See this blog post I just wrote, that you’re reading right now? This blog article is proof of the existence of God.
| Before you read/watch/listen to “If You Can Read This I Can Prove God Exists,” read THIS first. (700 words – 2 minutes) – then come back and continue reading. Thanks. |
Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy. But I’m not asking you to believe anything just yet, until you see the evidence for yourself. All I ask is that you refrain from disbelieving while I show you my proof. It only takes a minute to convey, but it speaks to one of the most important questions of all time.
So how is this message proof of the existence of God?
This web page you’re reading contains letters, words and sentences. It contains a message that means something. As long as you can read English, you can understand what I’m saying.
You can do all kinds of things with this message. You can read it on your computer screen. You can print it out on your printer. You can read it out loud to a friend who’s in the same room as you are. You can call your friend and read it to her over the telephone. You can save it as a Microsoft WORD document. You can forward it to someone via email, or you can post it on some other website.
Regardless of how you copy it or where you send it, the information remains the same. My email contains a message. It contains information in the form of language. The message is independent of the medium it is sent in.
Messages are not matter, even though they can be carried by matter (like printing this email on a piece of paper).
Messages are not energy even though they can be carried by energy (like the sound of my voice.)
Messages are immaterial. Information is itself a unique kind of entity. It can be stored and transmitted and copied in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.
Messages can be in English, French or Chinese. Or Morse Code. Or mating calls of birds. Or the Internet. Or radio or television. Or computer programs or architect blueprints or stone carvings. Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete plan for you.
OK, so what does this have to do with God?
It’s very simple. Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind. A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences. A mind that expresses both desire and intent.
Whether I use the simplest possible explanation, such as the one I’m giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence:
“Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind. No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.”
Nature can create fascinating patterns – snowflakes, sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites. Tornadoes and turbulence and cloud formations.
But non-living things cannot create language. They *cannot* create codes. Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk. And they cannot create information.
It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose accidentally from the “primordial soup,” the early ocean which produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.
But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to answer the question, ‘Where did the information come from?’
DNA is not merely a molecule. Nor is it simply a “pattern.” Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.
DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs. With very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them. It is formally and scientifically a code. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
To the person who says that life arose naturally, you need only ask: “Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn’t come from a mind.”
As simple as this question is, I’ve personally presented it in public presentations and Internet discussion forums for more than four years. I’ve addressed more than 100,000 people, including hostile, skeptical audiences who insist that life arose without the assistance of God.
But to a person, none of them have ever been able to explain where the information came from. This riddle is “So simple any child can understand; so complex, no atheist can solve.”
You can hear or read my full presentation on this topic at
http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
Watch it on video:
http://evo2.org/perry-speaks/perryspeaks.html
Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. Everyone can agree on that. But information has to come from somewhere, too!
Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and energy. And information can only come from a mind. If books and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all living things inevitably came from a superintelligence.
Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read, every packet of information that zings across the Internet, is proof of the existence of God. Because information and language always originate in a mind.
In the beginning were words and language.
In the Beginning was Information.
When we consider the mystery of life – where it came from and how this miracle is possible – do we not at the same time ask the question where it is going, and what its purpose is?
Respectfully Submitted,
Perry Marshall
Full Presentation and Technical Details (please review before posting questions or debates on the blog, almost every question and objection is addressed by these articles):
–“If you can read this, I can prove God exists” – listen to
my full presentation or read the Executive Summary here:
http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
–“OK, so then who made God?” and other questions about information and origins:
–Why DNA is formally and scientifically a code, and things like sunlight and starlight are not (Please read this before you attempt to debate this on the blog!!!):
http://evo2.org/blog/information-theory-made-simple and http://evo2.org/faq/#code
-The Atheist’s Riddle: Members of Infidels, the world’s largest atheist discussion board attempt to solve it
(for over 4 years now!), without success:
Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
Mike, you just admitted that truth can be absolute by stating that relatively truth is relative. By stating a subjective statement that truth is not objective, you have shown that truth can possibly be objective. You pretty much walked right into it.
It bothers me when people abstract concepts using intellectualism making them completely useless. It doesn’t matter if truth is relative, it is truth until proven otherwise. To say that all truth is relative accomplishes nothing but trying to hold on to some string to try to validate you have not lost by trying to prove no one has lost, but I assure you the only one you’re convincing is yourself, and the further you try to abstract the more you lose validity.
You may say all truth is relative, but I know for a fact that you yourself do not hold this to be true, because you have survived to this point by discriminations or personal truths. Discriminations however personal are not restricted only to you, but apply to everybody. You want to jump off a 50 story building and claim truth is relative, fine by me. The world does not move on the statistical minority.
The purpose of ALL truth is utilitarianism, whether we admit it to ourselves or not. Saying all truth is relative when you cannot present alternatives does not help anyone.
You’re beginning to catch on, but you’re not realizing that these aren’t really problems unless you hold the axiom that objective truth exists. No statement can be analyzed fully w/o eventually reaching a point at which an infinite loop is encountered, thus I see no reason to shy away from conclusions that work very well simply b/c the point at which the infinite loop becomes evident is just below the surface. I do, however, have issue with conclusions that don’t accomplish anything, preferentially ignore evidence in order to remain logical and are claimed to be universal truths, and that is the nature of Perry’s argument here.
You misunderstand me. I’m not trying to prove that no one has lost, I’m demonstrating that thinking in terms of winning and losing is an absurdity. If you’re stuck in that mindset then all arguments win, lose and draw, nothing at all is accomplished. If your goal is accomplishment then paying attention to this point is in your best interest.
Saying all truth is relative is just as utilitarian as claiming that truth is objective, often moreso. In saying that I am suddenly able to freely move from one logical framework to another, analyzing the world contextually and from genuinely distinct points of view. This is very utilitarian if one’s goal is accomplishment rather than merely winning arguments.
Of course objective truth exists, it is a context. You’re assuming objective truth can’t also be relative. You’re talking about these things in idealistic forms. Generally speaking when people use the term objective vs subjective they are talking about statements made in certain contexts. If I make a statement that are based on my personal preferences and opinions, that is a subjective statement. If I make a statement that is void of emotion that is objective. If someone asks me what 5 + 5 is I will say 10. My answer is an objective statement.
” preferentially ignore evidence in order to remain logical” Evidence is a logical unit designed to prove or disprove a point, if you ignore evidence you’re not being logical. The irony is you’re trying to disprove logic with logic? That’s eating an apple and calling it an orange.
“If you’re stuck in that mindset then all arguments win, lose and draw, nothing at all is accomplished” Actually if an outcome of anything is NOTHING, then absolutely NOTHING happens. You just identified the only three outcomes of a debate. There is possibly a fourth that both win, but this would be considered a ‘draw’. If you’re standing in a location and do nothing, you will die, or you will still be standing there.
At this point I am actually not sure what you’re trying to prove. I think you’re trying to disprove logic in general, but you are incapable of doing that because you can’t use logic.
I am holding a black cat, and I say, “this is a black cat.” Most people would understand me, now I could also say, “Actually this cat isn’t black, because even black hair isn’t pure black, so this cat is actually grey.” I am actually both wrong, and right. I am right because my technical statement is correct, I am wrong because black in common english actually represents a variety shades, not just literal black. However, to the general person if I said this cat is grey, they would agree I am wrong.
It doesn’t take an intelligent person to make something complex. I know you consider yourself intelligent since you use the term g-d like you actually respect God when in an earlier statement you said the existence of God is irrelevant, which is pretty much like calling your best friend mommy. That and you’re speaking to me like I don’t get your pseudo abstract mystical logic. If you don’t want to state things the way they are and want to live in your mystical wonderland, that is fine by me. However, stop wasting everyones time by running them in circles.
The proof of God’s existence is happening right now. All people need to observe it is a little imagination. You have put a great deal of thought and effort into this site. Take 15 minutes and read about what I “see.” http://storyofthegrail.blogspot.com/
Kind regards,
Christa
‘My hypothesis is that flashes of brilliance are NOT random accidents – far from it. They are indications of even higher levels of order, which we have some level of access to. That hypothesis would be consistent with everything else that we do know about codes.’
They’re indicative of the obsessive behaviour of the subconscious mind in terms of combining random elements from a person’s experience and theoretically examining their behaviours. In computer science this sort of methodology isn’t generally considered a brilliant one, quite the opposite, generally it’s avoided at all costs as it’s only extensible to ever more complex problems through liberal increases in processing time. It’s simply the brute force method.
Yeah…. in fact lately I’ve been noticing how much more intelligent, artistic and imaginative computers are, compared to humans.
“They’re indicative of the obsessive behaviour of the subconscious mind in terms of combining random elements from a person’s experience and theoretically examining their behaviours.”
How do you know this? We’re only now just getting to the point of mapping synapses. What we DO know (from psychology) is that the brain works through stereotyping, not through random analysis. You are 100% right the method is considered not a brilliant one in computer science, because it’s not, but that IS NOT how our brain works at all. Read blink, if the brain functioned through random analysis we would never get anything done.
You’re assuming our brains work exactly like computers, and you’re using that to make assumptions about how the brain functions? I am a computer programmer, and I would love to see you write a pattern recognition algorithm that performs as fast as the brain with out 5 computers doing the processing.
Perry, I respect you so much for entertaining these guys.
Aight, I’ve said my bit, some of you understand what I mean and the rest of you have criticisms that I generally agree with and always have. I’d like to just point out one more thing, and that’s that attempting to sink my logical ship won’t have any effect on the fact that I’ve sunk Perry’s multiple times over. Judging the fine details of my logic as unsound is nothing more than an ad hominem argument against me, it still remains that Perry’s argument is circular at a level that is unacceptable, in that the loop flows through all statements ad infinitum, the worst that can be said about mine is that there is circularity at a deep level, buried under the sediment of full statements, at a level where circularity always occurs anyway. Noticing that all logic is relative is relevant to this debate as it describes why we’re always in a stalemate, attempting to argue against this by judging the infinite loop which ensues when the question about the relativeness of any statement is irrelevant to the power of the observation and the implications of the claim, which include highly accurate predictions about the behaviours of all players in this silly game of duck-duck-goose. I didn’t come here to win an argument, I came here to point out to Perry what I believed to be holes in his logic, that having been done to the best of my ability there is nothing further for me here. It is up to him and you to accept or ignore my criticisms, but at the very least I hope that some of what I’ve said here has at least made some of you think a little more critically about the topic, what you ultimately believe is your choice and I’ll think no more or less of you for it.
Have fun continuing the game.
Peace
Mike
You have’nt sunk anything with regards Perry’s research and discussion. You’ve done nothing but attempt to redefine words, terms and expressions which is nothing new. Most all atheists do likewise. Rather than directly answer Perry’s question and bring forth real scientific evidence of how a code morphs form nothing more than physics and chemicals, you’ve turned this into a debate about philosophy. You’ve loaded the discussion with massive volumes of “Intellect Speak”, the majority of which fuzzies and muddles the original topic’s information and one has to go back and find what blog thread we entered in the first place to get back on focus.
This is hardly nothing new. This tact has been used for centuries. Those Greek intellectual stoics were infamous for sitting around debating for no other purpose than a love of debate. The debates never had to amount to any thing or arrive at any type of corrcet understanding which would be of benefit to humankind. It was simply a warped love of an intellectual excercise. The apostle Paul brought this out when he counciled fellow Christians to avoid wasting their time in debates.
1 Timothy 6:4 – New Living Translation (NLT)
” . . . . Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, division, slander, and evil suspicions.”
1 Timothy 6:4 – ( Amplified Bible )
“He is puffed up with pride and stupefied with conceit, [although he is] woefully ignorant. He has a [a]morbid fondness for controversy and disputes and strife about words, which result in (produce) envy and jealousy, quarrels and dissension, abuse and insults and slander, and base suspicions, . . ”
The interesting thing is that the warning that Paul gave was because usually debates about words are allied to pride; they obstruct Christian growth and are in opposition to the healthful teaching. This was also the case when Jesus was confronted by the apostate Jewish Clergy of his day. Jesus was not blind to the hypocrisy of those who were trying to entrap him. He did not allow opposers to lead him into fruitless debates. When appropriate, however, he did give brief, powerful replies by stating a principle, using an illustration, or quoting a scripture.
The only atheist he engaged with as far as discussion was Pontius Pilate. Though he was a Roman, he did’nt even believe in the Roman gods that were worshipped back then. He was only a career politician who furthered his career by looking out for Ceasar’s interests. In the end his final reply was really that famous philosophical phraze which sums up most modern day Atheist approaches to any of these discussions. H
He said, “What is truth ?” John 18:38
I have always found that the above words pretty much sum up what is under most of the modern day arguements presented by this world’s so-called intellectual elite.
A very nice comment from Eocene. I agree that these kind of debates are little more than dick-swinging contests.
Small children are scared of the dark, the easiest solution to a child’s fear of the dark is to turn on the lights, not get into lengthy scientific explanations as to why the dark is not frightening.
If you really want to ‘prove’ the existence of God then you must encourage people to behave in such a way that they will experience God, then all debate is over.
As a first step you must authoritatively describe the nature and characteristics of God so that those who have suffered under the restrictive and oppressive ‘spokesmen’ of God can see that there is nothing to lose and much to gain by BELIEVING that He exists. Unless a person accepts that believing in the existence of God increases the quality of his life, why should he change his views?
God Himself has declared that He is never manifest to those who deride Him, therefore there will never be any ‘proof’, because God chooses to remain hidden, and so there will be endless, ludicrous arguments to exclude Him from every aspect of life including its beginning. All the logic, philosophy, mathematics, probability, deduction, hypotheses, scientific reasoning etc for the existence of God will never convince someone who is too proud to admit to the simple fact that they are inferior to someone else in every way. If however you can demonstrate that being inferior and subordinate to the supreme person is joyous and blissful, I think you would actually change the hearts of people, which I am sure is what you want to do.
perrari,
I cannot find the thread of my previous post, so I’ll respond to your questions here.
But first I would like to say that Perry provides a valuable service (to all the swinging dicks) but more so to the many intellectuals and academic folk who rely on logic as their only focus of intelligence. A logical concept of God is not fully adequate and so it simply represents the first step in creating awareness, but that first step needs to start somewhere.
I can also see that not all of Perry Marshall is in these pages. I see that we get a clear logical presentation of his knowledge and understanding, but we do not get all of Perry from his blog. His comments are just a piece of the puzzle that is Perry Marshall.
perrari asked:
Now please explain in more detail your comment on our identity and purpose in life:
“who we are individually at the heart of our being and discovering the deepest passion for life, for living, and for one another.”
What is your understanding of ‘who we are?’
What is your understanding of the reason for living?
—————————————————————————
I cannot say what is in another man’s heart or what their passion for life is. I am seeking my own answers to this question and it doesn’t come at an early age for me.
I am coming to understand that spirit is all one. You and I and everything in the universe is connected and interacts with what science calls “The Zero Point Field.” We are not separate from this unified field which, from a science point of view tries to explain how the whole universe is one in terms of communication and awareness.
How we are unique and individualized is how we express the aspect of a unified spirit. In other words, we are a piece of a puzzle, a spirit of vast proportions, and how we express that which we are comes first from the pure heart.
The mind divides while the heart unites. The logical mind is a linear vehicle and its natural place is a supportive role. The focus of logic is on structure and is easily seduced into seeing structure as permanent. In reality it is structure that is temporary and this is shown from the beginning of time as the structured universe must also come to an end. Which is the greater intelligence then, the mind that cannot grasp infinity, or the heart that knows infinite love?
As you said, the heart purifies and makes whole our life, and it does this on all levels of our being.
I have been impatient most of my life and I now see that the universe doesn’t revolve around my perceptions of reality, nor my needs and understanding. Sometimes there is a bigger purpose to life than what I contribute, and I need to learn patience for when it is my turn. This also says that I need to recognize when it is my turn and to act in the moment.
I believe that respect is the bigger part of love, and that love in its deepest sense is what empowers us and provides for us in our daily lives. These are not beliefs that I have held for a long time, but I write about them now because the process helps me to own them in a way that makes it real for me.
As for the greatest reason for living I have to go back to the puzzle and say that each piece will find it’s greatest expression within the whole. We cannot fathom the depths and heights we can encompass from where we stand at this moment, so faith and a purifying heart will feed us, support us and create the path that rewards us. And I speak not of reward as a passing grade but as an experience that puts us on the high road to wisdom and intelligence that is inclusive of all things.
Jesus distilled the 10 commandments down to 2. He said to “Love God with all your heart, mind and soul”, and to “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
He did not say, “Think of God with all your mind”, nor did he say, “Consider your neighbour as yourself.”
We were given a truth that would provide enormous power and potential if we but understood the power and wisdom of the heart.
I am beginning to see the power in love. The electromagnetic field that the heart creates is far more than a means for us to be nice to one another. I am glimpsing the possibilities for tremendous power to literally move mountains through love. Is there a bigger and a better vision for mankind than to command the manifested world through love? The same love we have had embedded in our hearts is our gift to share and to create a safer world for all creatures, and to advance our knowledge and science in unimaginable ways from where we find ourselves right now.
I believe that mankind is at a crucial choice point now and that a unified expression of love (a change of heart) is how we will make the most wholesome choice.
Dear Oldstyle,
Thank you very much for your intelligent and honest reply.
I have noted each point carefully and with all humility I will try to offer some useful comment.
The first point I would like to address is Jesus’ distillation of the 10 commandments.
On this I can comment that your understanding is 100% in line with the Vedic truth that the goal of life is to awaken our pure love for God. In the Vedas it is stated that to be totally satisfying this love must be uninterrupted (24/7) and unmotivated (no hidden agendas). And as the natural result of this awakening, we will naturally feel love for all of God’s creation, not only our neighbours, but all people, creatures and even vegetation.
It will naturally follow that all life is connected because all life comes from God, He is the seed-giving father of all, so everything that lives is a child of God and so connected with Him and thus we are all connected through the ‘hub’ of God, or as science has termed it, the zero point.
Now the purpose of religion is to re-establish this connection. Re in Latin means again and ligare means to connect. This re-connection is best achieved through the medium of love, rather than fear or greed or lust, which are also strong emotions, but less attractive to the Supreme Lord.
Religion is meant to provide the process by which this love for God is awakened and nurtured to the point where it surpasses all other considerations. It doesn’t matter which religion you follow, as real love, like good health is the same anywhere. There are many different ways to treat sickness, allopath, homeopath, ayurveda, acupuncture, diet and exercise, yoga, prayer and on and on, the only important factor is how effective each is, in each circumstance.
Jesus, like all great religious teachers has given the goal, and has outlined the pitfalls, (things you should not do) and exhorted everyone at that time to follow him, as he was undoubtedly the most spiritually advanced personality in town. The fact that many Christians today are not experiencing pure unadulterated love for God and their fellow man, does not reflect badly upon Christ, but would indicate that either his process is not being followed properly, or it is not practical in the present day or has not been properly understood.
If you are willing to go outside the box, you can read Bhagavad Gita, and Srimad Bhagavatam. The first is a brief introduction to spiritual life (700 verses) and the second (18,000 verses) is a more detailed description of the universe, its creation and composition, a thorough examination of the different ways to approach God and very detailed descriptions of The Supreme Lord’s personality, form qualities and activities.
These teachings are very old and come from the Vedas; they were recorded in writing some 5,000 years ago. They are nothing short of a handbook or manual for this world and life herein. If you want answers and want to truly love God with all your heart mind and soul, they are a must-read.
Sincerely Yours,
Perrari.
Dear, Mr. Marshall
After watching your video “If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists”,
I could clearly see your point.
However, a design always have a purpose in designig anyting : e.g. Bill Gates designed the Windows to make money or to make people’s lives easier…
My question is “What is the purpose of God making DNA? (or even the universe)”
He should have bigger reason than Bill.
Without knowing this, it is the same if God does exist or not.
I think it is important to know why we are created.
If you already found out what the purpose of creation is, could you answer me ,please?
Thanks for reading my poor English and please keep up the good work!
Roy,
I like the Westminster confession: “The chief end of man is to glorify God and live with Him forever.” And the psalmist: “All Creation Sings.” and “The trees of the hills will clap their hands while you go out with joy.”
I nevere claimed that Bhagavad Gita describes creation, I said that Srimad Bhagavatam does. Have you studied it?
I also never mentioned Hinduism. Hinduism is not mentioned anywhere in the Vedic scriptures.
The Bhagavad Gita mentions that there are four different classes of men.
The Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras. These can be loosely translated as the intellectuals, the administrators, the business and farming folk, and the rest.. This is an accurate categorization of any society and does not mean that there is no equality. According to a man’s nature he will fit into one or other of these categories.
The equality is of a spiritual nature because obviously not all men are born equal materially. Some are born rich, some poor, some intelligent and some stupid, some musical etc etc.
Bhagavad Gita simply identifies these different natures and makes four broad categories. This is not establishing castes, it is identifying the different natures of different people. The Gita does not state anywhere that these natures are hereditary and that one’s status in life is determined by one’s birth.
Please do not drag this discussion to the level of what ‘Hindus’ or Christians do in the name of their ‘religion’. Let us stick to the authorized texts to define their true meaning.
I repeat that there is nothing in Bhagavad Gita that can be disproved, or demonstrated as false. While this is not proof of Truth, it should be taken seriously as a possibility.
While Bhagavad gita is only 700 verses, Srimad Bhagavatam is 18,000, so there is obviously much more detail, but again you will find nothing that can be demonstrated as false, and much that can be verified.
You may not accept it, but you cannot disprove it.
You accept the theory of evolution when there is not a shred of evidence to support it. No one has ever seen one species give birth to another, and has always seen one species give birth to the same species, nor is there any fossil record to support it, nor does the Bible support it, by your argument of 100% inference how can you accept such a theory?
Keep all possibilities open.
Respected sir, i’ve completed your 5 day email series.after that i
truely appreciate your observation about existance of god more
specifically the supreme power.i should’ve mentioned initially that i
live in INDIA.and you know people here does not believe on the one and
only supreme power.i mean they have a faith on their different gods.i
know the term ‘different god’ listens crazy to you.but this is the
truth here.is it justified?One more fact.through out all over the
world people pay homage to god for his blessings.my question is do we
need this kind of temples,churchs etc and paying homage to show our
devotion to that supreme power.does god really demand this devotion
from humanity? As far as my concern since that supreme power have
created us it can take care of its creation very well and it should.at
least god will not harm his own creation.then why we tribute our
respect to that supreme power by constructing a temple or church and
paying homage to him? SIR PLEASE GIVE ME A REPLY.I VERY MUCH LIKE YOUR
SITE SINCE IT GIVES THE EXPOSURE TO PEOPLE LIKE ME TO KNOW ABOUT
SOMETHING WE REALLY WANT TO KNOW.THANK YOU.
With regargd, SHAN
Shan,
God asks us to worship but does not demand or coerce. We are free to worship and those who worship experience joy.
Everyone is going to worship something. Why not worship something that is worthy of it? Only God is.
Dear Mr. Marshall: I accidenatlly discovered this website a while ago when I Googled: how to respond to an athiest. I really didn’t take the time to look around the site but I did the other night and I must say: THANK YOU!!
What an excellent source of good, honest, concise information. I signed up tonight and I look forward to reading yours and the other people’s intelligent, intuitive, TRUTHFUL comments.
I don’t have any questions for you but in reading some of the comments, specifically those writen by those who identify as athiest, I can’t help to ponder: why do athiest become so angry, frustrated and insulting when the topic turns to religion. The older I get and the more wisdom that God reveals to me, the more apathetic and jaded our world becomes, the comments follow suit.
I guess my point is, this site is refreshing in that you adhere to the old rule: “never let them see you sweat!”
In closing, all I can say is keep up the fine work in furthering wisdom and truth.
May God bless you and yours. Peace!
http://ramsaik10.wordpress.com
Neither is a god overseeing and granting favors as we desire nor is the intellect alone capable of delivering the desired result. The result is already existing the moment its need is perceived and the mind knows it. All we have to do is take away the reactive self to allow for the no-mind or consciousness to operate. That’s why it is stated in Zen – every ? has an answer and every answer results in a ? as long as the mind is in operation. The tao of Zen is to reach the no-mind and experience the perfection that inherently exists in creation and which is only clouded by the mind. Coz for the universe to exist cyclically (to avoid stagnation and provide for continuous change which alone gives novelty to things we otherwise will take for granted; in other words uncertainty is the only certain principle in the universe) the resolution of all the constituents of universe need to be in harmony though in pockets it may seem to be in disharmony.
That’s the reason lovers, poets and artists create their own heaven since they live their life in glee abandon with little or no reason, thus limit the rational side of the mind and almost live in no-mind. This is the reason lovers live in a different reality more closer to the source whose nature is love and peace. And so do artists (Monalisa) achieve a surreal but eternal impression whose source is other than just of the mind. It reflects the true harmony of the creation itself. Analysts can then put in reason and find what are the factors contributing to the effectiveness of a creation but let it be understood that the creator himself didn’t put much thought to the metrics of the creation, he just allowed creativity to flow through himself by intuition.
The concept of GOD is needed to nullify the Ego or sense of doing which gets limited to the extent of ones awareness. When the reactive state is taken out we live in the here and now. To be in this state is akin to living like a GOD since the whole creation will be in synchronicity. It only gets better when the seeds of impressions from the past are dissolved by reconciling with them (vipasana uses the observation of body sensations without reaction to clear the mental impressions in the body, while Hubbard found that impressions left while in the womb affect the present personality and these need to be resolved to reach a CLEAR state, past life regression is used to clear the impressions of previous lives in the soul’s ongoing journey and so on). The whole purpose of any method is to release the conditioning of the mind and set it free. Since a free mind can again get sullied, various religions sought different regimes (8 fold path, holy books, Scientology principles, etc.) to maintain the pristine state of the mind.
Here it is to be understood that the religion does not define us, rather, it is a means to stop defining oneself and thus reach Godhood.
Thus fundamentalism, extremism and terrorism in the name of religion or GOD is against the very definition of religion.
Since the essence of all religions is but the same- to reach the religion of humanity, let us endeavor to start the new year 2010 in the spirit of brotherhood. That should be the motto of the 10th year of the 21st century- to progress from I or 1 to Zero or 0 and thus become one with the universe.
I cannot believe how awesome this site is!!! The questions, whether they’re from Athiests, Christians, biologists, scientists…. whatever, the majority of the comments (no matter how much I may disagree with some) are written so well and are thought out that this is simply a great place to debate, argue and discuss the origins of the universe.
I’m a Christian, but I have no problem listening to other points of view. In fact, I welcome them.
The fact that Mr. Perry answers so many questions, honestly, concisely and with such conviction is an inspiration to me.
I cannot wait to continue discovering more enlightening entries!!
Good stuff!!!
hi,
I found a problem with your proof :
If i can paraphrase a couple of your premises you state that messages come from minds, and that DNA exists.
the problem is that to claim that all messages come from minds you would have to show that DNA too comes from a mind, which is the conclusion of you argument. This is circular reasoning.
No, it’s a Syllogism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
You espouse a fascinating proposition . Whether or not ” Matter and energy has to come from somewhere ” would it change the purpose of it all – either way ?
Perry has deleted my last three posts, so I’m going to try this one more time before I let you to yourselves.
As an general comment, in response to many posts I’ve read, you should not confuse yourselves by thinking that understanding what Perry is saying is the same as understanding some of the most contemporary research and results in the fields he brings to bear. In fact, the posts of mine that Perry deleted were corrections to his frequent oversimplifications and misrepresentations of various subjects. I know it makes many of you feel good to think that you now have an intuitive understanding of modern theoretical physics, of highly abstract logico-mathematical breakthroughs, and of the still nascent field of genetics. However, this is simply not always the case. Some of Perry’s elucidations are fairly decent. Others are usually represent some aspect of the theory in question reasonably well (the parts that best support him), yet distort the bulk of it. And others completely miss the mark. For example, his exposition of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems (which I attempted to correct and he subsequently deleted) was especially unfaithful to what Godel was actually saying and completely ignored the constraints that Godel put on his his Theorems (constraints that, as my deleted post pointed out, make it highly implausible, to say the least, that the Theorems have application in the capacity that Perry employed them). So I urge you all to be careful with intellectual complacency. Just because one of Perry’s ubiquitous analogies is especially easy to grasp and appear to make the material he has acquisitioned do the work he requires of it, this is not always the case.
That being said, I’d like to address what I thought was a rather disturbing post. The post was by Eocene and it chastised a fellow poster saying that he’s
“turned this into a debate about philosophy. You’ve loaded the discussion with massive volumes of “Intellect Speak”, the majority of which fuzzies and muddles the original topic’s information”
Just to be clear, this IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a philosophical debate. Most people berate philosophy while having no understanding what philosophy is. They seem to equate it with drunken barroom talk about the meaning of life after one’s spouse announces they want a divorce. I doubt very few people have talked to a professional philosopher. While certain areas of philosophy DO address issues such as the meaning of life, philosophy does much more.
The most common accusation made against philosophers is that they “muddy the waters unnecessarily.” Like it or not, there is no reason to think the clearest answer is the right one, or even the best one. What philosophers have done for the past 2500 years or more, is demonstrate that those concepts we take to be the most basic and unassailable are, if one decides to scratch the surface only a little bit, extremely complicated, contradictory, and not well understood at all. (For some of the most lucid writing ever produced by mere mortals demonstrating this, I suggest you all read the first chapter of Bertrand Russell’s book “The Problem of Philosophy” http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html It’s only about a page and a half long and he tries to answer the seemingly simple question “What is a table?”. You can also read any of Plat’s dialogues.)
That being said, it should be noted that the actual scientists and mathematicians that are working in these fields DO use a technical language (Intellect Speak) and it’s not by accident, and it’s not because they wish their work to remain inscrutable to the outside world. If everything these scientist worked on could be “Perry-fied” into a mere half page e-mail, why would they not speak that way themselves? It’s impossible to discuss, much less understand, what is actually going in in these fields without some amount of knowledge regarding the vocabulary they use. One reason they must use a “Intellect Speak” is because common language simply isn’t precise enough.
Which brings us to those that “quibble over the meaning of words.” Face it, words are how we communicate. If I use an abstract definition (which Perry himself uses as well) a word is merely a component in a language. Now, we are most accustomed to verbal words and written words (which we subsequently translate into sounds), but there some other fairly obvious words that we’re all familiar with: Musical notes are words, as are bodily expressions (e.g. a smile). The point is, that words (in some medium or other) are responsible for conveying the information which Perry has made the core of his argument. For this very reason, it is absolutely CRUCIAL to “quibble over the meaning.” If we don’t share the same meaning, then we are not receiving the information that is being conveyed by the sender (notice how I’m talking just like Perry does, now). Obvious example…most everyone reading this post (if Perry actually leaves it up) know what the sounds made in English by the letter combinations ‘my’ and ‘me’ mean. However, those exact same sounds also have meaning in Thai. In Thai, the ‘my’ sound means “no” or “not” (it’s acts as a negation to what follows). In Thai the ‘me’ sound means “have”. So, the sound made by ‘My me’ is meaningless in English yet in Thai it means “No have”. This means that those sounds have different definitions depending upon the sender. So in Thai I would say “My me nam.” which translates directly as “No have water.” The sound made by the English letters ‘cow’ also has meaning in Thai, it means “they” (among other things). So I could say “Cow my me nam.” “They no have water.” The point is obvious, the definitions words, especially as regards there technical use in a given discipline, is VERY important. Granted, sometimes people muddy the water for no reason. But not every case of muddy water is a case of trying to confuse. A great many times the it’s an indication that the concept was not as clear as one initially supposed. What professional philosophers (as opposed to the bar room variety) try to do is refine those concepts that do end up being somewhat convoluted upon the slightest reflection. So, despite what Timothy says, the “quibble over the meanings of words” if crucial if the enterprise of meaningful debate is to get started. Even if you just accept claims at face value, you STILL need to “quibble” if you are to be sure what it is you are accepting…i.e., that you have in fact received the information sent!
Finally, it should be noted that all the scientists of the past, if you had asked them what it was they did, would have responded “I’m a natural philosopher.” In other words, one who philosophizes about the natural world. That’s right, people like Newton, Leibniz, Ernst Mach, Laplace, Aristotle, Francis Bacon, Galileo, Huygens, Pierre Duhem and others would have called themselves philosophers. Franz Bretano (author of “Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint”), the grand-daddy of psychology, was himself an Italian philosopher whose students include philosophers like Meinong and Husserl. In fact, the term “scientist” made it public debut in a book by William Whewell called “History of the Inductive Sciences” published in 1840. And even afterwards, most scientists of any merit were still actively involved in philosophical discussion. Even in the present time a large number of scientists are and were actively involved in discussions with philosophers. Albert Einstein cites Immanuel Kant (an 18th century German philosopher) as one of his greatest intellectual influences. Einstein also had personal contact with members of the Vienna Circle (a group of those ‘positivists’ that Perry has mentioned on other pages) and even credits Moritz Schlick (the convener of the circle) with providing the most accurate accounts and interpretations of Relativity that he has ever read. Both Heisenberg and Schrodinger were highly sensitive to philosophical issues in their respective formulations of Quantum Mechanics. The famous EPR paper (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) was a philosophical objection to Niels Bohr’s (one of the founders of QM) Copenhagen Interpretation, which was a philosophical resolution of the Measurement Problem, which is an empirically documented issue arising in QM (the double-slit experiment brings it out very starkly).
I could go on all day about the relationship between science and philosophy (REAL philosophy). Suffice it to say, all intellectual development has, presently does, and always will, go through philosophy.
In conclusion, I agree with Eocene when she says:
“I have always found that the above words pretty much sum up what is under most of the modern day arguements presented by this world’s so-called intellectual elite.”
Reason I agree, is because words sum up what is under ALL arguments for anything, whether presented by the “intellectual elite” or the “salt of the Earth.” Like Perry says, information must be encoded in some medium to be transmitted…words are that medium (in an abstract sense mentioned above) are that medium. Even God himself supposedly began all of this with the WORD.
One of Gitt’s laws of information states that
” It is impossible to have information without a sender “.
Suppose you are driving and look in one of your mirrors ; suddenly you have an enormous amount of information about the traffic seen in the mirror and there is no sender of that information . How does Gitt’s law reconcile this ?
Dear Perry,
How can you explain DNS deformation which causes handicapped babies or babies to be born without hands or heads or disfunction of hearing…etc
where is the intelligence behind that?
regards,
It’s the result of information entropy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
Dear Perry,
I’m an atheist. I respect the opinions of theists as much as you [hopefully] respect the opinions of atheists. I found your site and I thoroughly enjoyed the material you’ve thought of. Your challenge to atheists was something I enjoyed thinking about, and I admit it’s strong–akin to a good chess puzzle.
I also want to say that most of the atheists here have made themselves look bad by being off-topic and just arguing the same old arguments. The theists have done the same thing.
All codes have creators. They ALSO have receivers. According to you, God was the source of DNA (I don’t agree that DNA is a code. It is a molecule. When different types of molecules ‘direct’ the action of the next few, they’re simply catalysts. But that’s not the argument here.) So I ask you… who was the receiver?
The transcription/translation process is both encoder and decoder, transmitter and receiver. See http://www.evo2.org/solve
Hey, in my scouring through this site to find pro-God arguments (we were having a debate and I was put to argue for God in spite of/because of my atheistic mindset). Although I found many beautiful arguments, as you are truly at home in this field of knowledge, I also noted your wish for a source that would “prove you wrong” so to speak. Although it is some time since I saw this, I now have found what I believe is a reasonable answer to your search for knowledge. On the internet, Richard Dawkins explains much of the questions you ponder, and I invite you to read it and explain what you eventually believe are it’s flaws (we are merely humans, I don’t expect you to accept his word for it immediately). The source is http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/ . Also, for further reading, he brilliantly explains evolution in his book “The Greatest Show on Earth” which may be of interest. I apologize for only providing evidence from Dawkins, several sources would have been better in my opinion, however it should sort out some problems.
Sincerely,
Andreas
Hello Perry,
I showed my son the Random Mutation Generator this is what he said:
This thing is completly worthless in demonstrating evolution. There is no population, no varying reproduction or death rates or anything resembling it.
How would you answer his question in regard to the population, varying reproduction
or death rates?
Kind regard Berit K
Take the output of the RM generator and insert it into ANY real world evolutionary situation, or simulation, using any reasonable assumptions you want to make about populations, death rates etc.
See if you can ever get evolution to happen in any length of time.
Also read the Q&A page on the http://www.randommutation.com site.
The thing is, with the random mutations, even if the random mutations occurred in DNA and destroyed the information, at least one in a million changes would benefit the creature in question–DNA works very differently from a language, a single change would translate into a physical change in the state of the organism. If the DNA change were to detrimentally affect the organism, it would simply die. There are some changes that would simply change the meaning and design without changing the gain/loss of the associated change.
i.e. “There’s a lake in front of me.” vs. “There’s a cake in front of me.”
If either one of those results in a detrimental effect for an organism, the organism would die. If not, the organism would survive and a species would be created. That’s the essence of modern evolution.
I hope nobody argues about Darwin, ESPECIALLY the atheists… since Darwin himself believed in God creating animals which evolved into the animals we see today.
Dear Perry,
just joined this discussion group, so did not read every comment yet (and possibly I’m cross-posting this). But in your presentation you mention the following two things:
–> “But non-living things cannot create language. They *cannot* create codes. Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk. And they cannot create information.”
–> “No one has ever observed the spontaneous creation of information or a communication system by a purely natural, physical process.”
So, I was wondering whether you then also consider magnetic properties of non-living material as not containing information, and hence not falling under your criteria for being considered as ‘designed’?
No, magnetism is not coded information. see http://www.evo2.org/faq
OK, I guessed so. Well, magnetism and more specifically the earth magnetic field (which is just the result of the magnetic properties of the magma flowing in the earths core) is information to some organisms. Migrating birds (and probably other migrating animals) use the magnetic field to home during their migration. So, it seems that ‘information’, at least according to the definition you are starting from, can be found to be present in (or created by) non-living matter. This is at least with one example that falsifies your assumption (which it strictly is in the logical reasoning), and hence any conclusion from it.
I agree that this is just one single example, but the point is that your ‘definition’ of information is ambiguous.
You referred to the faqs, where I just had a glimpse to and found the following statement of yours:
“Because information is based on abstract laws that cannot be derived from the laws of physics.” I guess I have just proven you wrong, at least for this case, but I’ll bet there are more to find.
Another statement in you faqs stroke me as well:
“Q: DNA is just a molecule that obeys the laws of physics and chemistry.
A: No, it is a communication system that follows the genetic code, which cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry.”
So you are then assuming that the DNA molecule is a combination of atoms that are not linked to each other by chemical bonds with its physical parameters, that link all other molecules? What kind of chemistry is then applicable to DNA, and what is this huge statement based upon?
best