What is your favorite proof for God?

[greylorn]

All particles, according to Dyson, have minds, though the minds are very different from human minds, or God’s mind. His argument, though admittedly unscientific and speculative, is interesting.

i’m probably not going to read him, then. I distrust writers who use a word with a commonly understood meaning, like mind, and apply it to something completely new and different. (Yes, I am forced to do this with the word “God.” But on CAF I do my best to qualify my meaning.) Smacks of neurolinguistic programming, which Darwin employed to con people, and which all successful politicians must master.

I suppose that I could write a silly book about how my digital computer contains the combined minds of Alan Turing, Bill Gates, and thousands of intermediate programmers, but what would be the point of it?

I’d be interested to hear why you think God (or a very powerful Alien) exists.

To be honest, my reasons for believing not in the traditional God, but in a created universe, are simple and non-scientific. I make my living by designing, inventing, and creating. I’ve worked in diverse fields— physics, astronomy, neurology, microbiology. I like to do things, Out of the process of creating/designing/engineering and working with others similarly engaged, I know the importance of mind— conscious intelligence— in the creation of mechanical and electrical machines which are impressive, but only by our standards.

I’ve opened up microchips and put them under a microscope. Impressive engineering, even though I understand the principles involved. But I’ve also watched a louse’s tiny heart pump its blood, and cells dividing.

In all these engineering marvels I see the art of the extremely brilliant engineer.

Since I see mind as an obvious and necessary cause in the layout of static microchip wires, how could I refuse to see mind in the far more complex dynamic machinery of a common louse?

And then, there are flowers and hummingbirds, and the cold winter night when I fired up a 36" telescope and managed to point it at a globlular cluster.

I realize that none of these things can be raised to the level of arguments which an atheist might find compelling. They reflect my feelings and personal thoughts— but these are thoughts about personal observations of objective reality which I rate more highly than things read in books.

Please note, however, that I do not believe in the almighty God of conventional belief systems. I regard the existence of such an entity as logically impossible. In the context of your question, it might be helpful if I used the word Geon (mentioned in my previous post) to avoid confusion with the conventional God-concept. Geon has different properties than God, the most important being that he does not know everything and therefore is capable of creative thought. Geon is defined as a physical rather than spiritual entity, is actually plural, and did not always exist. (I use the pronoun “he” as a linguistic convention, not an implication of reproductive hardware.)

Obviously, Geon is unconcerned with the existence or affairs of individuals.

When connected with a bit of information from physics, biology, and even psychology, this concept provides me with a logically and factually consistent understanding of the origins of the universe and the nature of whatever passes in me for mind.

I think science has very solid limits. If it happens to surpass the limits, then I will revise my thoughts to expand the lines I draw. But I am not a scientific fundamentalist: I don’t think science has or ever can have all the answers. Literature, philosophy, art, all discover and express truth. Science just does so in the way I enjoy most and makes most sense to me.

Perhaps from my description of my reasons for belief in creation (I neglected to put Liszt and Mendelssohn on my list) you’ll realize that I agree with you on this, completely.

 

[greylorn]

Please define what you mean with “bounds” here. If you mean that (1) science can (at least in principle) address any problem, I agree with you. If you mean that (2) Science has the potential to solve any problem, I don’t agree. Science is so incredibly powerful that this is just about the only postulate that I would be willing to sponsor regarding it: “Science cannot and will not solve all the problems that a man can formulate about the natural world.” Now, I think some people here at the forum piously believe the opposite: in due time, Science will be able to explain the origins of the Universe (or more complex entities), heal the sick, control people’s emotions, prolong life indefinitely, etc. The reason I think this will never happen is that, if it is true that man is just a biological machine, then a man’s brain and its offshoots (like computers and Science itself), being limited by physical constraints, cannot go beyond a certain level of complexity. If it is true that man is not just a biological machine, then for there to be a role for anything other than natural entities, there must be some fundamental incompleteness of the natural world that allows for supernatural entities to be operative (or even meaningful); this incompleteness therefore cannot be solved by Science. I believe this argument applies even when people are thinking about pantheism and other systems that include “god” in the natural world. If Science can explain such a “god”, it becomes a scientific fact not different from a falling jar or St. Elmo’s fire.

So, when you say that “when science acquires bounds, it will become a religion”, I think that, if you define bounds as in (2) above (as I guess you do), you’re dead wrong. I think that Science will become a religion precisely when people believe that it has no bounds. And in some minds this already happened.

Antunesaa,
I agree with your last paragraph, and that I was dead wrong on this. Drat! And thanks for the feedback.

Your first paragraph is difficult to address, since it contains lots of stuff about which I’m unclear as to your meaning. This much might be helpful (and now I can trust you to inform me if you think otherwise)—

I love science, but do not think that it can predict or explain all things.

For example, I’ve reduced the origin of the universe to what I regard as an Absolute Miracle (2, actually) which by definition cannot be understood or explained, not by you, me, or God. I also believe in the existence of something best described in this context as the Cartesian mind. While I can explain these things, their behavior is unpredictable by definition.

It is worthwhile to note that science can explain a lot of things in an unhelpful manner, and that human interactions with the universe are most effective when they blend science with art and insight.

Also, we need to be keenly aware of the prevalence of junk science, which documentary TV and pop-science magazines have made highly profitable. There is much confusion over the meaning of what is scientific. The high standard set by physics is not followed in many other fields.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn,

So I think the word “Geon” would be a better term to use in this context, though I’m not sure exactly what it means. It’s a good word to start out with.

By “constructivist” I mean something akin to “epistemological constructivism”, though forgive me if my understanding differs from that of professional philosophers. I see science as just one set of tools, one of many valid ways to understand our universe.

Then there’s the issue of falsifiability… etc.

DS,

Since we are covering our subjects exhaustively (others might think we merely b.s. overmuch), I could not fit your Post #409 contents and my reply within the 6000 character limit. Anyone following our corner of this conversation will need to back up to 409 to make proper sense of this— as if that would help.

As a broad generalization of your thoughts, it seems to me that you would prefer to accept a falsified, or partially falsified theory as scientific than acknowledge the possibility that an alternative idea, even if not falsifiable, could be an effective explanation.

This seems a tad ideological. While I respect science, I’ve worked with scientists and studied enough of its history to have no particular reverence for the field or its practitioners. I personally know a Ph.d astronomer with a tenured position who doesn’t know enough to change a spark plug. Several of them, as it turns out.

Science camp followers (philosophers, generally) make a big deal of the verifiability or falsifiability of scientific theories, but as you point out, freely accept falsified theories. The truth is that the only people who keep hard scientists honest are engineers and capitalists. The engineers try to implement scientific theories in the real world whenever they can, so as to make a few bucks. Thus they are the first to detect theories which simply do not work.

It is worth nothing that many of the important theories in physics were discovered by non-scientists (e.g. thermodynamics). Einstein was not a scientist— he was a patent office clerk with a B.S. degree in 19th century bronze age physics. Scientists were too inbred to give him a job, and it is fitting that his first job was working for engineers.

In the course of working and arguing with scientists and religionists, easy to do since I disagree with the entire lot on fundamental questions like the beginnings of things and the nature of human consciousness, I have found that agreement is the most important determinant of what an individual chooses to believe.

Agreement will overpower logic and common sense every time. Experiments have demonstrated that only 3% of individuals will sustain their opinion when faced with overwhelming contrary opinion.

My experience suggests that the standard I.Q. bell curve is evently distributed across this 3%; i.e. it seems unrelated to intelligence level. However, intelligent people are superior rationalizers of their position.

I mention these things because I detect symptoms of CAD (Chronic Agreement Disease) in your arguments.

Here is a difficult exercise which you might try. I’ve never met anyone capable of it, but you appear to have the knowledge required. Imagine that you had access to all the knowledge you currently have, but lived in a world where theories were outlawed.

So, you would know about the evidence of biiological evolution but would never have heard of Darwin, or of natural selection. Mutation would not be in the dictionary.

You’d know about the complexity of biological cells, but not of Intelligent Design.

You’d know that the universe was 13-odd billion years old and continuously expanding, and that the earth was about 4 billion years old. But you’d not have heard of the Big Bang, continuous creation theory, or the Almighty God. Etc.

Now suppose that your were given the task of inventing an explanation for all this.

Everyone to whom I’ve offered this little challenge simply reinvents their current beliefs, re-justified.

And I almost forgot. Be sure to include a credible basis for explaining the appearance of the first self-reproducing cell.

 

[avflf]

Greylorn,
You’ve read Frank Tipler’s book “The Physics of Immortality”, right?

 

[Andy_III]

Now suppose that your were given the task of inventing an explanation for all this.

Everyone to whom I’ve offered this little challenge simply reinvents their current beliefs, re-justified.

And I almost forgot. Be sure to include a credible basis for explaining the appearance of the first self-reproducing cell.

Hey, this sounds like fun. Here’s my take on it:

I’m starting with a cooled planet that has begun to have water and rain. The water would form pools that I’ll call lakes. The lakes would contain many different chemicals leeched out of the asteroidal material used to form the planet. Electrical disturbances I’ll call lightning struck the water, providing the energy to group some of these chemicals into chains of amino acids I’ll call proteins. Now over time, there would be a lot of these proteins. Specific amino acids bind well (but temporarily) to a carbon-based form I’ll call nucleotides. Sometimes, these nucleotides will bind together in groups of three which bind especially well to a particular type of amino acid. Occaisonally, these groups of three would join other groups of three, and then others to form a longer chain of nucleotides which I’ll call RNA. The RNA, under some conditions, would recreate a protein chain with an exact aminio acid sequence. Since eventually there would be many strands of RNA (given time, raw chemicals, and lightning) one of the RNA strands would produce a protein structure that made it easier to produce proteins, which I’ll call a ribosome. The advent of these structures would increase the rate at which particular strands of RNA replicate (those near to the ribosomes, including the RNA that created the ribosome), so those proteins would be more abundant in the lake.

I’m going to have to take a break at this point. I need to get to my day job. It’s been fun so far, I may continue it later, but I think you’ll see where I’m going from this.

Also, you seem surprised that everyone recereates their own beliefs out of their own knowledge. Wouldn’t that by definition be the case? Do you think people have hidden knowledge inside themselves that they aren’t using for their beliefs? Or do you think the process of creating a resonable theory would change their beliefs? I’m starting to think theory and belief are very nearly the same concept. What would you say to that Greylorn? I value your opinion.

 

[antunesaa]

Antunesaa,
I agree with your last paragraph, and that I was dead wrong on this. Drat! And thanks for the feedback.

Your first paragraph is difficult to address, since it contains lots of stuff about which I’m unclear as to your meaning. This much might be helpful (and now I can trust you to inform me if you think otherwise)—

I love science, but do not think that it can predict or explain all things.

For example, I’ve reduced the origin of the universe to what I regard as an Absolute Miracle (2, actually) which by definition cannot be understood or explained, not by you, me, or God. I also believe in the existence of something best described in this context as the Cartesian mind. While I can explain these things, their behavior is unpredictable by definition.

It is worthwhile to note that science can explain a lot of things in an unhelpful manner, and that human interactions with the universe are most effective when they blend science with art and insight.

Also, we need to be keenly aware of the prevalence of junk science, which documentary TV and pop-science magazines have made highly profitable. There is much confusion over the meaning of what is scientific. The high standard set by physics is not followed in many other fields.

I agree with almost all the points of your post. If I understood well your cosmology, you attribute to a “Cartesian mind” the quality of being creative (and therefore non-omniscient and unpredictable), at the price of a given Absolute Miracle. The typical God believer allows God omniscience and needs no Absolute Miracle, at the cost of attributing to God the power to give creativity (hence non-omniscience and unpredictability) to intelligent minds like those of humans or perhaps other creatures (physical or spiritual). In my view both are (at least in principle) compatible with things like free will, love and art. At the same time, the God cosmology seems slightly more general than the Geon cosmology. For instance, you could map the Absolute Miracle to the primeval creation of the natural world by God; the Cartesian mind would be something akin to the Holy Spirit (not created), or maybe independent and inquisitive (created) beings able to shape the Natural world; and individuals with minds (like humans) would be pretty much the same in both cases.

As for the “incompleteness” argument, my point can be illustrated with an analogy. Suppose you have a mapping from outcomes in the natural world to outcomes in the natural world induced by minds that possess free will. For instance, this mapping would specify, for a specific outcome of the natural world, different outcomes of the natural world contingent on the choices of a free-will mind (mathematically, the mapping is thus a correspondence, not a function). Reality could then be described as a fixed point (in the mathematical sense) of this mapping, that is, an outcome that is consistent with all actions taken by free will minds. As you know, there are theorems that impose restrictions on the mapping that warrant not only existence but also uniqueness of the fixed point. In this analogy, God specifies the (admittedly immensely complex) mapping, but does not impose enough constraints to ensure uniqueness. This preserves free will of minds (potential outcomes are not unique), omniscience and omnipotence of God (the design of the mapping).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

And I almost forgot. Be sure to include a credible basis for explaining the appearance of the first self-reproducing cell.

A cell truly begins reproducing after its own kind only when it achieves a particular structure. This structure fulfills a “mathematical equation” that activates a “transcendent command”. I call it a transcendent command because it uses a language that is objectively meaningful. The command says “replicate” when a particular structure is achieved.

 

[DysonSphere]

greylorn,

My response to this post may seem a bit terse. I just think a short response, in this case, is the most appropriate, both because we have begun talking about Darwinism (a banned topic) and because we have strayed, however interestingly, past the bounds of this thread topic.

I will concentrate on this statement alone:

As a broad generalization of your thoughts, it seems to me that you would prefer to accept a falsified, or partially falsified theory as scientific than acknowledge the possibility that an alternative idea, even if not falsifiable, could be an effective explanation.

It is not my preference that determines what I accept as science, but simply the manner in which I’ve chosen to define categories (in such a way that involves the least cognitive dissonance). I apply boundaries to science, just like every other scientist and philosopher and every other person I know about does. People place different boundaries, but boundaries must be established. Some say that science covers “all that is” or “everything that’s true”. As wide as that is, it’s still a boundary. Boundless science would accept everything, even nonsense, as part of itself, and would be useless.

Science, as I’ve said, is in my opinion only one set of tools we can use to understand the universe. There are many questions it hasn’t answered. There are many questions it can’t answer. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is the best theory we have for the origin of species.
Other explanations, such as intelligent design, are not part of science, but they may still be true, and they may be true at the same time as evolution theory.

God is a non-scientific concept. This does not mean that God doesn’t exist, or that the idea of God is “useless”. It simply means that I, with my limited knowledge, currently do not know a way to determine how likely it is that God exists, and currently am not all that interested in looking into the issue all that deeply. I’m hoping someone else solves the problem, and that I can someday read the solution.

And I almost forgot. Be sure to include a credible basis for explaining the appearance of the first self-reproducing cell.

I’d imagine that, if I were to play this game, I would end up with a very different set of theories than the accepted set of theories. Those theories outside my field of astronomy, however, I wouldn’t trust very much. It would be an interesting game, but I suspect it would get me nowhere (maybe for the psychological reasons you cite; but that won’t change the outcome).

As for my including a credible basis for explaining the appearance of the first self-reproducing cell, I am ignorant of such a basis. I’m fairly confident everyone else on the planet is as well. This, actually, is part of what my astrochemical research seeks to explore; why we see organic molecules in space, including, possibly, amino acids.

If you wish to talk more about research, or send me a book (or maybe receive one), or talk more about Darwinism or Geon(s), please PM me, and I will send you my e-mail. I don’t want to derail this thread too terribly (heh heh…).

By the way, I’ve really enjoyed our conversation thus far.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn,
You’ve read Frank Tipler’s book “The Physics of Immortality”, right?

I coughed up money that would have been better spent on beer to buy that book sometime in the mid-90’s. My copy is in storage boxes, somewhere. If anyone wants a copy I’ll dig it out, because I’m sure that the mice who enjoyed my collection of vintage Mickey Spillane and Ian Fleming novels would have gotten sick eating Tipler.

My book reading policy is that I’ll usually give an author a chapter, even if it is not a good chapter. This is one of the few books that I recall being really annoyed with. The first chapter was so full of nonsense that I put that silly tome on the shelf midway and have not opened it since.

 

[greylorn]

Hey, this sounds like fun. Here’s my take on it:

I’m starting with a cooled planet that has begun to have water and rain. The water would form pools that I’ll call lakes. The lakes would contain many different chemicals leeched out of the asteroidal material used to form the planet. Electrical disturbances I’ll call lightning struck the water, providing the energy to group some of these chemicals into chains of amino acids I’ll call proteins. Now over time, there would be a lot of these proteins. Specific amino acids bind well (but temporarily) to a carbon-based form I’ll call nucleotides. Sometimes, these nucleotides will bind together in groups of three which bind especially well to a particular type of amino acid. Occaisonally, these groups of three would join other groups of three, and then others to form a longer chain of nucleotides which I’ll call RNA. The RNA, under some conditions, would recreate a protein chain with an exact aminio acid sequence. Since eventually there would be many strands of RNA (given time, raw chemicals, and lightning) one of the RNA strands would produce a protein structure that made it easier to produce proteins, which I’ll call a ribosome. The advent of these structures would increase the rate at which particular strands of RNA replicate (those near to the ribosomes, including the RNA that created the ribosome), so those proteins would be more abundant in the lake.

Reply 1 of 2

Andy III,
Amino acids are extremely reactive chemicals. They glom onto any reactive chemical within range, like oxygen, only briefly found in an unbound, state.

A peptide (short-chain protein) synthesizer builds proteins one amino acid at a time, by adding amino acids to a vat containing the protein being constructed.

Protein molecules are so reactive that they must be protected by the installation of a non-reactive chemical “cap” at each end. Before a new amino acid is added to the proteins, they must be uncapped. This can be chemically difficult. One of the chemicals used in this process is trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a chemical so nasty that one thousandths of a drop of it spilled on your body will bring you unforgettable pain.

Of course, TFA is also a highly reactive chemical which is therefore not found in nature. It is not used in protein synthesis because it is cheap, safe, or easy to handle. Fluid transfer lines in peptide synthesizers must be frequently replaced, because TFA and the other nasty chemicals involved regard non-reactive teflon as a new kind of lunch.

After the new protein is completed, it must be chemically capped. As the protein becomes longer, the process gets uglier. I propose that, based upon what we know scientifically about protein synthesis, no similar process could have occurred in nature even one single time.

In other words, engineering (i.e. functional rather than theoretical) science informs us that proteins cannot be created by natural processes. (I note that your story did not mention the tricky little details involved in molecular construction.)

Continued…

 

[greylorn]

Hey, this sounds like fun. Here’s my take on it: Etc. …

Reply 2 of 2 to Post 415

Suppose that lots of proteins ignored my objections and managed to appear on the planet anyhow. Proteins are just slightly smarter than bricks. A pile of bricks will not self-assemble into a nice outhouse. Draw the analogy.

Your hand-waving description, seemingly derived from the History Channel or a pop-science magazine, conjures up nucleotides (the components of DNA) from thin air. That is not how chemicals actually get made.

I know of no evidence for the appearance of any of the DNA/RNA components, nucleic acids, in nature. If they can appear in nature, it is not likely that they will persist in a chemically unbound state, for they are also highly reactive. (DNA chains are heavily capped at both ends to prevent uncontrolled chemical reactions.)

If a number of different nucleotides do appear, and form a segment akin to DNA/RNA, so what? DNA molecules cannot do anything by themselves. They must be decoded by other chemical mechanisms, which are found within the cell.

An analogy I’ve used elsewhere: DNA is just code, and useless without a decoding mechanism. DNA is like the old fashioned punched paper tape used to encode computer programs. If, back before the onset of life, an alien spacecraft were to pass over planet earth and dump a billion feet of punched paper tape (trash) containing all the secrets of the alien technology, nothing would have happened. The paper tape would not have evolved into alien nuvistors or intergalactic spacecraft.

Similarly, if the aliens had dumped a million tons of their DNA (e.g. poop) on earth, none of it would have evolved into little green men. DNA is simply code. It needs a decoding mechanism.

Analogously, does anyone out there honestly believe that one pico-gram of the billions of tons of DNA and RNA contained in the excrement of biological beasties will, or could possibly, arise from the muck and become a new beastie?

Also, you seem surprised that everyone recereates their own beliefs out of their own knowledge. Wouldn’t that by definition be the case? Do you think people have hidden knowledge inside themselves that they aren’t using for their beliefs? Or do you think the process of creating a resonable theory would change their beliefs? I’m starting to think theory and belief are very nearly the same concept. What would you say to that Greylorn?

If I was surprised by the ordinary, how would I have known to ask for the extraordinary?

Exactly what “definition” says that I must create my beliefs from my own knowledge?

It seems to me, in whatever passes for the wisdom of old age, that it is unseemly arrogant to create one’s beliefs from one’s own knowledge, given the tiny subset of a universe of available knowledge that a single human can possibly hold within his small cache of neurons.

I do believe that many people come into their next round of consciousness with knowledge that they suppress, so as to be in agreement with conventional society. They suppress it because they lack the courage and integrity required to express it.

There is nothing more important to the ordinary mind, especially to the ordinary mind which believes itself to be extraordinary, than to be in agreement with other ordinary minds. Reciting the teachings of an authority is always comfortable. Believing in stuff that others agree upon means that one never needs to stand up for his own ideas.

And if follows that if one is unwilling to stand up for his own ideas, there is no point in having any.

Many years ago I was faced with a logical conflict between my Catholic beliefs and physics. My religious beliefs no longer worked, and had to be abandoned on logical grounds. But before I adopted the scientific version of reality, I checked it out and found that it did not competently explain the conscious human mind, the origin of the universe, and of biological life.

I abandoned my beliefs and attempted to construct an alternative version of reality from the information I’d been taught. I cobbled something together, but it stunk. I kept my day job and went back to work, thinking. and seeking the missing information, and writing lots of unpublishable stuff. A few years back the information I’d been looking for (dark energy) appeared. Two years earlier I’d found a missing insight because I read a strange book, Two plus two…

For many indiscriminate minds, theory and belief are identical. Not so for all. I was required to discard my beliefs before seeking a better theory. (The “travel light” principle.) When I’m dead, some people will read my theories and adopt them as beliefs. I would want to reach back in time and say to them, travel even lighter than I did.

 

[greylorn]

I agree with almost all the points of your post. If I understood well your cosmology, you attribute to a “Cartesian mind” the quality of being creative (and therefore non-omniscient and unpredictable), at the price of a given Absolute Miracle. The typical God believer allows God omniscience and needs no Absolute Miracle, at the cost of attributing to God the power to give creativity (hence non-omniscience and unpredictability) to intelligent minds like those of humans or perhaps other creatures (physical or spiritual). In my view both are (at least in principle) compatible with things like free will, love and art. At the same time, the God cosmology seems slightly more general than the Geon cosmology. For instance, you could map the Absolute Miracle to the primeval creation of the natural world by God; the Cartesian mind would be something akin to the Holy Spirit (not created), or maybe independent and inquisitive (created) beings able to shape the Natural world; and individuals with minds (like humans) would be pretty much the same in both cases.

As for the “incompleteness” argument, my point can be illustrated with an analogy. Suppose you have a mapping from outcomes in the natural world to outcomes in the natural world induced by minds that possess free will. For instance, this mapping would specify, for a specific outcome of the natural world, different outcomes of the natural world contingent on the choices of a free-will mind (mathematically, the mapping is thus a correspondence, not a function). Reality could then be described as a fixed point (in the mathematical sense) of this mapping, that is, an outcome that is consistent with all actions taken by free will minds. As you know, there are theorems that impose restrictions on the mapping that warrant not only existence but also uniqueness of the fixed point. In this analogy, God specifies the (admittedly immensely complex) mapping, but does not impose enough constraints to ensure uniqueness. This preserves free will of minds (potential outcomes are not unique), omniscience and omnipotence of God (the design of the mapping).

Antunesaa,
I admire the limberness and range of your mind, but must throw a wet towel over it. You’ve extrapolated a few words into a misunderstanding which reflects your beliefs, but none of my ideas.

For example, consider your statement, "*The typical God believer allows God omniscience and needs no Absolute Miracle, at the cost of attributing to God the power to give creativity (hence non-omniscience and unpredictability) to intelligent minds like those of humans or perhaps other creatures (physical or spiritual). *

The typical theist must recognize that for him, the existence of God is the Absolute Miracle.

And, if God is truly omniscient in the general sense I was taught as a Catholic (knowing all things, past, present, and future) he cannot create anything which has genuine free will-- which implies the power to think of something which God has not thought of. *
If there are any devout religious people who imagine that this is possible, please don’t expect me to address your arguments on the matter. I’ve tried before. As a more profitable use of my time, I’m teaching differential calculus to my yard squirrels.*

I honestly cannot address your last paragraph. It is complex and full of vague stuff. Mapping is a process which requires “points,” and the mapping represents the transfer of points from one coordinate system to another. It implies digitization. I see God and my version of this entity as well, “Geon,” as an analog entity which cannot be differentiated (i.e. cannot be reduced to a set of interactive points) and which therefore cannot be “mapped.”

Perhaps if you read my as yet unpublished book and still want to contribute to the idea base it offers, we can map out more effect grounds for communication, By then the wet towel will have dried out.

 

[greylorn]

A cell truly begins reproducing after its own kind only when it achieves a particular structure. This structure fulfills a “mathematical equation” that activates a “transcendent command”. I call it a transcendent command because it uses a language that is objectively meaningful. The command says “replicate” when a particular structure is achieved.

That explains everything we need to know about abiogenesis. Thank you so very much. I cannot believe that I didn’t think of that. Thank you for the incredible insights. Finally I’m enlightened, which, oh glorious day! means that you won’t need to post me anymore.

 

[rvilbig]

Here’s one I came up with.

I started with Richard Dawkins’ assertion that evolution is based on what he insists are “errors” in gene replication, or in his own words: “that copying errors are an essential prerequisite for evolution to occur” (Dawkins, Selfish Gene, page 17). And then I proceed as follows:

Either nature makes errors or it does not.

If nature makes errors, then it has a purpose from which to deviate and hence err.

If nature does not make errors, then it is perfect, because it does not make any mistakes.

In the first case, nature has purpose, and in the second case, nature is perfect. Either option forces me to conclude that the universe has a designer. Thus there is a God.

I think Aquinas may have said something similar in Summa Contra Gentiles: “Besides, every action and movement are seen to be ordered in some way toward being, either that it may be preserved in the species or in the individual, or that it may be newly acquired. Now, the very fact of being is a good, and so all things desire to be. Therefore, every action and movement are for the sake of a good.” (Book 3, Chapter 3)

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That explains everything we need to know about abiogenesis. Thank you so very much. I cannot believe that I didn’t think of that. Thank you for the incredible insights. Finally I’m enlightened, which, oh glorious day! means that you won’t need to post me anymore.

Okay okay, if you don’t like the idea that’s fine. But you don’t have to be soooo sarcastic about it.

 

[Mr_Sun]

I say, with a completely clear and educated in spirituality and science, head, that I just opened up to all views which might seem scary. Its a jump of faith when you decide to search for truth in either subject. I realized that God was talking to me through signs of what was going on in my life.

I like to think philosophically and I think that’s how I came back to my faith. I never LOST it but I was on neutral ground almost.

 

[antunesaa]

The typical theist must recognize that for him, the existence of God is the Absolute Miracle.

Point taken: God is the Absolute Miracle of the typical theists (a set that includes me).

And, if God is truly omniscient in the general sense I was taught as a Catholic (knowing all things, past, present, and future) he cannot create anything which has genuine free will-- which implies the power to think of something which God has not thought of.

I think God can create free will while preserving those attributes you mention; please read my comment below.

Antunesaa,
Mapping is a process which requires “points,” and the mapping represents the transfer of points from one coordinate system to another.

My fault for not being able to explain the fixed point analogy. It’s just an analogy, remember. Maybe it’s easier to explain it in the following way.

Suppose God creates a world which is a dot in position s1 at time 0. The physical laws of this world allow (but do not force) the dot to go to position s2 at time T, or stay at s1. There are only two possible outcomes in this world: path x1 (position s1 from time 0 to infinity) and path x2 (position s1 from time 0 until T, and s2 from then to infinity). Now, suppose God creates a free will agent who is born at time T, chooses to move the dot from s1 to s2 or keep it at s1, and immediately dies. The physical laws of this world are incomplete, because they allow for two different outcomes; it is the free will agent who is going to choose.

Now suppose that, during his brief life, the free will agent chooses to move the dot from s1 to s2. I now ask three questions. Is God omnipotent? Yes, because He specifies all the physical laws of this world and all the possible actions of the free will agent. Is God omniscient? Yes, because He knows the actual outcome of this world, x2, and also all the possible alternative outcomes (in this case, x1). Moreover, from the actual outcome x2 He can infer the free will agent’s decision during his brief life. Is God eternal? Yes, because he knows the entire actual path of the dot, from time 0 to infinity, and all the decisions ever made by free will agents.

I think in this world you have free will (God didn’t choose to move the dot to s2 - the agent did), and an omniscient, omnipotent and eternal God. Our world is much more complicated, but you can build a similar argument as long as you allow for a multiplicity of alternative outcomes, all compatible with the physical laws, which can be acted upon by free will agents.

Antunesaa,
Perhaps if you read my as yet unpublished book and still want to contribute to the idea base it offers, we can map out more effect grounds for communication, By then the wet towel will have dried out.

I would be glad to… I doubt I would be helpful, though.

 

[Call_Me_V]

Here’s one I came up with.

I started with Richard Dawkins’ assertion that evolution is based on what he insists are “errors” in gene replication, or in his own words: “that copying errors are an essential prerequisite for evolution to occur” (Dawkins, Selfish Gene, page 17). And then I proceed as follows:

Either nature makes errors or it does not.

If nature makes errors, then it has a purpose from which to deviate and hence err.

My knowledge of biology is sub-par, but I think that what Dawkins means is that the DNA doesn’t copy exactly, i.e. when the organism reproduces, even asexually, it does not make a perfect clone, due to minor changes, or mutations, within the DNA that cause it to not become exactly the same. I don’t think that when he says “errors”, he means “God’s plan is being interfered with”.

V

 

[crohnie4life]

I see the proof of God around me each day: the sunrise across the lake, the birds that sing, the flowers the grow, my nieces and nephews created in His image, the union between my DH & myself, the sunset across the lake, the cool breeze during the day, the twinkling stars at night (I call them God’s night lights), the crickets & frogs in the pond behind our home (I call them God’s choir), I could go on but you get the picture.

He is present in our lives each day but sometimes we are too busy to stop and take notice or even thank Him for the wonderful gifts He has given us.

Society needs to put our Lord first instead of materialistic things. Life was much simpler when I was a kid. On Sundays we went to church, stores were closed, and families sat down and had a meal together. None of these sports games where it came before Sunday worship. (sigh) I really do miss those days. oh well.

 

[MerryCatholic]

Just wondering what is your favorite proof for god and why? Personaly I like St. Thomas Aquinas’ first one, All things in motion are put in motion by a first mover, becuse when I apply this proof to my prayer life or any question about faith or morals it leads me to a deeper understanding. What about you?

Jesus Christ, The universe, the Church, The Blessed Virgin, the Holy Bible, the Apostles.
etc… etc… etc…