here once I have them all together.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby ryguy » Thu May 24, 2007 3:41 pm

Some excellent insight from you both....I really appreciate this. I'm pleased to learn that there is much in common between our spiritual beliefs. The systems model that you outlined above, Ray, for the "Father, Son & Holy Ghost" is a perfect example of the kind of analysis that doesn't rely on a literal reading of biblical (or any other ancient "holy" text) - but instead focuses on an information analysis that can rise above the petty details and really get to the core of what "Reality" is.

Matter in motion.... I AM....it really strikes a chord of truth. It ties in nicely with a conversation Steve and I had last week about the practicality and possiblity of time-travel, given Einstein's relativity and the relation of mass and speed - and the functional effect on the variable "time" that those different other variables can have on it. When we put the theory of relativity alongside the systems analysis above that you guys have described - things really start to "click"...

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby caryn » Thu May 24, 2007 5:00 pm

A side note on consciousness:

Probably, one of the biggest philosophical debates of all time is focused on the emergence of consciousness e.g. is consciousness an emergent quality of Matter or vice versa. I realised several years ago that we are unlikely to ever find the definitive answer to that question, and I can offer a very simple analogy as to why. You Ry are a conscious self-aware entity occupying an organic body. You have no recollection of being anything other than ‘I Am’ Ryan - the mind and body.

If we experience OOB we perceive it through the ‘I’ of us in Being. If we examine cases of reincarnation – the ‘reincarnated’ person perceives the past life as ‘I’ whether or not as a different sex, in a different time and location etc, but cannot recall a time of ‘not being’. Neither can ‘G-d’ recall a time of ‘Not Being’.

Therefore, imho, Matter without Consciousness – or Consciousness without physical representation becomes a moot point of argument. I’m not sure that the great ‘chicken or egg first’ debate is that important, because we do know with certainty that consciousness and matter exist now. We also know that once life, at all levels, comes into being it will do what it has to do to survive.

I’m an advocator of FAP....The Final Anthropic Principal .... In that: "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out." which also lends sway to the theory that the Cosmos is melioristic in nature (one that continually tends to improve).

I call this the ‘Consciousness Continuum’.
caryn
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: London

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri May 25, 2007 1:23 am

Thanks Ry,
ryguy wrote:Matter in motion.... I AM....it really strikes a chord of truth. It ties in nicely with a conversation Steve and I had last week about the practicality and possiblity of time-travel...


Yes, indeed! And I am sure that you, Steve, and Caryn all know that I used to hang out at TimeTravelInstitute.com discussing various aspects of the possibilities in this area. I have come to the conclusion that Time is actually what is the result of I AM (Matter in Motion). I have some rudimentary powerpoint graphics I created to discuss just this concept which I will post up here when I get the chance.

But for right now I would like to take this opportunity to throw out a "what if" scenario that is intended to highlight at least one problem that I see with the assumptions that are inherent in the Exopolitics stance. Everything I have read about this movement indicates that they simply ASSUME (and you know what happens when you do that!) that the large quantity of reports of anomolous vehicles are "evidence" that an ET intelligence is interacting with earth. The problem with making this assumption (with a bunch of handwaving) and then saying we need to move on to forge exopolitical stances is this: WHAT ABOUT IF THAT ASSUMPTION IS WRONG? If so, then any exopoloitical stances you would derive would be based on a false premise, and thus could be of little value.

What does this have to do with time travel? Glad you asked! :) I could just as easily make the assumption that these vehicles are NOT ET intelligences interacting with the earth, but rather they are TERRESTRIAL intelligences from a POTENTIAL FUTURE of ours. Now who is going to take-up the argument with me (and believe me, I would salivate at the opportunity) that MY assumption is not correct but the ExoPo assumption is correct? Moreover, if my assumption is correct, then how would this shape the ExoPo stance that should be derived? Indeed, would it even be NECESSARY to develop ExoPo stances if this were the case? And finally, if my assumption is the correct one, this would cast an entirely new light on the issue of "what are the motivations of the creatures who send these craft?"

It is the proverbial can of worms. And this is precisely why I am SOOOOOO strongly against people like the ExoPos doing some arm-waving and saying "we have 100% evidence that ETs are interacting with earth, and we need to stop arguing about it and make policy." The fact is, if the ASSUMPTION (for which no one has yet provided any SOLID evidence to back) is wrong, they are then quite possibly "barking up the wrong tree" with any namby-pamby ExoPo policies and stances!!! :shock: Hence my concern for appropriateness.

Enough for now... I'll wait for some comments before I continue.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby Max » Fri May 25, 2007 2:26 pm

While the possibility of time travel is certainly one to consider, another even more fascinating theory, to me, is that currently being debated in the field of astrophysics: The theory of multiple universes and interdimensional travel. It is all encompassed in the new "Brane Theory" which in some circles is replacing String Theory. (note to Steve: Article?)

One of the more visible proponents of this is Dr. Michio Kaku, who is currently working on this "theory of everything". Interestingly, Ray, he also participated in a documentary titled "Obsessed and Scientific" which dealt with the possibility of time travel.

Another interesting side note is that he was a protege of Dr. E. Teller, he of the Dan Smith connection.
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Almeirhria » Mon May 28, 2007 12:14 pm

Greetings, I see some some new members since i was last at the board.

Some information you may find helpful.

If you choose any current religion, atheism or science, all contain to a degree a level of dogma. Agnosticism is fine, although an individual may still become locked to their beliefs.

I do not enjoy the term God due to the distortions many people have with the title, but you are correct if you say 'all that is' is "God". This includes you and I, all that you see and know and more.
I should make a point that although I write with apparent conviction, I hope the reader uses their own discernment with any information, no matter the source.

Matter is a product of consciousness, though both are also intertwined. You may say consciousness is energy also.

The birth into the physical realm also includes with it a parting of your full consciousness. There is physical reality and much more which you would probably simply put into the non-physical. So when you say reality uncovered, what reality are you referring to? There is so much more to it all than the 'materialistic' view.

Time and space, both being intertwined are a phenomenon of this 'reality'. Time travel is indeed possible, as in the larger picture which you may not comprehend at this point, there is only timelessness. The future is the same as the past, there is only Now as the Hopi have said.

As for the theory on everything; there will always be the unknown, there is only learning...
Those truly helpless are those who have not consciously chosen but who repeat patterns without knowledge of the repetition or the meaning of the pattern
User avatar
Almeirhria
Member
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 1:39 pm

Postby caryn » Mon May 28, 2007 9:16 pm

A common mistake made by those trying hard to expound on theories of mind vs matter is that they refer to ‘physical’ when they specifically mean ‘matter’. All information has a physical representation, including ‘full consciousness’.

“Matter is a product of consciousness”? That's a preferred philosophical concept for some, not a proven fact.

A reality many a ‘new ager’ and neo religionist haven’t yet managed to grasp is that many of the great ‘ancient’ traditions they often refer to held the material world equally sacred to the spiritual realm.

If Malkuth is not sacred, then neither is Kether.
caryn
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: London

Postby Max » Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:40 pm

For your perusal and comments:

A PRACTICAL MAN'S PROOF OF GOD
The existence of God is a subject that has occupied schools of philosophy and theology for thousands of years. Most of the time, these debates have revolved around all kinds of assumptions and definitions. Philosophers will spend a lifetime arguing about the meaning of a word and never really get there. One is reminded of the college student who was asked how his philosophy class was going. He replied that they had not done much because when the teacher tried to call roll, the kids kept arguing about whether they existed or not.

Most of us who live and work in the real world do not concern ourselves with such activities. We realize that such discussions may have value and interest in the academic world, but the stress and pressure of day-to-day life forces us to deal with a very pragmatic way of making decisions. If I ask you to prove to me that you have $2.00, you would show it to me. Even in more abstract things we use common sense and practical reasoning. If I ask you whether a certain person is honest or not, you do not flood the air with dissertations on the relative nature of honesty; you would give me evidence one way or the other. The techniques of much of the philosophical arguments that go on would eliminate most of engineering and technology if they were applied in those fields.

The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective. To do this, we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere.

THE BEGINNING

If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). Most atheists maintain that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.

The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos. Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity! In 1999, it was discovered that the galaxies are accelerating in their expansion. Any notion that we live in an oscillating or pulsating universe has been dispelled by this discovery. The universe is not slowing down, but speeding up in its motion.

A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. The picture to the right is a picture of the sun. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas! If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21-cm line in the spectrum--a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!

A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.
THE CAUSE

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question--was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause (a creation) but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

THE DESIGN

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is "through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said:

We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.

The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:25 am

Fantastic article, Max. Thanks for sharing!

I've never heard the argument before against an "ever present" universe that points to stars burning hydrogen. I think it is a good one. But mostly I enjoy and agree with the dismissal of pedantic arguments that are really the only thing philosophers can hold onto anymore. It is the same with people who have nihilist tendencies... if you don't want anything to have any meaning, that is fine, you go ahead and live your life that way. But to try and "convert" or convince others is truly what I would consider evil.

One of the things I recently implied to our resident pest was the natural alliance of subjectivism and objectivism when there are "two or more" conscious minds who are in communication. To me, this is the "stuff of life" and it represents (to me) the motivation behind John Dunne's "No Man Is An Island". If we are going to sit around and argue about objectivity with respect to only INDIVIDUAL perceptions, and never try to integrate many various perceptions of people's objective reality, then we are hopelessly lost. We will never be able to "bootstrap" each other if all we can focus on is ourselves and our own perceptions.

IMO, our Creator separated us from Him/Her/Itself and from all others things for the express purpose of allowing objective observations AND REPORTING VIA NETWORKING WITH OTHERS. Imagine if you will a universe where you are the only sentient being. Not only boring, but how would you ever get a grip on "reality" if you were not able to discuss what you are observing with other sentient beings?

Caryn and I have discussed the importance (and "sacredness") of human networking in the past. One thing Dan is always talking about is our "reason for being created". I think networking (and mutual evolution through shared creations of our own) is one very good answer. And this is precisely why I think we are "subsystems of our Creator" which is quite different from saying "we ARE our Creator". Our ability to observe from a SINGULAR perspective is something that our omnipresent Creator could not achieve without us.

Enough of my babble...
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby Max » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:39 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
Enough of my babble...
Ray


I happen to enjoy your babble! LOL!! Your articulate presentations always give me much to think about. Thank you!
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Next

Google

Return to Reality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron