Why Atheists Will Never Find Proof of God And Why Information Sciences Did It

Actually, Is it possible to find the real proof of God?

Yes, if you really want to. If Truth – the truth of existence of God- is not your goal, no one can ever convince you to even consider a point of view that opposes what you believe to be correct.

I like to browse through “YouTube” looking for fresh ideas and insights. As religious and atheistic beliefs are related to my work, I sometimes enjoy watching videos of intellectual battles between atheists and believers.

I find my personal stance on these “debates” is that I am not on the side of believers, because often their position is backed up only by their belief in the sacredness of their religious scripts and authority of specific religious prophets.

But I don’t support the atheists either. They platform themselves on words “science” and “objectivity,” but if we look closer at how they approach the idea of God, we can see that they are quite irrational too, and not less than their opponents.

In my previous article I mentioned that the first common mistake atheists make is confusing “God” as an independent mysterious entity with religious interpretations of Him.

The second issue is that people naturally become irrational when they approach a problem without any intention to find the truth. If they have preconceived notions of their rightness, their arguments inevitably lose objectivity as in this case, when atheists do not accept even an idea of a possible proof of God.

Here is a typical example of a lame generalization used by atheists that I found in an atheistic video series:

“How can we prove or disprove God, if people say they cannot examine or test or have anything to do with God? How can we know what we are looking for?”

Let’s look closer at what is actually said and how “unbiased” the real approach is of those who claim to represent scientific objectivity.

First of all, what kind of “people” say that we “cannot examine or have anything to do with God”?

Probably only those who have never had any experience of either examining God or “doing” something with God.

Who are those people?

Usually atheists.

I personally, have examined, tested and experienced God, as many others do, who come to God voluntarily and consciously at the age when we are able to make independent and responsible decisions of our own.

Yes, here we talk about personal experiences that cannot be objectively measured with scientific devices, but which nevertheless are absolutely true for a system of individual perception for an individual person. Multicultural, spiritual literature is a compilation and recording of hundreds of thousands of spiritual experiences that people have shared with the world. What is that but a huge amount of empirical data about “doing something” with God?

I agree that personal experiences are not objective “proof of God,” however, to be perfectly scientifically honest; we cannot ignore these phenomena that have been experienced and recorded by hundreds of thousands of people for thousands of years. We also cannot ignore the phenomena of miracles, which are also quite well documented, especially during the 20th century.

True scientists, like Einstein, who look for Truth, never slam the door before the face of a new higher mystery that is waiting to be explored. Rather than jump to the conclusion that ‘this is not possible,’ they see the mystery as the peak of a new unconquerable mountain, which is hiding in the sky above the clouds just waiting for those who dare climb it.

Does it make sense to approach an inexplicable phenomenon with a ready-made attitude of rejection of the possibility to reveal the mystery of it? I don’t think so as it is simply not productive.

True scientists and mountain-climbers have one thing in common: until they have courage and an open mind to believe that it’s possible to get to the peak where no one has ever been before, they don’t conquer the Everest or make mind-blowing scientific discoveries.

On another hand, the attitude of rejection makes sense, too: It is comfortable as it saves us from the possible embarrassment of admitting that at this moment we are incapable of explaining something.

This might be the reason why for many atheists the logic, functionality and precision of nature has never been enough proof of God as the ultimate Creator, as well as, tons of testimonies of those who have had their own personal spiritual experiences.

The third observation relates to how atheists use the word “science” when they attack religious irrationality.

Before opposing science to God, let’s see what science actually is. According to Aristotle, “science refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.” According to another definition, science is “any body of knowledge organized in a systematic manner.”

Nobody will argue that the modern science has a very broad spectrum of “organized and logically explained knowledge,” which includes: formal sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, behavioral sciences, political sciences, informational sciences, etc.

But here is the question: What kind of “science” do atheists use to justify their views?

As I noticed, the majority of atheists love to confront bible-proponents with their own “scientific trinity” of cosmology, microbiology and physics. Their argument is nearly always the same: there is no God as “science” could not discover its physical particle yet.

Come on, if all these debates are more than just entertainment, let’s have a bit more common sense: How would it be possible to come to any relevant proof of God if we narrow modern science and its methodology to physical and natural sciences like physics, cosmology or microbiology, and exclude the other knowledge that equally coexists with these disciplines, for instance, formal and information sciences?

Are they less important?

Probably not, as formal sciences are rooted in Logic and provide logic as the ultimate instrument of exploring the Truth in any kind of other scientific discipline.

How rational would it be to apply methodology of physics or microbiology to cognitive or politic sciences? Sure, it’s nonsense.

If there is no such thing as a particle of philosophy or linguistics, does it mean that they don’t exist?

It’s a well-known fact that we live in a dual world of tangible materialistic outer reality and intangible reality of thoughts, feelings, logic and information. So, let’s leave the study our brain’s cells, neurons and receptors to microbiology, but let’s not confuse the brain with the mind as they are different things; and methods of physical sciences with all microscopes and telescopes are useless when dealing with the mysteries of the mind, and it’s an easy extension to include the mysteries of the soul and God.

It’s like using knives to eat soup and spoons to cut steaks.

By the 21st century science has accumulated enough instruments to successfully deal with any kind of knowledge or problem. Why not apply methods of system and information sciences to the phenomenon of God?

In the sense of understanding the essence of God and proof of God, system-informational approach is far more productive than anything else, as it offers the understanding of God as the ultimate and neutral informational system.

Any proof, including “proof of God” starts with unbiased observation and the collection of data. Then we organize this data using a system approach and mathematical logic. As any proof requires a system, we have to arrange all existing information into the totality of one hierarchical system before we can finally see what is what.

The system-informational approach leads us to an astonishing conclusion that in the world of information and systems in which we live, each system is formed by its own logic, which organizes the elements of the system in a perfect order with the purpose to serve the needs of the creator of that system.

As our Universe is a totality of magnificent hierarchy of endless systems, the God as the Creator of this divine system totality or System Matrix, must be not less than the Absolute Logic or the Absolute Law of Unity, which unites all possible elements of the universe in a perfect order.

Is it there any science-based framework other than system-informational approach that would allow us to conceptualize all existing information into one harmonious totality? No.

Is there any other neutral non-religious way to approach the ideas of God and Truth besides system and information sciences? Unlikely.

Maybe it’s time for those who really care for truth to re-consider scientific approaches to the idea of God and move from the physical sciences to a system-informational methods when dealing with non-materialistic reality.

miamiclub made a real revolution in the industry.

A Different View of Science

The time has come to re-evaluate unexplainable and “unscientific” discoveries and disciplines with radically new paradigms that better reflect the needs of modern man. The current principles of technological science must be examined to see if they still function in Humanities best interest. To apply Newtonian concepts and three dimensional logic to disciplines like Astrology of discoveries like ESP, neutrinos and black holes is going to cause science to blunder into a philosophical cul-de-sac where it will have to draw useless and ridiculous conclusions that will make good Sci-Fi plots but will retard human evolution.

Our needs at this point in Humanity’s evolution are not for more and more sophisticated missiles, computers, and electronic gadgets but rather for a purpose and reason for man to continue to evolve on earth. The main paradigm of science since Newton has been to dominate and control out total environment for our own needs and desires. The fact that these desires were usually selfish, nationalistic and petty has not stopped science (and its handmaiden technology) from pushing humans to the brink of extinction. It is apparent that science in its 200 year quest to create a world of good and plenty has neglected to set any conceptual goals of limits in its search.As the myth of man’s superiority over his environment crumbles, science has neglected to look for a replacement, and consequently it continues to use the same old solutions for an entirely new set of problems.

As the 20th century comes to an end, the scientific community is being confronted with more and more discoveries and theories that ate totally incompatible with the three dimensional five sense world that was defined scientifically over three hundred years ago.In order for science to face this confrontation over the next twenty-five years it will have to do three things:1. Discard if necessary, any three dimensional sense based paradigms that are no longer relevant to mans total evolution.2. Develop new paradigms that will make the apparently incomprehensible discoveries and disciplines of today more meaningful so that they might give us a renewed perspective on our world.3. Use this perspective to build a broader, more relevant myth so that will enable humanity to define a renewed purpose and goal for its evolution. Point one looks simple, but, it is really quite difficult. Over the years, science has made a lot of assumptions that it accepts as fact. To convenience scientists otherwise is extremely difficult due to a smug assumption of their own intelligence and wisdom.One of the first ideas of science that will have to for is that if a theory cannot be proved analytically by some sort of empirical means, it is of no value and should be ignored.

Potentially valuable disciplines like Yoga, Astrology, and acupuncture are discarded using this logic.This thought is further reinforced by a corollary principle that says if something does not have the potential to either make someone rich of fulfill a paranoid need for collective protection it is not worth pursuing. Solar energy suffers under the former and the Pentagon thrives on the latter.A more esoteric and obsolete principle of science that is rarely defined is the assumption that present knowledge is the culmination of a long trail of experimentation and error. The scientists of Galileo’s time felt that the earth was the center of the solar system. They “proved” it according to their subjective notions, and felt that the idea was “right”.We smugly look back and consider the acceptance of the heliocentric solar system as a naive but necessary step in our attempt to understand the solar system, which we now consider completely understood. It is obvious if you think about it that our current knowledge is no more complete in an absolute sense than that of Copernicus. His theory was a big step above Galileo just as Galileo was a big step above Cro-Magnon’s.

There is no real reason to believe that a different model of the solar system might not be discovered which will make our present knowledge seem just as naive as Galileo.Another paradigm that is obsolete is the statement that an observable fact is more valid than a subjective one. The word valid in this context is defined as being useful for social or personal growth enhancement.One fact that comes to mind that is not particularly valid is that the earth is round. We all know it’s round, but subjectively, seeing it as flat is just as valid. Deep down we do not believe that is round anyway, otherwise we would be afraid of going to Australia; as we might fall off into space. Considering the world subjectively as flat has no disadvantages and in fact is more useful for our functional conception of the world.Another related fact that has no practical meaning to our everyday life is that the sun is the center of the solar system and the earth revolves around it at 17,000 mph. A moments thought will convince anybody that we are forced by our senses to deny this as we see the sun revolving around the earth and consider the earth as being stationery.Any fact has to be looked at in this manner. As the meaning of facts is relative to our sense of reality. Considering the earth as the relative center of the solar system enabled humanity to utilize the earth’s biosphere in a functional practical manner, as the concept of day, month, and growing season are easier to conceptualize assuming the sun revolves around the earth. It turns out that the only use a heliocentric conception of the solar system has is in esoteric technological abstractions such as launching space ships and satellites.

It must be stated that I am not advocating the re-acceptance of the geocentric solar system, rather, I am presenting the idea that both views are valid for different things, and for science to totally disregard the subjective aspects of observable phenomena is not in humanities best interest.Another attitude of science that is no longer functional is that present knowledge is always valid and anything new must be subjected to years of proving and analysis to be accepted. The introduction of antiseptic procedures and anesthetics into medicine are two of the most famous examples.The paradigms that I have mentioned are not all inclusive, as science has many more that could be changed. It must be understood that I am not advocating the examination and editing of every scientific axiom, but rather a change of perspective about scientific discoveries that would put the accent on what humanity needs a opposed to what it wants.The elimination of these various principle and axioms automatically implies establishing new ones.

The ones I just mentioned were relevant and useful in their time frame, and grew out of the experience of humans during different periods that make this period ideal for reformulating our most basic scientific concepts.The first new principles I propose is that a discovery of theory will be accepted and disseminated if it shows a definite potential to fulfill a social need. Society as an entity often asks questions in its own way. The answer to these questions is best met by the symbol. A theory should be judged by its symbolic power to either alter humanities perception or to fulfill a collective need. The idea of ” proving” it should be secondary. As a corollary to this principal, I propose that a scientific discovery or theory be submitted to other disciplines for analysis. If artists and philosophers could have had a say in the use of napalm, a lot of human suffering might have been avoided.Another principle that I feel would enable science to arrive at more valid conclusions to today’s phenomena would be to accept the idea that our three dimensional world is real, but does not encompass reality. This statement has been accepted as fact for years by all occult societies, some religions, and many philosophers. The scientists have dealt with it by ignoring it.

The physics of sub-atomic particles would be the obvious place for this principle to be applied. Two of the established conclusions of this discipline already postulate that atoms, which compose ” solid” objects are mostly space, and are moving rapidly and that matter is not an actual substance but rather a particular form of energy.Throughout history, visions, ideas, and dreams, although not ” real ” have altered the world and its people. Concepts like the Jewish state, Christianity, and Communism are three of the best examples. If science could accept ideas like ESP and telepathy without insisting on three dimensional proof, our world might progress differently.A companion to the above principle is that phenomena that is experienced by senses other than the obvious five be considered to have an equal potential for becoming valid and useful. Carl Jung’s dream analysis and the ideas of Robert Assagioli offer tremendous potential for improving psychology’s usefulness if they could be applied with a more pragmatic attitude.These new principles of science would only be a start. Using them would cause a weakening of the uniqueness of the scientific method.

The positive aspects would be to make science more closely aligned with the other evolutionary disciplines of art and philosophy. The potential of such a synthetic discipline formed from the best aspects of art, philosophy, science and mathematics would be tremendous. Such a discipline could be called homosynthesis and would be ideal for humanities apparent future needs.As things stand now, the implications of today’s discoveries will become more and more unreal and fantastic if we continue using present phenomena, the further examination of such ” scientific” discoveries as black holes and quarks must be done within a less rigid framework in order for them to ever become meaningful for humanity. At present, the conclusion that ” modern science” has drawn from them sounds ridiculous. Black holes imply a disappearance of time, matter, and space itself out of the universe possess a quality so exotic that it is referred to as “charm”, for want of a better word. Neutrinos have no mass, no charge and do not leave a trail in a bubble chamber, yet science admits their existence.

Using some of the principles I have postulated would be a good start to make some sense out of the apparent nonsense described above.People look to science for many of the myths we use to give subjective meaning to our existence. The myth that humans have the wisdom and ability to distort natural processes without any negative effects has strongly defined our reality over the last fifty years. Another one is that humans have an infinite capacity for wisdom, and that the rapid application of every scientific discovery, regardless of our understanding of the affects of the implications, is in our best interest.The new principles that I have proposed could lead to new myths. The idea that an individual is part of something beyond his comprehension can lead to an intelligent humility that would convert man from a paranoid antagonist against an unknown foe to an enlightened part of a vast cosmic whole. Instead of seeing things like black holes and quarks as fantastic outside concepts attacking our cherished notions, we could accept them as doors that open into a higher level of cosmic integration. We could become conscious cooperators in our own evolution, with each new discovery leading us to another in a never ending path toward our ultimate destiny.

Wine and Celebration Have Gone Together For Thousands of Years

I occasionally look for reasons why wine is so intrinsically linked with celebrations and social events; more so than any other drink. Wine’s place in history seems to have always been right in front of our eyes. Even in earliest recorded history, wine seems to have been enjoyed many fans-from royalty to the common man.

I grew up in a home that would be defined as teetotaling, based upon religious beliefs. Nonetheless, I could never really accept what appears to be a “teetotaler’s paradox”. For example, here is the rub: Was not the first miracle in the New Testament the turning of water into fine wine at a wedding celebration? Also, the Last Supper had wine with the meal. Again, in this example wine was consumed in the context of a celebration. In total there are more than 235 mentions of wine in the Bible; and yes some are admonitions about abuse of strong drink.

Over the years I got over this conflict in logic, but I continue to ponder how wine has become a drink associated with celebrations, of welcomes, of friendships and even something to be enjoyed as a quiet moment of self reward. Great people through the ages talk about wine with awe, reverence and as if wine had/has mystical qualities. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were absolutely in love with all things wine and even seemed to be inspired by wine. During my years in the Navy I participated many occasions of festive recognitions with the ceremonial toasts using wine. There are even books written on the etiquette of toasting. We see wine used all around us; everything from state dinners to a casual meeting of friends at a dinner party. It isn’t unheard of that a teetotaler may raise a glass of wine for a toast without drinking the wine.

But the question still remains: How did wine become so recognized as a celebratory drink?

Any wine commentary with attributions before say 5,000 BC becomes somewhat meaningless to me. Just for the record however, there are indications that grape vines have been discovered in historic carbon dated digs going back 60 million years. Vines are not wines, so let’s move on. Wine as a fermented beverage starts at about 8,500 BC following the first fermented beverage which was mead and beer. “As cultivated fermentable crops, honey and grain is older than grapes, although neither mead nor beer has had anywhere near the social impact of wine over recorded time,” says Tom LaMar a wine researcher. From what I can determine, the first recorded vineyard and wine production can be attributed to Noah following the Great Flood. Thank you Noah.

Probably Egypt and Mesopotamia (due to the commercial route facilitated by the Euphrates River) were the first to develop a great appreciation for wine. There is evidence that royalty found favor in wine and used wine for social events and trade. Some say beer and wine consumption was the outgrowth of poor water quality; however that may not be totally true as peasants did not have much access to wine or beer.

The Greeks, being great world traders about 1,600 BC, are credited with bringing wine to more markets. After discovering the medicinal values of wine, wine was celebrated for its therapeutic values along with social values which have been commented on by great Greek thinkers like Plato. “No thing more excellent nor more valuable than wine was ever granted mankind by God,” Plato-400 BC. But, it was the conquest of the Romans that stepped up the trade in wine all over their empire. We all have read enough about the Roman Empire, including the findings in Pompeii, to know the Romans treasured their wine for celebrations.

From a historical perspective it is believed wine may have been around for approximately 10,000 years. It must have been a very pleasant drink in its most early existence because it survived a rather hostile environment-considering fermentation techniques, containers, heat, etc. Folklore indicates that a young Persian princess, in a fit of depression, attempted suicide by eating rotting grapes. To her surprise she found fermented grapes tasted good, relieved her of emotional stress and left her feeling buoyed in spirit. I think that same effect of fermented grapes can hold true to this day! From these humble beginnings many empires have found great value in wine, even establishing wine trade; from the Greeks to the Romans to Western Europeans. So, we know wine had great perceived value.

From the Bible we know man has been instructed to look at wine as part of festivities and celebration. Even the Old Testament instructs that there is medicinal value to wine. In fact science has been researching wine aggressively since 1954 when Dr. Jack Masquelier started doing wine research relative to health. As an aside, there are more than 300 compounds found in wine and others yet to be discovered. Seems science likes wine.

The complexities found in wine continue to keep the mystery of wine thriving and add to the romance of discovery. Even the fact that wine comes anew every year makes it magical. Maybe because wine is crafted in art and science, orchestrated by Nature, this adds to the pedigree that is totally wines’.

I conclude wine has maintained its personality and value and allure in societies celebration over the past 10,000 years for the following reasons:

Wine manages to impact the senses like no other fermented beverage. There is a mystical color that captivates our sight. Wine has very complex smells. The tastes of wine runs the gambit of spices, smoke, leather-and the list goes on. Part of the taste is driven by tannins and acids. Even the sound of pouring wine is pleasant to the ear.
Wine is precious. It is created in and of the land, which is traditionally a humble existence. This is part of the pedigree that makes it precious–handmade.
The academic side of wine has been documented since Biblical times and re-enforced in subsequent cultures. Mr. Jim LaMar wrote that wine is a most “democratic beverage”; probably because it is available for the masses to enjoy the same as royalty. It is well researched and science continues to improve wine.
Tradition and classic cultures have kept wine as a social and celebratory drink.
The complexity of wine enhances the enjoyment of food and food is always part of celebration.
The alcohol in wine stimulates and can be relaxing and these factors always are part of a social atmosphere.
Lest we forget, wine has health benefits-’here’s to your health’ is a toast often heard at many events.
A wide variety of wines satisfy most any palate at an assemblage of people with various levels of wine experience and background.
The last factor that I think has made wine an enduring beverage of celebration and social gatherings is its mystery; not even the most educated amongst us can explain.
Some traditions don’t last from one generation to another. Even some celebrations don’t survive over the millenniums. But wine has survived the test of time and still holds people in its grasp when it comes to celebrations, social events between friends and family, and meaningful events. For me, it works as a sipping beverage after a hard day and I just want to relax with my family.