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
Dear Paradise Holding,
If we were acting by His power, we would expect our lives to be transformed into holy, righteous living sacrifices.
Hello Perry, I enjoyed the video of the Origin Of Life. I pretty much agree with everything. I took the Liberty of making spanish subs of your video. It’s done. Tell me if you want me to send them to you. Hope you’re not mad, I just wanted to be able to show my friends and family your point of view on life since I found it so interesting. There are many people here in Latin America that need to think outside the box and your video is a good startup guide for them.
In response to David Hume’s theory – Life does have a purpose – to perpetuate itself. Perpetuation is the Purpose.
This is the most logical response to any controlling evolutionary chain of events. “Perpetuation is the purpose.” Faith is belief based while knowledge is evidence based.
Hope this passes the derogatory and BAF sensors. Ha!
If you can go to this site now
http://www.holy-19-harvest.com
and read
UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES
it will thus be proven to you through the “Language of Mathematics” that GOD absolutely exists, and Jesus was a real Prophet!
God is a Spirit, not a body as we think of it. Mr. Marshall proves that Spirit does exist and is the answer to unanswerable questions.
Perry, I love the intelligent way you debate the issue of theism. It’s refreshing.
But you’re only halfway there. There’s still something big missing in your picture.
Blaise Pascal said, “Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is” (Pensees 12).
This next quote is from a better man than I, Jeff Cooke:
“All too often (especially online) those of us who like arguing for Christian Theism jump to the end of Pascal’s list. We think we have wiz-bang arguments to offer. Unfortunately, we don’t have a worthy foundation for showcasing such arguments. We have not established that Christianity should be revered, nor that it is attractive, nor that it is worthy of affection. We prefer to pull out our five proofs for its “truth” and argue our misguided interlocutors into the Kingdom cold. This is a mistake, for most of our audience see such arguments as power plays, as manipulation, as simply another advertisement out there trying to entice them to buy something.”
Do you think Jeff is saying something important? His link is following: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/07/07/they-dont-believe-because-your-god-isnt-desirable/
It is not important to know if there was a designing mind, a God, or just physical chance that created the Universe and life. We do not need some kind of scientific evidence for the existence of God.
These are the facts; there are approximately 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. Each galaxy has hundreds of billions of stars with many galaxies having trillions of stars. (Example, Galaxy LC1101 has over 60 trillion stars.) In recent years we’ve had the opportunity to discover that almost every star has several planets orbiting it. In our galaxy alone there could be as many as one trillion planets. In the small sample of planets that we’ve looked at there are dozens of close to Earth-like planets. Does anyone doubt that there is life on many of those planet? Does anyone doubt there could be advanced life on some of those planets?
Does anyone doubt that there are civilizations out there among the trillions of planets that are millions if not billions of years older than our own? Specifically the point being made here is that there are so many planets that there is a huge probability that life exists “out there” and that there are civilizations that are so advanced that to us they ARE GODS. It’s unimportant how they got there, by evolution or creation from other Gods. They are there. They are so advanced that relative to us they are Gods. It seems that one or more of those advanced civilizations has been interacting with our planet and people for a long, long time. Their goal? To help us also advance. Have you not seen or heard about the representatives they have sent to our planet to help guide us? Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Melchizedek ! Learn and follow the teachings of the representatives that they’ve sent us. We do not need proof that God exists just look at the probabilities. It’s inevitable that superior beings (GOD) do exist. Just listen to them and practice what they instruct and we to will get there also.
I read with interest many of the blogs and comments. To me, proving God exists is not the issue. Faith is the issue. NIV Hebrews 11:1-3,6 “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do
not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. … And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek
him.” He is a personal being of pure selfless love, and he created us to have this same love and by this have fellowship with him for eternity. We are body, soul and spirit; that is, we are immortal spirit beings who temporarily live in physical bodies. The soul is the “you,” the person who is spirit living in a body. The brain is a physical organ; it is not the mind. You think with your mind, and your mind uses the brain. But the brain is just an organ, a tool, that will pass away. When your body dies, your brain dies with it, but you with your mind remain. Physical or natural science can only deal with what is physical. Logical things can be deduced from it, which Perry does, but it cannot test anything spiritual. Life in these temporary bodies is for a test: do we want God, his way and on his terms, or do we want to be our own gods? Those who want him find him; those who don’t, don’t. NIV Jeremiah 29:13 “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” God has given us free will and the ability to love him; and he has placed in everyone the knowledge that he is real and that he created us for his pleasure. Those who want to be their own gods suppress and deny that knowledge. Those who want to give their lives for him and experience him forever, grow in that knowledge. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). His whole life was committed to obeying his Father out of love. He is the pattern for us. Because of our sin (disobedience to God) we cannot do this. But he died for us that our sins be forgiven, that we be reconciled to God, and that we change to become like him. True, logic does bring one to intelligent design, but it doesn’t bring one to God. Only faith does that. The physical world is temporary; the spiritual world is permanent, either with the Father in heaven (the new heaven and new earth) in eternal wonderful fellowship with him, or in eternal separation from him in agony, called outer darkness and hell. He made us beings of free will, and leaves the choice to each of us. People believe what they want to believe. The issue is relationship with the Father, and that is by faith. When you believe in him and commit your life to him, you experience a relationship with him. It isn’t head knowledge (demons have that), it is personal relationship. You experience him as a person more deeply than you can ever experience relationship with a fellow human or pet. Well, that’s my comment. Do with it as you will.
Hi,
I have a question regarding “The Origin of Information” challenge. I don’t know if this is the right place to ask it or not, so please forgive me if it’s not. My question is regarding the code. Can the components of the code itself have behavior? For example one way to attempt to evolve a communications system would be to evolve strings of computer code (e.g. compare, jump, move, etc…) that would produce an encoder/decoder. Another example might be to start with proteins. A protein could be thought of as a letter within an alphabet. Like my previous example, a protein has behavior since it can fold a certain way when it comes in contact with other proteins. So my question is let’s say we start out with a system which maps binary strings to behavior. We then evolve those strings to produce new behaviors. The result of those new behaviors is to produce both an encoder and a decoder. Would that approach meet the requirements of the competition? Thank you.
If you start with a system that “maps” A to B then you’ve cheated before you’ve gotten started. The point of the prize http://www.naturalcode.org is to find a symbolic system that was not designed by someone.
DNA started with a system that maps A to B as well. But if you’re unwilling to let go of the assumption at http://evo2.org/faq/#dnachemistry (to me it rather seems more like jumping to conclusions), it’s kind of impossible to have a meaningful discussion about it.
Read Yockey. Then discuss.
Dear Perry,
I find your argument intriguing and I am very sympathetic to your conclusion!
I do think there are a couple of things I’d like to say about your argument. The first point is which God does this argument prove? The Abrahamic God or perhaps something else?
The second point is this. You said “No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.” A couple of years ago, I wrote a computer program that generates pseudorandom words in a language where word length has the same distribution of word length in English and word lettering has the same distribution of word lettering in English. (There are a couple of additional rules such as never allow three consonants and never allow three vowels in a row.) I think these are examples of messages.
There’s a second program I wrote which takes a sample of statements in English and randomly (pseudorandomly) selects words from these statements and forms “new” statements. These statements are only sometimes grammatically correct but they can have meanings, as I have observed.
If computers don’t have minds, then these would be examples of situations where something without a mind has produced a message.
What do you think?
You programmed it first.
And humans today are usually taught language by others. The program I wrote is not merely to regurgitate “hello, world” it produces utterances that probably no human has ever uttered before. Point being it falsifies your statement by being a counterexample.
You started with code – by WRITING it. So your code doesn’t count as an example of a naturally occurring code. I’m looking for a code that didn’t need a human to come into existence. Show me one, I’ve got $100K and possibly $3 million for you. http://www.naturalcode.org.
First of all who created god and who created the person who created god so if everything was made from a mind then god was created by a mind. That to me doesn’t make much since. So something nonliving must of made god because their couldnt of always been living things making things. Please help me under stand.
http://evo2.org/faq/#designer
I heard that without time there is no existence and if god is out of time he doesn’t exist.
You heard this somewhere.
Is it true?
If there is no existence outside of time then how does time come to exist?
Truly GOD never needed another to prove that GOD existed. Be warned with this wisdom. One does not achieve victory through defeating another with force or energy. Better it would to have a would be enemy agree with truth. In the end, its only GODS’ truth that mattered, that is if you truly believed. If GODS’ a winner to you, know that GOD has already won! YAY!
Before proving the God existence we should prove self existence. How and in which form we exist? We are standing here is not enough proof that God exist. Just try to look yourself, it is well enough to proof that GOD only exist.
Dear Perry, i totally buy your argument, its very intelligent and unique , but i have one question, Are you specifically talking about the information contained in DNA? or can you give example of any other kind of information which came from super-intelligence.
I am talking about the information which came from DNA.
I don’t have an example that I can definitively prove was from a super intelligence.
I think all that this blog and comments prove is that most people do not understand information theory.
To be honest, I guess that I can understand what you’re saying, but even like that, there’s no real proof for what you say. Most scientific claims we don’t really know. We don’t know if the Bible was an actual story. We don’t really know if the Bible was just an adventurous story for people. We don’t even know about our own selves. We don’t know who or what God is. We don’t even know where we live or what we live in. Sure, we live on “Earth”, but what is “Earth”? We only listen to other people rant off with what their idea of what science is. We don’t really know if what they say is true. Heck, there’s still no real proof that the Earth is round. There are still people out there that say that the Earth is flat, though there is no evidence to prove for or against it. We don’t even know about what Humanity claimed to do, Go to the Moon. There are SO many hoaxes going about. People are now doubting if we even went to the moon. People are starting to doubt if the moon we look at up in the sky is even the actual moon that orbits this planet. We are barely scratching the surface of what the Earth really is. There are so many mysteries still to be discovered. We have no proof that the Bible exists. We have no proof that DNA really only has only four types of genetic formulas. We only know from what we’ve discovered. And we only believe what we hear. What we probably know is most likely so far off that we might be living a lie. So many lies and mysteries and betrayals and secrets going at us, how do we know if any of this is real? Not to be rude, but before you go on claiming things, just be sure that what you say is true. And due to real experiences, Evolution is a true mystery on its own.
Why do people try to prove the existence of gods and ghosts with nonsense? Quantum Consciousness proof will require highly exact science. Prove the neurons have some ability to keep the memories of our life in some energy state glued together with some kind of electromagnetism and maybe combined with something that allows photons and electrons to stay hinged together. Either do it that way of build some kind of giant MRI the size of a football field and use it to place dead bodies so as to visually see their souls rise. And it will have to have the ability to take a speck the size of bacteria and blow it up on screen from the middle of the football field without having to step inside the field. Sorta like a electron-microscope that can handle everything inside the football field with instant detail.
Aside from DNA, is there any example of information or of a code that is known not to have been produced by humans explicitly for human consumption, or for consumption by something (e.g. a machine) that itself had been designed by humans?
Not that I know of. $3 million technology prize for an exception – http://www.naturalcode.org.
Then I posit that information and codes can _only_ be produced by humans, and to view DNA as a code is a misunderstanding.
This argument, I think, is not dissimilar to your own. You claim that since all codes are designed by a mind, and since DNA is a code, DNA was designed by a mind. I claim that since all codes are designed by human minds, and since DNA could not possibly have been designed by a human mind, DNA is not a code.
Typical atheist circular reasoning. Which is not scientific reasoning. Because you can study DNA through information theory. See Hubert Yockey’s definitive book “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life.” I reference it many places on this website.
I’m not an atheist, never have been. And it’s not circular reasoning: All A are B, C is not B, therefore C is not A. It’s perfectly valid reasoning derived from a very likely faulty premise; my faulty premise was just different from yours. Either conclusion may still happen to be correct.
You said:
“I claim that since all codes are designed by human minds, and since DNA could not possibly have been designed by a human mind, DNA is not a code.”
You do not know why DNA is a code. Read Yockey. He explains exactly why. Or you can find the explanation all over this website in many places. There is no disputing this fact. It’s the essence of Watson and Crick’s discovery.
The flaw in your syllogism is: “all codes are designed by human minds.” The correct statement is, all codes we know the origin of are designed by human minds.
That is correct. Likewise, all codes and information that we know the origin of are designed by minds. This does not preclude the possibility of information NOT designed by a mind. An argument from ignorance may arrive at a factual conclusion, but the argument itself is inherently flawed.
About DNA being a code: perhaps that’s merely one interpretation of it, as a unique biochemical process that’s analogous to a human understanding of information. If it were truly indisputable, it would be plainly accepted scientific fact. But it’s not.
It’s not that I don’t believe in a creator. With the way you introduced this argument, I was hoping and expecting it would be more logically rigorous, that’s all.
DNA as code is plainly accepted as a scientific fact. Look up “genetic code” in Wikipedia. Or do the reading I’ve already recommended.
YES, it’s possible this can happen without a mind. I have a $3 million prize for that. http://www.NaturalCode.org.
This is logically rigorous. It’s an inductive syllogism. You have five choices:
1) Humans designed DNA
2) Aliens designed DNA
3) It occurred randomly / spontaneously
4) Undiscovered law of physics
5) God did it
Take your pick.
PS the implications of all are clear enough – but most people don’t realize that #3 (the commonly accepted view in academia) does not qualify as science, it’s anti-science.
I actually did do a bit of research on it, and I found, for example, an article claiming that we use a looser sense of “code” in “genetic code” than what we typically mean in other contexts. When you’ve presented this argument to atheistic scientists, did they universally agree on the DNA=“code” point? None of multiple professional scientists took issue with your comparison between DNA and language? If so, I’ll cede. Otherwise, no, it’s not accepted as scientific fact; it’s just one subjective interpretation.
Read Yockey.
Or any one of the following 1300 papers:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=dna+%22claude+shannon%22+genetic+code&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_sdtp=
So… did every scientist you spoke with agree on the “coded information” point, or not?
Rare is the biologist who actually thinks DNA is not code. I can’t think of any offhand.
Coded *information*, though? Where the encoded symbols actually have intrinsic meaning, like words and sentences? Like I said, if every professional you’ve spoken to has agreed on this, I’ll cede the point.
(Also, I’m using asterisks for emphasis because it’s not clear how to mark up text here. [i]BBcode[/i], HTML, semantic HTML, ”wikimarkup”…?)
Sam, you are wasting my time. Read Yockey. He shows rigorously how this meets all the criteria for a code (which is a very black and white definition if you understand Shannon, BTW.) GGG has an intrinsic meaning of Glycine. AAA has an intrinsic meaning of Lycine. That is the genetic code. You can find this in any biology book.
This is a ridiculous argument. DNA has been universally understood to be a code since the 1960s and DNA as literally code is not at all controversial, except for a fringe of non-scientist people who are mostly atheist extremists. Don’t comment again until you have read Yockey and are abreast of the science.
Probably should say “specialist” rather than “professional.” Where’s an edit button when you need one.
Um. I asked specifically about scientists, remember? I don’t care about lay opinions. Whatever their beliefs, did scientists presented with the comparison to human language universally agree with you? I don’t know what you think the argument is unless the answer is no.
Read Yockey. Also take the time to find out who he is.
Maybe I was unclear. I’m not asking about the scientists who informed this argument. I’m asking about scientists to whom you presented this argument. (I’m assuming that you have at some point presented it to people who were not ignorant about the science.)
It’s a simple yes or no question about your own experiences, one that only you (and not Yockey) could answer. If you can’t answer it, you have no right to demand an answer to your own question.
When scientists have heard you compare molecular genetics to human language, was there ever any disagreement?
I have never had a practicing credentialed scientist, for example who teaches or does research at a a public university, challenge my assertion that DNA is code. This is a non-controversial fact by definition of what DNA does. I have had plenty of anonymous or uneducated atheists who have no scientific credentials disagree with me.
You can see a very long history of this argument here – it’s been going on now for over 10 years. The atheists were sandbagging from the word go:
http://evo2.org/infidels/
Once again: What about your comparison between DNA and language? Particularly in this statement you made:
“… those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.”
To me, this seems like poetic license used to make a point to laymen, or to add punch that discussing ciphers alone would have lacked. Or did you mean that it is literally true that DNA code, human languages, and computer code are directly comparable, and did credentialed scientists uniformly agree on this point? (I’d be surprised if any knowledgeable person said that even English and HTML alone—or even the meaning of the word “language” applied to them—were directly comparable.)
Sam,
YES credentialed scientists agree that DNA is code. If you want a simple explanation as to why, see the prize specification at http://www.naturalcode.org. This page explains all the fundamental code definitions that are universally accepted in biology and genetics.
As Hubert Yockey says, DNA and Claude Shannon’s model for digital communication are ISOMORPHIC.
Isomorphism is a very general concept that appears in several areas of mathematics. The word derives from the Greek iso, meaning “equal,” and morphosis, meaning “to form” or “to shape.” Formally, an isomorphism is bijective morphism. Informally, an isomorphism is a map that preserves sets and relations among elements.
Isomorphism — from Wolfram MathWorld
mathworld.wolfram.com/Isomorphism.htmlMathWorld
As for comparison to higher human languages etc, take a look at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12883044_The_Linguistics_of_DNA_Words_Sentences_Grammar_Phonetics_and_Semantics
He shows that of 13 characteristic of human language, DNA has 10.
or search Google Scholar for
DNA genome semiotics
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=DNA+genome+semiotics&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_sdtp=
Which generates over 6,000 papers. Comparisons between DNA and high level human languages are all over the literature.
I am frustrated that you are simply debating me and not looking it up for yourself.
Going back to something I mentioned earlier: It bugs me that you use the words “proof” and “prove” so loosely when discussing a logical argument. That was why I complained about it not being logically rigorous—there’s no logical proof here, since you used a form of logic incapable of actually proving anything. Even you admit that there are other possibilities (random chance, aliens, unknowns).
I think that misuse of language made me predisposed to doubt the whole thing.
As long as “prove” is understood in the scientific sense (100% inference, i.e. gravity) rather than the mathematical sense (i.e. 2+2=4) then I am being entirely reasonable with my language. In all these articles I am explicitly clear that I am doing the former not the latter.
I didn’t say “code.” I said “language.” They are not the same thing. Please answer the question I asked. Thank you.
I answered two questions for you. Read the links and papers I gave.
I asked you about comparing DNA and language. Your answer was: “YES credentialed scientists agree that DNA is code.” You did answer a question there, but not the one I asked. If there’s disagreement over it, then great, there’s something to discuss.
Pretty much everyone agrees it’s code. Not everybody agrees it’s a language. It simply depends on your definition of language. Read the links and decide for yourself.
Oh, and do bear in mind that WIkipedia is written by amateurs (in the literal sense, and occasionally the derogatory sense). That’s not something you want to cite for scientific validation. Peer-reviewed scientific journals are what you should be looking at.
Can you cite any proof that Wikipedia is written by “Amateurs”? I really doubt it!
An amateur is not paid. If you’re not a paid professional, you’re an amateur. Wikipedia is written entirely by volunteers; there is no such thing as a professional Wikipedia editor. It can also be written by anyone; you can edit an article on biology, for instance, without being a biologist or even knowing anything about the field.
There’s another sense of the word meaning a person who is inept. If you’ve never come across a paragraph or even an article that was ineptly written, you haven’t spent enough time browsing Wikipedia.
Jesus taught the Secret Knowledge of the Most High when He addressed the Pharisees on Divorce (Mathew) “The people had hardened their hearts for divorce” even though it was taught under Moses that divorce was legal. And I say to you they had hardened their hearts much longer for Creationism. “Man was created in the image of God” Genesis A very clear undestanding that God is a human being, an Astronaut King that genetically created a subspecies of human on Earth and allowed like divorce to believe he is creator of the universe, because they were too primitve to deserve an explanation. Our Father of Jesus Christ wants us to know the truth that he didn’t create the universe- And it’s in the Bible- if you have the intelligence to find it.
We will prove the existence of gods and ghosts with science but it looks like the scientific community will change all the technical wording. They call in Quantum Consciousness and another I’ve found says “Pattern Indentity Theory” One wrote a book “The Physics of Immortality” and so on. A soul or ghost will come down to the neurons in the brain, atoms, electrons, some kind of photon energy that is so small and nearly invisible that we don’t have the tech to find it.