Is there a God, What are we made of, and other of life's great questions...
In the last letter we dove into the question “What is Matter made of?” under the assumption that there is a God or Gods that exist who created all things. In that letter I stated that if God does exist, then trying to understand our world and universe on any other terms than his is illogical. In this letter I would like to go further into what I mean by picking up where we left off in the last letter, with the analogy of the Matrix.
If God is indeed giving us the chance to experience life in a ‘Matrix’ kind of way, where each of us (our intelligence/our consciousness/our spirit " whatever you want to call it) gets a turn to be plugged into the program; which program is comprised of his own virtual creation of a world and universe wherein we then have the opportunity to live and interact with one another and use our own intelligence and free will... well then in theory, wouldn’t that be just like the world and universe that we now live in?
Now, under these assumptions, I would ask, “What would be gained if the people experiencing life inside the program started to explore and experiment in effort to figure out who they are, how they and their universe came into existence, what they are made of, etc.? Would not these efforts only reveal information about the program.?
In the analogy of the Matrix, the world inside of the program does not have to be like the one outside where those who are plugged in are historically from. In fact the virtual world and universe inside the program could be as different from the outside world and universe as the programmer wanted them to be. Thus, all efforts made by those individuals living inside of the program to explore, research and experiment, etc. could only possibly reveal information about the program (the virtual world and Universe), not the outside world and universe where the programmer resides.
So let’s apply this analogy to us. If there is a God (again " assuming), then it is possible that he has chosen that we gain our life experience inside a virtual creation that he has plugged us into. Once we are inside his ‘Matrix’ (if you will), we have our senses and our intellect wherewith to learn by. So, when the day comes that we want to figure out the answers to life’s great questions, we would take some of the virtual elements that we find in our virtual world, and we would use them to make virtual devices such as microscopes and telescopes and particle colliders that would enable us to peer out into the virtual universe around us and zoom down into the virtual atomic world that we are made of but, to what avail? Though we may learn libraries full of data from our efforts, the data represents what… only information about the program, the Matrix. At the end of the day through we have learned much about the world and universe where we are, we have learned nothing about real world and universe where the programmer (God) and our true selves reside.
Under this scenario, doesn’t the scripture referenced in the last letter make more sense, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God”.
What are we made of? Let’s finally get to the answer that comes when we make the assumption that God exists… “We don’t know!”, but what we do know could only be what God wants us to know in accordance with whatever he created our world and universe to be. Is that anything like what the real world and universe that exist where he lives and where (under these assumptions) we came from? Well, only God would know.
I suppose that is enough for now on this question. In the next letter we will move on to other topics.
Until then, take care…
NOTE 2: 1.859 – LET ME MAKE SURE BEFORE MOVING ON
I have witnessed enough signs of confusion from the last couple of letters that I think it prudent that I add a note and try to clarify things before moving on. I do this because I feel that it is vital to have a firm understanding of what we have covered before doing so. Thus, let me summarize one more time and try to be a bit more clear as we consider, “What is Matter made of?” first, under the assumption that there is no God and thereafter under the assumption that there is.
If there is no God and the Universe evolved as Science believes, then it makes all of the sense in the world to investigate, explore, research and experiment in effort to figure things out. Under this scenario, the data gathered is useful and applicable to all questions, no matter what they might be. However, if there is a God that created all things, then the data we gather is only useful and applicable to questions about how our world and universe work, not about how they came into existence. This is because if you assume that a God exists, you must also consider who he is… someone who is intelligent and powerful enough to create an entire universe in the first place, and therefore someone who is capable of creating it anyway he sees fit including, (and I apologize for the analogy… I wish I had a better one) as a virtual Matrix-type universe that he has in essence ‘programmed’ and into which you have consequently thereafter been plugged. If such is the case, then trying to investigate and figure out the Matrix-type universe that you live in while living in it is illogical; it is pointless, because you can only learn about the program, not how the program was created.
This is where I can feel people out there rolling their eyes. We have a hard time grasping such concepts, and I believe it is because it is very difficult for us to view ourselves and conclude anything other than what our senses tell us: “We are here in solid, physical form. I can see and touch you and you can see and touch me. We are not some kind of virtual images inside of some kind of collective consciousness!” I too have fought long and hard with these thoughts, but the major problem I have in trying to dismiss them as craziness is that it isn’t Religion that is presenting them to me, it is Science. That is why I have been focusing on the question, “What is Matter made of?” It is what Science has recently taught me on this topic combined with something that Religion and/or God taught me about it long ago that made the light come on, and once it did, everything else just added up.
In the next letter, I will tell more of the story of when the light came on, and we will thereafter be ready to move on to other questions.
LETTER 7 – 1.859: HEY JOE…
I don’t think I’m a bad person, but I certainly would not consider myself a righteous one either. I grew up running with all of thee wrong crowds and I got in a fair amount of trouble that eventually landed me at age 19 in the local jail. At the time I would not say that I was an Atheist, although if you had asked me if I believed in God I would have said no, but I was instead simply unconcerned with such things as God and Religion. However, I had an experience while in jail that left me with little room for doubt that there was at least something out there, and this made me interested in God.
Not long after I got out of jail, I began looking for information on God and Religion, mostly from the Bible, and while I was learning, I started remembering things that I had learned in science classes which caused me to raise a few questions. Thus, I ramped up my efforts to learn and this lead me to speak with a man who knew a lot more about Science and Religion than I did. In our conversation, he unloaded a mountain of evidence on me that seemed to indicate that the Bible was not accurate. He showed me many points of comparison between the Bible and Science regarding the origin of the Earth that did not add up, and I found that everything he said was quite accurate. So, as a result, I began to seriously consider the validity of religion. However, I continued to search, exploring both Bible and non-Bible based faiths in order to see if I could find anything out there that would better support God’s creation of the Earth, but I found nothing. Thus, I hit a point where it seemed rational to go back to disbelieving in God. However, I could not get past the experience I had in jail. I knew somebody was there and this lead me to do something that I had never done before, at least not seriously – pray, assuming that if God did exist he would defend himself on the issue.
It wasn’t much of a prayer. I really just directed the question verbally to God, and I was surprised when a response came instantly. As soon as I asked the question, a new question popped into my mind, “How would anyone know how I created the Earth?” This thought was then followed by a string of thoughts that entered my mind, “The Earth is a place where I test the faith of my children, and there can be no faith if there are no options to choose from. I purposely created the Earth in such a manner that it would appear as though I both did and did not create it, so that both options would be viable.”
These thoughts took me off guard because I had never even considered such a concept. I found myself laughing out loud at the thought of it and as I contemplated what it meant, I asked one more question, out loud, without even realizing that the words were coming out of my mouth, “You mean you planted false evidence?” I never got a reply, but that is what I gathered from it.
I then tucked this experience away in my mind and I moved on. This left me believing in God and it settled my mind and so for quite some time I was not actively searching for the truth, but rather just living life (college, marriage, kids, job, etc.). However, from time to time I would think about what I learned there and I would try to envision God creating the Earth. Given that my natural disposition in life tends to be a smart ass, I could only envision a scene that left me laughing every time - God directing the Angels, “…hey Joe, have your men bury a few more dinosaur bones over there and make it look believable. And oh yeah, make sure the Neanderthal skeleton gets in the right place”.
Anyway, this is the experience that I was referring to in the last letter. Later in life when I started discovering the amazing things that Science has revealed about Matter… boom, the light in my mind turned on and everything began to make sense.
So, with this new thought (work with me here), let’s go back one more time to the analogy of the Matrix-type universe that we have been discussing in previous letters and adjust the assumptions. In doing so, let’s also review them for clarity; (1) there is a God; (2) he has children and he wants them to learn faith via hands-on experience; (3) in order to create a situation where faith could be learned, he purposely created all things in a way such that there would be viable evidence for both theories (God existing & God not existing – Creation/Evolution); and (4) he created the world and universe in a virtual way, using light and conscious energy (like the Matrix) which he then plugs his children into systematically so they each get their respective chance to learn. Under these assumptions, consider what life would be like in that world and universe. As far as I can tell, it could be exactly like ours, if God wanted it to be. Thus, how do we know it is not ours? Everything I find thus far tells me that ours is similar to this, but not quite so simplistic… there is more to it than this that brings it out of the movies and into reality. In the next letter we will begin discussing what that is.
LETTER 8 – 1.859: LET’S TACKLE A FEW THEORIES FIRST
I ended the last letter by saying that I wanted to move on in this letter to a piece of the puzzle that would bring my Matrix analogy out of the movies and into reality. However, that is going to have to wait. I’m getting ahead of myself.
I revealed an incidence in the last letter about when I questioned God regarding his making of the Earth. He told me that he purposely made it in such a manner that there would be viable evidence on both sides of the debate so as to allow for faith to be tested (one choice is no choice). What I want to do now is analyze the major theories of Science with respect to the origin of the Universe and Nature against this concept and my Matrix analogy. The theories I will analyze are, The Theory of Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, and the theories that come from Quantum Mechanics (I can’t find have been given proper names yet). I will address these theories one at a time.
To set the stage, let me review a bit. Adding what I learned from God into my Matrix analogy, I end up applying 4 assumptions to it. For reference, they are:
(1) There is a God; (2) He has children and he wants them to learn faith via hands-on experience; (3) In order to create a situation where faith could be learned, he purposely created all things in a way such that there would be viable evidence for both theories (God existing & God not existing " Creation/Evolution); and (4) He created the world and universe in a virtual way, using light and conscious energy (like the Matrix) which he then plugs his children into systematically so they each get their respective chance to learn.
Also, though I have covered this several time before, I will note once again before initiating my analysis that a logical Catch 22 exists on the question “Is there God who created all things?” This is because the possibility that the answer is yes eliminates the possibility of ever proving that the answer is no. It does not eliminate the possibility that the answer is no, but it does eliminate the possibility of proving such because if there is a God, then it is possible that he created things (just like he told me) in a manner that renders all evidence meaningless. Thus only rationale remains available for us to work with so, without further delay, let’s get started with the first theory.
The Theory of Evolution (as well as the other theories of Science) make the assumption that there is no creator of the Universe, but rather that it is a naturally occurring thing, like a cloud floating through the sky that formed on its own as a result of the laws of nature. When looking at the scientific evidence at hand, there is certainly a good deal of finding that does at first glance seem to support the theory. However, aside from the possibility that God could exist and consequently render all such evidence meaningless, I find nothing in traditional Science that suitably explains how life came to be.
The incredible complexity of nature and its amazing balance make the concept that it all just sprung up out of nowhere by chance unbelievable. In fact, believing such would be about a million times further of a stretch for me to believe than if you tried to convince me that my new iPhone 4S with Siri (including everything that makes it work, electricity, the internet, the apps, and the accessories) suddenly sprang into existence out of the dust and atmosphere without any intelligent assistance... It’s not believable. However, this is not what Science has discovered. According to Science, Evolution is based upon a process that began a very long time ago with the simplest form of life - single cell organisms. Once this very simple form of life existed, it began slowly evolving into higher and more complex forms of life that also began interacting with and working together with increasing complexity. Thus, Science believes that since that time, nature evolved from this very simple beginning to where it currently stands.
The full details of Evolution make it much more believable, but I still get held up on the same point. The problem that Science has is that it keeps learning on all fronts and from what we now know, even the most simple forms of life (single cell organisms) aren’t all that simple. Consider if you will what it would take to replicate one of these tiny creatures. At the end of the day, even they are more complicated than my fully functional iPhone 4S, and the proof is in the pudding. Science made the iPhone, yet to date, despite their best efforts, they have been unsuccessful in attempts to make simple forms of life. Another interesting comparison is Nanobots. Nanobots are tiny machines that are the size of single cell organisms. They are complex enough little machines that only recently has Science possessed the knowledge, technology and skill to create them (in fact the technology is still in R&D). So then, what is the obvious question that screams out from these facts? How about, “How in the world does the concept of life starting with single celled organisms make the Theory of Evolution any more believable?” If the combined intelligence of the whole world to this day can’t reproduce these little creatures, then how is it rational to believable that they just popped into existence by chance without the design and/or creation assistance of any form of intelligence. It just doesn’t add up.
However, when looking at Evolution, you do certainly have to account for the supporting evidence, and there is a mountain of it. However, if God purposely created all things so as to validate the opposing theory, then wouldn’t God, being all-knowing and all-powerful, do a good job of that. All he has to do is write the program so that the Earth looks like it has been around for billions of years evolving and then program all of the life forms to actually have the ability to evolve. Walahh, the Matrix Theory easily explains this, and yes, I purposely just called it The Matrix Theory… for I have just decided to officially label it.
In the next letter I will move on to The Big Bang Theory and the Theories of Quantum Mechanics.
LETTER 9 – 1.859: WE’VE REACHED A PIVIT POINT
In the last letter, I stated that I would analyze the major theories of Science against my Matrix Theory. These theories are The Theory of Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, and the Theories of Quantum Mechanics. We have covered the Theory of Evolution and so let’s move on to the other theories.
The Big Bang Theory is based upon the concept that the Universe, which consists of at least 100 billion galaxies that are spread out over at least 27 billion light years, was at one time condensed into a single point in space. This theory is tied directly to Einstein’s discovery that mass and energy are actually the same thing in different forms and that energy can be converted to mass and vise versa. Thus, this theory postulate’s that all of the Universe’s energy was at one time concentrated at a single point in space but then expanded very rapidly (like an explosion - earning it the name “Big Bang”) and it thereafter began converting into mass and eventually, various forms of matter as it spread out and cooled forming the galaxies.
This theory sits better with me than the Theory of Evolution does, or at least I do not find issues with it that are all together unbelievable (although it is missing a piece or two of the puzzle. Read up on the Higgs Boson or God Particle). However, the problem that The Big Bang Theory has is that it only explains the existence of the inanimate Universe. It does not attempt to explain the existence of life and intelligence in the Universe. When it comes to this topic, Science simply defers back to the Theory of Evolution thus linking the two theories together and consequently leaving me with something that I still can’t believe. Thus, given that The Big Bang Theory is not able to stand on it’s own, it has the same problem that The Theory of Evolution does and ever will have until Science does one of two things: (1) sure up The Theory Evolution or (2) replace and/or supplement The Theory of Evolution with something better. Option one however is a lost cause in my opinion because not only is it stuck in the logical Catch 22 that I detailed in Letter 8, but it is also stuck in a second logical Catch 22. Let me explain.
The breakthrough that would best serve Science with respect to establishing The Theory of Evolution would be to finally create a form of life from raw energy and/or elements and thereby prove that it can be done. However, given that we exist, we already know that it can be done but what we don’t know is how to do it. This is where the Catch 22 exists. If and when Science finally figures out a way to create a life form, it will have taken them the entire history of the world working collectively together as intelligent beings to have accomplished it, and this fact in and of itself renders the concept that such a thing could simply happen by chance without any intelligent assistance unbelievable. The best thing I can think of to exemplify this is to consider taking a puzzle consisting of a few million pieces, putting them all in a box and then throwing them up in the air over and over again seeing if they will eventually all land, just by chance, in their proper assembled configuration. This simply won’t happen, but rather someone has to put the pieces together deliberately. However, putting the pieces together yourself only proves that you know how to do such a thing, it doesn’t prove that the pieces can fall into their places by chance, and such would be the case if Science ever created a form of life. It would only show that we are finally catching up to the original creator in ability. Therefore, Evolution seems to be forever trapped in logical loops and Big Bang doesn’t fly as long as it is paired up solely with Evolution. Thus, Option 2 listed above is the future and hope of Science and The Big Bang Theory. What could serve to replace and/or supplement Evolution? Let’s consider the theories of Quantum Mechanics.
What Science needs is a theory or theories that can explain life in general. As it stands, Evolution does a good job of explaining the observed evolution that life forms exhibit, but again, it does not acceptably explain how life started nor does it explain the condition of life meaning consciousness, intelligence and emotion. This is where Quantum Mechanics & Quantum Physics have entered the picture. These disciplines have done a good job of providing data about the subatomic world, i.e. what life is made up of including information that links consciousness to Matter as we discussed in Letter 4. Thus, it seems logical for Quantum Mechanics to use this data to devise a theory that explains intelligent life. However, my observation of their attempts leads me to conclude that they have gotten a bit lost in the complexity of it all. For instance, a scientific theory that has evolved is The String Theory. This theory may someday explain the condition of life (our hearts (emotions), our minds (intelligence) and our souls (consciousness)), but so far it is only offering insight on the inanimate world and oh by the way… requiring way too many dimensions of space to do it (I believe that they are up to 11 now which has pushed them past the point where the data is mathematically and/or analytically useful).
There are other theories that have evolved from Quantum Mechanics, but they are largely philosophical rather than scientific and when I sift through them, I come to an interesting point in the journey. Though these theories are differing, I find an interesting common thread amongst them - “There is no God... well kind of not… at least not the one you believe in”. It seems that Science is now conceding in a quasi manner that there is some kind of intelligent creative force or some form of mysticism that is responsible for Life and the Universe. However, they still do not agree with Religion and are consequently shifting the argument to: “Whatever that creative force is… it is not your God”.
This is an example of what I mean when I say that people are trapped in the debate. My Matrix Theory is founded on the same data that Science & Quantum Mechanics have founded their theories on. Therefore, they could use that data to postulate The Matrix Theory for themselves if they wanted to (it is quite simple), but they can’t and/or won’t do it. They are locked on their side of the isle and they seemingly won’t even consider the possibility that a God could exist who is their Father. I have heard their theories go so far as to state that “We are our own Gods” or “The Universe is its own conscious collective God”… Really! Come on, do I even need to write a letter covering how illogical those concepts are? However, I will take a positive sign from this nonetheless: that being that both sides of the isle are at least now offering theories that include some form of intelligent creator or God. Thus, with respect to the question, “Is there a God who created all things?” it would seem we can just barely agree enough to move on to the next question which in my opinion, is what the argument has actually been about all along… “Who is God?”
This however brings me to a very pivotal point in my letters. This is the point where I will likely lose the other half of my readers (assuming the Science crowd left the lecture hall a while ago). When I study the details of the debate between Science and Religion, I do not blame Science for taking the stance that they have for I myself find that Religion, (for the most part) has offered theories on God that are less believable than what Science has offered on the origin of life. In the next letter, we will start to explore who God is.
Til next time…