Friday, January 6, 2012

Proof that "God" exists part 2

There is a common theme among those who only seek scientific proof for evidence of something's reality.  One theme is that evidence must exist with consensus before something can be proven to exist as a reality.  The other theme is that purpose does not exist in existence.  I will try to explain why these limitations of thought will hinder science from finding any evidence of non-physical concepts.

The main aspect of science is that for something to be evidence, it must be observable and repeatable.  Otherwise, it is merely an error, an interpretation or an anomaly.  The problem with this notion is that if one is trying to discover something that is not physical or not physically oriented, then how does one create an instrument to detect a non-physical thing?  If one does not know what to look for as they are unable to describe a concept that is non-physical, then one cannot know how to design something to look for an unknown.  An example of this is to try to explain what some word is.  For example, how would you describe what a "dog" is in another language to someone who does not know nor has seen a dog before, so that they could find one?  (As an aside, true image recognition in computing is incredibly difficult because how does one even recognize a form like a dog, given the infinite varieties that can exist, unless the concept is already understood within our "unconscious" mind before we consciously labeled it?  With all AI systems, they must be trained first before it begins to make matches.  That can be considered the "unconscious" knowing in the computational AI field where the data is "taught" by the "subconscious" aka user to the system.)  Therefore, science can only create instruments to detect physical things and thus never be able to gather any proof of non-physical evidence (by physical, I'm referring to the aspect of the physical universe, including those forces such as gravity, magnetism, and other unseen but physically oriented phenomenon.  By non-physical, I'm referring to the religious idea of "spirit", but as I've said before, I view a different kind of energy that has not been detected, that which allows everything in the physical world to be experienced, including those unseen forces, to exist as "spirit").  However, there is evidence, if one were to accept circumstantial evidence.  These are the subjective experiences that people have which cannot be experienced commonly.  While there are many who have similar experiences, they are all personal and interpreted individually, and so it does not quite fit the scientific method for evidence.

At the end of the day, everything that we observe as "objective", meaning it is perceived to be outside of our control, these objective experiences are merely the consequence of laws that govern the physical reality.  But physicists know that these laws only apply at the macro level.  Below this, at the subatomic level, there is no actuality, but only probability.  The way a probability becomes an actuality is subjective because it requires an observer, and each observer must observe that actuality personally, which means it is subjective.  In other words, the observer created the results being observed because they caused the effect through observation, while in the physical universe, the observer seems to have no control over what is observed, meaning the observer does not appear to be the cause of the effect.  This illusion that the observer is viewing an objective world is why you cannot guarantee evidence through observation since the cause of any objective observation is through the observer's accepted beliefs of the macro laws that govern their reality, whether consciously or not.

The other notion is that there is consensus of acceptance.  The problem with this argument is that all forms in this reality are limited by the same limitations as the instruments.  Our physical body is only geared to receive information within this reality (though our mind is not).  Therefore, logically, people's common acceptance does not mean it is true.  It merely means that something is accepted to be true with the current understanding.  Science has been proven wrong many times throughout history, so by that fact alone it should be known that consensus is not a basis for evidence (nor is scientific evidence infallible).  In that case, any evidence simply means the current effect is agreed to exist, but the cause may be disputed.  Even if consensus exist for a cause, the assumptions for the cause may not be true.

As I described in my previous post about the existence of "God", I wrote that science knows and understands to a certain degree properties of energy.  They may not understand how it works, but they do understand that such a non-physical concept exists in physical terms.  The whole of physical reality cannot exist without the properties of energy.  So while science recognizes and accepts as evidence that energy exists, they have not proven it exists.  They have only observed properties of energy and calls it energy.  Isn't this the same as religions calling the properties of the soul/God as spirit?  There is no proof that either exists, but only the observed properties and depending on your belief, it is accepted as either scientific or religious in concept.  One might argue that you can measure energy using instruments, but in reality, you're measuring the physical manifestation of energy, whether it's the photons or electrons or other subatomic particles, but not energy itself.  In the same way, I could argue that you can measure "spirit" as well, but you have to accept what "spirit" means.  If I claim "spirit" means "life", then you can easily see life all around you.  You can't disprove that life equals spirit since the term "life" is a quality, not something quantifiable, just like energy.  You can't measure the amount of "life" in something living, but you can measure each individual living being as a packet of life.  Even for the non-living, if "spirit" means the same thing as "energy" as I believe, then everything physical is spirit since everything physical is made up of energy.

The other hurdle for science to accepting an intelligent creator concept is the notion that purpose exists  with physical existence.  I believe the reason why those who reject the notion of purpose is because they do not accept that consciousness resides outside of the physical.  If the consciousness exists outside of the physical, then it isn't hard to accept that intelligence can exist at a greater level.  One can accept that we as individuals create purpose, but if you do not accept that the individual is something more than the body, then of course, there could not be something non-physical with intelligence which has created the physical.  My personal belief is that we as non-physical beings created the physical as a portion of All That Is, not that All That Is alone created the physical reality and it is we who create this physical reality for our own purpose.  The reason why we do not realize this while in the physical form is because when we incarnate into this reality as form, we are so focused on the physical data (sensory perceptions) that the portion of ourselves that we call the conscious mind is "tricked" into believing it is real and that nothing else is real.  This intense focus blocks all other non-physical data (perceptions) and so for the most part, we ignore the information that comes from the intuitional aspect of our identity and rely solely on the physical data.  But that is my philosophical belief.  To prove such a thing "scientifically" is as pointless as it is to prove a non-physical reality exists with physical instruments.  It can only be proven by the non-physical.  I suggest that the mind/consciousness is non-physical because if all material things can be proven to be composed, not of particles of matter, but of energy, then thought/mind/consciousness is also energy and energy is non-physical.  The other problem with denying purpose is that some refer to the question of "why" as really meaning "how".  But that is a philosophical debate because in order to desire to know "how", one must recognize the importance of "why" for there to be a reason to know "how".  The fact that one desires to know "how" is purpose ("Why" does one want to know "how"? To understand, which is purpose.) and so "why" exists before "how".  "How" is meaningless if there is no purpose.  Either purpose exists for all or purpose does not exist at all.  The only way some things can have purpose while others do not, is by the individual's choice to ignore or deny that purpose exists.

So why are we here?  Why do we exist?  Quite simply, because we are expressing our selves as physical form.  We haven't so much "created" anything as much as we've transformed what we are into physical reality, at least a portion of ourselves.  If you think of yourself in terms of energy, you've used a portion of your energy to "create" or transform into the body, and other consciousness transformed its energy into other forms of matter such as the planets and all that exists on them.  The universe is the collection of All of "us", consciousness, which we are also a portion of All That Is ("God"), each using our energy to create multiple and varied realities, as creatively as we would be creative in this world (think imagination coming to life).  The reason why most people have a difficult time either accepting or understanding this point is because of what I said earlier, that people are so focused on what they sense with their physical body that they do not realize there is an underlying "truth" to their senses and only accept the surface "truth", that which is "obvious" aka "objective".

I am not trying to suggest that energy means "spirit", whatever it may be.  I am merely suggesting that they are equivalents, although the terms are used in different domains (science and religion) and because of their common conceptual properties, they represent the same principle.

In conclusion, I have tried to explain why the concept of "God" can exist.  But as far as scientific proof is concerned, it isn't relevant.  The only thing that is relevant when it comes to evidence is personal experience.  It is only that which each individual accepts as something real or not real that forms their beliefs.  If one chooses to ignore experience or has not experienced conditions outside of the "normal" physical experiences, then they will have a difficult time accepting other's non-normal experiences as real.  This is the nature of self-deception.  We interpret all physical data and that interpretation occurs because of our beliefs about reality and everything else.  No one can tell someone what to believe.  They must themselves find the evidence, if they seek it.  Many do not seek evidence.  Rather, they merely seek confirmation of their current beliefs and thus limit themselves.

No comments: