Here this author goes again about the topic she holds dearest; defending her belief in a Loving Creator. Perhaps some will be growling in the comment section. Bear with me.
To me our creator is like an infinite car. My infinite car will always be described inadequately. My opponents will forevermore point out my shortcomings and errors. Both true and accurate failures and those that are purely fictional. When certain functions of my infinite car are outlined, this author will be made aware that the car has not been fully expressed. When visual data are given like colors and other features, objections are heard. I have not recounted the car. I can tell you about my car part by part, but it “can all be taken apart”. My words are piecemeal. I have not described my car because an infinite car cannot be covered. If I try to capture you my reader one feature at a time, would I be able to nail you in your completeness? Would you object to your qualities because they were individually presented? Dismissed as I could not accurately represent you in one go.
You may reject the idea of a creator and dismiss my claims. To me that is not shocking nor surprising. The biggest mystery is why I was so lucky as to experience our creator. After all, Christians in general would never in a million years have selected me for any task whatsoever. Not at all fitting the desired mold. Yet, our creator chose me to write a book for him. In a sea of information and subjective experiences there is my witness account. This author full of paradoxes with some answers and a whole bunch of questions. That being said why would anyone living under the restrictions of time with short lifespans not have questions about an infinite God?
The only thing I know without a doubt is that our creator is the truth, and that his Love is the sweetest thing.
“It is not possible to have a scientific debate about belief in a creator because there is no science involved in such belief systems. Anything on your part would devolve into trying to inject non-physical things into a physical universe and plunging into Christian mythology and philosophy. In no time at all you’d likely be quoting ancient Catholic theologians. Amazing how these guys were in the philosophy textbooks for so long. Given that they had educations inferior to today’s fourth graders. Rarely climbed over their walls. And slept with their livestock. I believe the persistence of the irrationality of religion can be defined in evolutionary terms. Some are evolving. Some are not. Those who scrawled on cave walls and believed that the common cold was caused by a demon flying up your nose? Those people are actually still among us. A sizeable percentage not only still believe in ghosts but fully 20% of people believe in Big Foot. Despite not even a piece of a skull, a tooth, or a single femur being found of this creature or any of its ancestors. Never mind that most primates save orangutans are social animals and that Big Foot is always seen alone. So given that so many Americans believe in Big Foot, it is quite understandable to know that a good number will still believe in a God for which there can never be any scientific proof. And believe in people coming back from the dead and psychics. If there was a God the nature of which would probably be beyond the understanding of the talking monkeys, anyways. If they could actually even see the face of God they would still, in eternal fear of death, construct their own particular stairway to heaven. Making up their own rules and changing them along the way as to how to get there. As their “doctrines” and superstitions evolve. Of course the dominant thing in homo sapiens pondering God was them murdering each other over the specifics. The Christian religion has a perverse association with blood. It’s all over the art in their churches. They wonder how they get “St. Death” in Mexico when Catholics in Europe still have pieces of bodies and entire corpses on display. It’s all entirely grotesque and primitive. A religion based on some one being tortured to death. Bury it with the other horrible things in history.”
Hi Dennis G. Carrier
Thank you for your engaging response and for giving me a great challenge. Physical universe you say. Is it really? Particles only behave as particles when observed (the double slit experiment). This quantum field is the foundation of our universe. That is why according to my theory it is written that the Kingdom of God is like a treasure hidden in a field.
You are right though that the Bible is not a science book. To me it is a book mostly filled with parables. These stories have layers of meaning to them that point towards science. Like for instance the branch on Darwin’s tree that led to humans branched out from fish. Displaying that it is not coincidence that Jesus Christ said to his disciples “I will make you fishers of men”. Combine this with the fact that the fabric of space time looks like a fisherman’s net in all three dimensional directions. Now we have layers of meaning to Jesus Christ saying “I will make you fishers of men,” and the casting of the fisherman’s net into the sea.
A universe like a sea where Jesus Christ walked on the water. A sea implies waves. How about an interference pattern like we get in the double slit experiment?
Welcome to the world of atoms and subatomic particles. Tiny «marbles» that will not allow you to measure them, and when you observe them the whole outcome of the experiment changes. Come let us do the double slit experiment. First, you and I take some marbles and shoot them through one slit to hit a back wall. We see the marbles hitting the back wall according to the shape of the slit, in a one stripe pattern. If the two of us add another slit and shot marbles through them, we can see two stripes emerging on the back wall.
Now, let us try this with water and see what happens. First, we try sending water through one slit. The wave hits the slit and radiates out and hit the back wall striking the back wall most intensely in the middle aligned with the slit. Just like the marbles did. Then, you and I add the second slit. We send waves of water through them and a new pattern emerges. Now the two of us can see something called an interference pattern on the back wall. Many stripes. Stripes made from where the two top waves meet, and the empty space in between where they have cancelled each other out.
Time to fire a stream of electrons through and see what happens. First, we try with one slit. The result is a single band on the back wall, just like the marbles. Let us try two slits. We are expecting to see two lines appearing on the back wall, but then something different happens. The electrons create an interference pattern just like waves. Hmm … Maybe those electrons are bouncing off each other, and creating an interference pattern? It is time to send one electron at the time through, there is no way interference can occur. Feeling like real scientists you and I try this. After an hour we are baffled at the result. An interference pattern emerged. How could that be?
The single electron, leaves as a particle, just like a marble. Becomes a wave of potential. Goes through both slits. Then, interferes with itself to hit the back wall. Time to measure and observe. We have to figure out what is going on? Let us peek. Oh no, quantum enigma is all we get! Two stripes starts to emerge on the back wall, the electron is behaving just like a marble again. It is behaving differently when being observed.
Scientist have tried to solve this mystery by doing a high tech version of the experiment. Their decision on whether to observe was taken after the single electron had gone through the slit/slits, but before it hit the wall. The result is still the same! Meaning that the electrons goes back in time and change their prior state.
The conclusion of this strange puzzle is that all of the options are in superposition with each other. The «marble» goes through one slit or the other. It goes through both and through neither. It leaves as one particle, but goes through both slits and interferes with itself as a wave. Time and space at this level has no function. Only when observed the electron goes through one or the other of the slit and creates a two stripe pattern.
Our bodies and everything that can be seen in the universe are made of such particles. So:
“It is not possible to have a scientific debate about belief in a creator because there is no science involved in such belief systems. Anything on your part would devolve into trying to inject non-physical things into a physical universe and plunging into Christian mythology and philosophy”.
As we have just seen non-physical waves are projected into physical particles by scientific observation/measurements at the quantum level. The very act of observing/measuring appear to «create» matter. By the way:
Atoms the «home» of the particles is mostly empty space. The first element hydrogen, is about 99.9999999999996% empty space.
So, you may call my claims empty, but there is a lot of it in the building blocks of our universe. Not to mention, we are the observers of our universe, and a philosophy student once told me that the only thing that can be concluded is that observation is ongoing. Tying quantum mechanics and philosophy together.
“In no time at all you’d likely be quoting ancient Catholic theologians. Amazing how these guys were in the philosophy textbooks for so long. Given that they had educations inferior to today’s fourth graders. Rarely climbed over their walls.”
Since I am not ancient and thus not all knowing, I will not be quoting any old theologians. Perhaps you as an atheist feel like quoting Epicurus, Democritus or Lucretius.
As for the wall it sounds like you are referring to tunnel vision, and that is not reserved for believers. We all have a slew of biases and are affected by Dunning Kreuger in various ways. Then, there is quantum tunneling. Particles penetrating a wall even with insufficient energy to do so. Borrowing energy from the future that are paid back on the other side. What if our entire universe is existing on such borrowed energy and time?
To self proclaim that non-believers are more evolved than believers is boasting and self-righteousness. Something atheist frequently accuse me of. Sounds like monkey business to me. By the way, did you know when a primate wants to take over the position of the alpha male he starts by grooming the group. Literally, he starts grooming all the females, holding their babies and giving them a lot of attention. Just like high ranking politicians and presidents do. Then, when he is winning the hearts of the crowd he starts to challenge the alpha male in order to take him down. So much for impressive humans!
“If there was a God the nature of which would probably be beyond the understanding of the talking monkeys, anyways. If they could actually even see the face of God they would still, in eternal fear of death, construct their own particular stairway to heaven. Making up their own rules and changing them along the way as to how to get there. As their “doctrines” and superstitions evolve”.
It is actually very interesting that you link fear and the face of God together like that. Why? Well, when believers claim that they have no fear that is simply not true. Even if not consciously aware of it, or not experiencing it for the time being. Fear will emerge under the right circumstances for all of us as it is part of our wiring. Fear has to do with evolution and the fight or flight response. Instincts and emotions came prior to abstract thinking in evolution (self-awareness). Meaning that they are part of older and more primitive parts of our brain. In other words, closer to our animal relatives. No humans can pride themselves of having this heritage written out of them, even believers. When Christians claim that all their fears have been thrown out they base this claim on the following:
“There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love”.
1 John 4:18
Have they achieved perfect love? Dare I state with full confidence no, absolutely with one hundred percent certainly no. Perfect love is described the following way:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogantor rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
1 Corinthians 13
Have I reached a state of perfect love? No, I am faced with a range of negative traits that are prevalent in our species. Standing face to face with God is what I believe will change this human condition. At this point all fear and shame will be thrown out, as time and evolution stops and infinity begins.
“construct their own particular stairway to heaven. Making up their own rules and changing them along the way as to how to get there. As their “doctrines” and superstitions evolve”.
Unfortunately you are right about this claim and this saddens me. Nobody has ever expressed this better than Cabrogal:
“So an ironic fact about Christianity is that its the biggest single religion in the world while being split into many often tiny groups who think they’re the only ones who truly practice it.”
So much for not boasting and insisting on one’s own ways. This is not an attempt to judge anyone, I have my own blind spots. My awareness takes me as far as it can, but cognitively I am piecemeal.
Lastly, you are absolutely right that understanding God is beyond the understanding of us talking monkeys. Even for those of us that believe our understanding is limited, whereas the creator is infinite. That is the consequence of the fall of sin. Listening to an animal “outsmarting” God and being dressed in animal skins in evolution. The sacrificing of an animal is a common thread throughout the old testament for this reason. The point is that we are to avoid listening to and falling for the negative traits of the animal within ourselves. “Killing” the urges to spontaneously do what our instincts and in the moment emotions strongly encourage us to do.
Constraining actions and poor choices are a part of daily life. Research has discovered that it is done on average three to four hours per day making us weary and tired.
“For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust.”
Psalm 103:14
Scientifically speaking we are made from stardust, and that dust about does it for this time around.
You can give us food, drink, clothes, shelter and cover all of our essential needs. In theory one could create utopia if one makes sure to create such equality in a society. Except it does not work like that; humans dream.
Do you have a dream that you just have to pursue? In spite of all the odds being against you? Finding yourself in a position where nobody believes in your dream nor you? Dreaming about something that in the eyes of others seem impossible. Then, the following clip is for you:
In fact, this whole film about Alan Turing is highly recommended.
As for my dream, being mocked and presented with a slew of accusations comes with the territory. My critics will be able to convey their point of view better than me, but summarized it goes something like this: Silly, childish, ignorant, selfish, self-righteous, evil, someone with a damaged brain, someone who ruins science, someone who ruins my children, someone who ruins society, someone who ruins the world. In other words; common enemy number one.
Perhaps you and I will see someone elaborate on the matter in the comment section underneath. We will just have to wait and see. My spark on this journey though is greater than their hate, and this particular challenge draws me in. Therefore, the debates at Richard Dawkins’s site was thoroughly enjoyed. So, it was a bummer to get blocked from commenting there:
However, the time has come to finish the discussions that were started. I managed to respond to almost every comment directed at me before being kicked out. So, let us do this.
Aldous
#111
“Let me compliment you some more, Isabella. You have a talent for fiction. Your familiarity with the language of science has enabled you to bring a sciency touch to the myth. The genre, I would say is science fantasy.
From the non-faith position, the value of a “scientific debate” about religion is to make it clear that the many and varied religious tales of the creation of the world, and everything in it, are fiction not fact. Two books by Richard Dawkins relevant to this argument, not the only ones by any means, are “The Magic of Reality” and “The God Delusion”.
I’ve already referred to “The Magic of Reality”. It’s a handy compendium of the contrasts between the thinking of ancient peoples and the way we, their descendants, understand the world.
Much of what I read in “The God Delusion” was familiar territory for a student of philosophy and literature but, when science was brought into the argument, it opened up approaches to the issues. that hadn’t occurred to me. The fundamental point that Dawkins made was that an intelligent god who could design and create the universe was a scientific impossibility. The level of intelligence required to design and create even such extremely minor miracles as aeroplanes, nuclear bombs, anti-viral vaccines etc, has only developed billions of years after the universe came into existence. Therefore, no such creator god exists.
Of course, that’s factually speaking. Anything is possible in our fantasies. Even the most illogical theories. That doesn’t prevent an interest in the sacred books as literature or, indeed, in reworkings of the ancient themes in modern form.
Note that Richard Dawkins is a member of The Royal Society (science) and The Royal Society of Literature. He’s always going on about his admiration for the Bible as literature, in the King James translation.”
Response to Aldous
#111
Thank you for your criticism disguised as a compliment. Your comment is an awesome challenge that is highly appreciated.
You have a background in philosophy and literature. To be or not to be precise I am not well versed in either of those areas. A philosophy student once told me though that fundamentally speaking one can only conclude that observation is ongoing. Fits like a glove to the quantum field where only predictions can be made, dices are thrown and observations change the whole outcome of the experiment. Observed by humans that have to rely on predictions based on memory to navigate the world.
The reason we have to rely on predictions has to do with the amount of data coming in from our surroundings. It is calculated that our brain can simultaneously absorb 11 million units of information, but are only consciously aware of a maximum of forty. We rely on large portions of our mind minding the here and now because in evolution the present is a dangerous thing. The not conscious part of our brain can respond quickly to threats in the environment. Something crucial for survival. Our conscious reasoning is much more flexible, but a lot slower. In addition, reasoning uses as much energy as a top trained athlete, and evolution has wired us for energy conservation.
A little side note here, this believer does not deny evolution nor the big bang. If you want to find out why you can read through the comments on Dawkins’s site, read my book on WattPad or simply ask and you shall receive an explanation 😉
Maybe I did not have you Aldous at predictions and dices. In all likelihood you would demand an explanation from me as to how this can unite with a creator. Glad “you asked”.
Where we live, on the fabric of space time moments line up with the arrow of time much like separate frames in a movie. We can also envision this principle as a bread, where you and I are always in the here and now slice (with a unique space time). Our frame allow us to predict into the future, but not access it until it reaches us and become the present. From our perspective throwing a dice is an exciting game. We pick up the dice. Move our hand around. Throw the dice. It rolls on the table. The dice reaches its final position. We read the result. All of these events are separated by time and therefore also space. God on the other hand does not throw dice.
You see, God in my faith is referred to as light. At the speed of light all of the slices or space time are travelled though instantaneously. In other words, time stops as it along with space has shrunk to zero. All of the frames we talked about vanishes. Explaining why it is written:
“For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust”.
Psalm 103:14
“And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account”.
Hebrews 4:13
Notice King James version especially for you Richard Dawkins ♡ ♡
In addition the creator is described as being infinite, one and with an understanding beyond measure. Expanding on why we cannot reach our creator on our own. Furthermore, our bodies have mass. Mass and energy are fundamentally linked together. Therefore, the energy pushing our bodies forward is added to our mass as velocity increases. It is for this reason that our bodies cannot reach the speed of light because this would require infinite energy as our bodies would become infinite mass. The body of Jesus Christ is comparable to a form of light transportation to the creator due to this.
Putting all of this information into larger context, our frames hide the creator from us and make him unsearchable by science and research. Instead of witnessing him we are witnessing branches of the tree of knowledge increasingly writing our creator out of the equation. His eternal light cannot be tracked by any of our methods. To track for instance an incredibly fast moving missile mirrors are used.
“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known”.
1 Corinthians 13:12
My piecemeal understanding resulting in this God inclusion will not cover it for you Aldous I know:
“The fundamental point that Dawkins made was that an intelligent god who could design and create the universe was a scientific impossibility. The level of intelligence required to design and create even such extremely minor miracles as aeroplanes, nuclear bombs, anti-viral vaccines etc, has only developed billions of years after the universe came into existence. Therefore, no such creator god exists.“
In your eyes I have lost the debate, and that is the nature of our nature. Fundamentally speaking though humans are born into it right? A nature that is measured in fractals. This fractal geometry was discovered by Benoit Mandelbrot. Unveiling the coastline paradox stating that there is no precise way to measure a coastline as one can always measure in smaller and smaller units. Mountains, trees, our heartbeats yes all across nature we find these fractal patterns of self-similarity. The branching pattern of a tree for instance is similar throughout the tree all the way from the big branches to smaller and smaller. Interestingly if this tree happens to be part of a forest this pattern of self-similarity spread across the entire forest. Mandelbrot’s discoveries allow us to measure the roughness of nature. Yet, the question is; could we measure in smaller and smaller units all the way to infinity? Now as you and I remember our heart beats (if they are healthy) also have a fractal geometry to them. Meaning they could also be measured in smaller and smaller units like the coastline paradox. This is why it is written:
“He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end”.
Ecclesiastes 3:11
My theory is that we have a veil in front of our eyes, and that there are layers to it. The first layer being the quantum field. In this field we find the Higgs bosons also nicknamed the god particles. Particles get their mass as they interact with this Higgs field. The more they interact the greater their mass. Mass fall under gravity. In my faith AKA the fall of sin, and this is what restricts us to the ground from which we were taken. As for why dices are thrown at the quantum level well: In creation everything happens for a reason, in evolution its opposite it does not. To top that off we are in the possession of free will to make poor decisions with disordered outcomes. Free will would be the fact that all options are in superposition with one another at the quantum level until we observe/measure.
According to my theory our particles were supposed to have interacted with a true God particle (in creation). Causing them to rise upward in the opposite direction of time, space and entropy. The second law of thermodynamics state that entropy/disorder always increases with the arrow of time because it is overwhelmingly more likely that it will. Meaning that in a true God field more and more order would be created in the opposite direction of time, space, entropy and gravity. To demonstrate that this way of thinking is not completely unscientific, one theory about the missing antiparticles in the universe has been that they are repulsive. In other words, falling upwards. Giving a whole new perspective of the principle of up in my faith.
In this end, there is a lot more science and research that goes with my faith and the theory of everything. However, the attempt is to only include what it boils down to. Most importantly, if I do not have love my theory is nothing.
Redressed 