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
Sir,
I really like the way you explain the concept(Where did the Universe Come From? ).i dont know how relevant my question is.You earlier mentioned (in part 4)that non living things do not convey information.
My question is that ,for instance,if we burn a piece of cloth(which does not live)at a particular place or time & if some other person comes to that particular place later,does’nt that piece of cloth convey the information that it is burnt(through its appearance)?. Similar is the case with the exception with the speed of light.doesnt it change with the change of medium?
respectfully,
Ashwyn
Why things like sunlight, hydrogen atoms, electrons, layers of sediment and snowflakes (and pieces of burnt cloth) by themselves are not coding systems:
http://evo2.org/faq/#naturalcodes
Perry, I consider myself a person who likes to find things fullproof before I put my belief and or trust into them. I find your ideas on DNA and the existence of a god quite compelling, however before I completely believe it I want to make sure it cannot be faulted. I’m sure a man of your intelligence and though process can understand why in a world with so many philosophies, ideas, and beliefs. So please take what I am going to say next as a question that I hope you can prove me wrong on.
You said that DNA is a code which is correct, and that no other codes have ever been made without a “code-maker” so to speak, which is also correct. However I was thinking to myself that all other codes come after DNA. That DNA is the first code of our knowledge, and everything is after that. Well that made me wonder. Life is technically the second representation of that code, and only life can make codes, not including a god if there is one. So I compared it to another kind of genesis. Many physicists say that natural laws can be made if there is potential, not physical just potential for the laws to exist. Now this could be an explanation of how the universe and it’s laws were made.
We can’t tell if this is how it really occured, personally if I’m correct on the above statement that most physicist believe that (correct me if I am wrong) I would wonder how they got to that conclusion. Since everything after came after the beginning of the universe we can’t explain how it happened unless we witnessed it or found some physical/visible proof. The same with DNA, it is the first code, we don’t know how it happened or was made or even if it was the first of it’s kind because all known codes come later. There could be other universe’s, and they may or may not be created by a god. Same with DNA because it is the first to our knowledge (like our universe) does not mean it simply was the first. And because of the fact the representation of DNA (life) is the only physical proof we have that is required to make another code or information, it brings me to this conclusion…
I don’t know if there is a god or not. If you could explain this to me better or find another answer to this it would be wonderful, I’m just curious and want to know. It is to my belief one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god.
I’d Love to be proved wrong.
-Tyler
Tyler,
Thanks for your great question.
All science can really tell us at this time is the principle of biogenesis: Life only comes from life. Logically though, there has to be a first appearance of life. Had to start somewhere.
So you say, “Many physicists say that natural laws can be made if there is potential, not physical just potential for the laws to exist. Now this could be an explanation of how the universe and it’s laws were made.”
I say that is an illogical statement. Why would potential for laws create laws? And where would the potential come from? And why would there be law X instead of law Y?
This doesn’t answer anything.
If we say “life exists because the potential was there for life to exist.” It’s like saying “Romeo and Juliet got written by shakespeare because ink and paper existed.” that’s a non-explanation.
There could be other universes but that doesn’t explain where they came from. It just multiplies the questions from one universe to many.
Maybe our DNA isn’t the first but that only pushes the question back.
Eventually you arrive at the necessity for an uncaused cause.
Can I encourage you to listen / read the material on the site and absorb more of it?
Perry
Hello Perry,
Someone I’m talking to said “that in your defintiion of code, you have made it impossible for “code” to not be an result of intelligence
In other words, to ask for a code that did not come from a mind is impossible based on how it has been defined…communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols. Which requires intelligence.
By calling DNA a code, as it has been defined, we have assumed it is by intelligence because the definition requires intelligence. There is no other possibility.
And to ask for a code, that fits this definition, that arose without intelligence is impossible because the way it is defined requires intelligence.”
If we call DNA a code as you have defined codes, it seems circular.
How would you respond to this??
God Bless,
JohnM
A code is a system of symbols for communication.
Information is communication between encoder and coder using agreed upon symbols.
None of those definitions directly involves intelligence.
dear perry,
yesterday i entered a post stating what was there before our present universe was created .in hinduism(which is called sanatan dharm) from where the knowledge of the vedas come it is stated that there were several yugas before the present yuga which is called kalyug .in the bhagvad gita it is stated that man has to take several births until he starts realising the self which is his psychic being or his personalised soul.until he does not realise this he has to go through the cycle of birth and death until he reaches the next step in evolution which will be the supramental being or superior to man whom we know as it is.a being which stps evolving ceases toexist.it is same like if you an architect or an artist or any other field.unless one does not progress in ones thoughts and puts his full being in evolving his work he remains stuck where he is.same is with relisation of god.like shakespear has said that the world is a stage and we are but the actors in it.god is a word given by man to something which he feels is unseen and wants to make it a being.great saints who have seen and realised the god or the divine do not have any words to describe their experience.
I have read up to the 02 August and wondered if these will be coming regularly ?
I am 84 years old and still eager to learn and I do enjoy reading your postings.
Kindest regards
Richard (UK).
You will keep getting updates if you sign up at http://www.evo2.org/atheists-riddle
Perry
Hmm, so your argument is, that because DNA is a message, and all messages are intelligently created, that DNA must be a result of intelligent design.
So this whole concept, is based on your own defining of DNA as a message, and you’re own take on the exact conditions of the definition of the word “message”.
Now, that aside, lets just break down your thought process behind this. These are the main two “truths” for the above article I believe.
A: DNA is a message
B: All messages are created by something intelligent. ie. cannot occur naturally.
If A and B are true, then yes, I see where you’re coming from. But what if, A or B is not true. You’ve made quite a huge assumption based on two rules you believe to be true.
The truth is, DNA is a not a message. It’s the means with which some things are built and maintained via very complex chemical interactions. We can name it whatever we like, but the definitions of those names we use do not have some ‘universal’ bond over the DNA, and if Websters has a reprint, and changes their definition of “Message” we all die, or transmute into horses, or pure energy.
Let me exaggerate you’re own proofing method a little to show you the error of logic.
Lets state two rules that are similar to your own:
A: DNA is a form of communication
B: All communication occurs between two or more intelligent people.
Therefore, the information stored in DNA can only be accessed and used by two or more intelligent people. ie. The chemical process can never occur because the communication never occurred between more then one intelligent person.
Of course this is clearly not true, but I hope this further explain the huge error in this article.
I sincerely hope my comment will help many readers see the error in this sort of logic.
Michael,
DNA absolutely is a code and a communication system and pretty much every thing you’ve said here is erroneous. Before you can discuss this you must become conversant with the concepts and terminology. See http://evo2.org/information-theory-made-simple/.
Perry
Hi there. I like the way you have thought things through in your presentation. You seem like a swell guy and earnest in your desire to uncover truth. Thanks for reading on, if you choose to do so, because I can’t really get on board with at least some of your conclusions.
The idea that aliens designed DNA is not satisfactory because it leaves open the question: Who designed the aliens? That was your point, and I agree that believing in alien designers doesn’t really get us anywhere. I have to point out that I’m not very satisfied with the answer, “God designed DNA,” for the same reason, though–who designed God? Of course, God has the distinction of possessing certain marvelous attributes that aliens lack. Without getting mired in definitions, let’s at least say that the God is undesigned, himself, and able to make designs. If we believe that there is an undesigned creative being, why stop there? Why not two, or three, or nine, or ninety-nine such undesigned beings? There’s no compelling reason to believe in a single God. If I am to fathom a sort of eternal, uncreated creator, it is just as well that I fathom a group or league of such beings. In either case, this truth would be quite unfathomable–difficult to grasp.
You pose the riddle: Show a language that didn’t come from a mind. DNA is a focal point of your discussion since DNA is like the language of life. I agree that DNA is language-like. I do not agree that any language comes from *a* mind. Language requires shared meaning, and sharing requires more than one. You pointed out, yourself, in your video presentation that a sheet of music is a symbolic notation created by human beings that is only useful inasmuch as there is *shared meaning* among the musicians who interpet the notation. I would like to point out the flaw in your riddle by posing another riddle: What is a language that only one being knows? Think about it. It’s absurd, isn’t it? If I stand on a stage with a print of the Mona Lisa in front of me and play a twenty minute drum solo, would you say that the Mona Lisa served as a suitable score to my performance? Even if I swore convincingly that my eyes moved in a pattern across the image whilst I played such that particular details of the Mona Lisa represented rhythm and various drums and symbols to be played in succession, could I send my Mona Lisa print to another drummer and expect to transmit or replicate my own performance? Certainly not, because, although I could conceivably treat the Mona Lisa as a musical score, it would not be a working code for any other musician. That should be clear. Now let’s talk about Starry Night. Say that I and three friends sit around and imagine how a print of Starry Night should notate a piece of music that we will play. It is conceivable that we could agree on a way in which to look at Starry Night and play along with our respective instruments. At this point, Starry Night would be like a working language because I and my friends would have worked out shared meanings from the visual score. I know I’m busting out some strange analogies, here, but it’s to get you into a different part of your brain. Considering a painting as a musical score ought to jumpstart your creative, intuitive thinking, and I think it’s necessary because your logical mind is caught in the briar patch of a faulty riddle.
You must abandon your riddle if you want to make progress toward the truth. I like to think about these things, too. I do thank you for pointing out an interesting distinction–the difference between a naturally patterned snowflake and an informationally patterned life-form. This is the kind of fresh perspective that really gets me thinking, so again, thank you. I will also be thinking about matter, energy, and information. There’s a good read by Ervin Laszlo called “Science and the Akashic Field,” which I recommend to you. Topics covered include the idea of an information field in the universe where information travels faster than the speed of light, and also an updated look at evolution whereby DNA responds to the environment in a way that is not simply chaotic chance. Laszlo also includes an example of the scientific provability of the power of prayer (to assure you the book is not hostile to spirituality). Have a nice weekend, fellow seeker!
Shane,
Why posit one God instead of many?
Science itself got started in ancient Rome, Greece, China and in Islam – but it never went anywhere in those cultures. Why? I would like to suggest that none of those cultures had a theology that described a systematic universe. To the Greeks, it thundered because Jupiter was angry at Apollo. That kind of worldview could never produce a coherent scientific hypothesis.
Christianity did teach that the universe was systematic and discoverable and that’s why science succeeded in the West after failing everywhere else.
I would invite you to consider the origin of science. Theologians gave birth to science in the middle ages. People who believed the world operated according to fixed, discoverable laws, began to search for those laws. People like Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Boyle and Maxwell saw science as a way of studying the mind of God.
Finally to your second question – which is a GREAT question, BTW – you said
I would like to point out the flaw in your riddle by posing another riddle: What is a language that only one being knows? Think about it. It’s absurd, isn’t it? If I stand on a stage with a print of the Mona Lisa in front of me and play a twenty minute drum solo, would you say that the Mona Lisa served as a suitable score to my performance?
You have just put your finger on THE 1600+ year old argument for the trinity. God is not monolithic, God is plural. It is possible to say “God is love” only if God has someone TO love. God loves Himself.
Perry
Hello Perry,
You are very patience in dealing with all of us that do not accept that DNA is a “code” in the sense that codes carry information created by an intelligence. However, I feel this form of argument is rather pointless, it all hinges on definitions and personal interpretations of same, and taking such a narrow view is not, in my opinion, going to help any of us see or understand the bigger picture. Evolutionists will continue to claim that DNA evolved without any intelligence guiding it and you will continue to say the opposite, its just going around in an endless, pointless loop.
We are discussing whether or not God exists, a really major and contentious issue for all sorts of reasons, so I can understand why you feel the need to provide some sort of “proof” of your belief. However, DNA isn´t it that proof which you seek, that much must surely be obvious by now. DNA could only be proof if those that argue against you saw your reasoning was correct and accepted it as proof because the proof was unarguable.
Proof only becomes proof when the facts that support it are unarguable. As we can see from the comments your argument has generated, a great many people do not accept your argument so therefore it cannot be taken as proof. That being the case it really doesn´t matter how strongly you feel that you are right and DNA is proof of God´s existence because your “proof” is arguable, not unarguable.
Simply saying that DNA is a code, codes require an intelligent designer, therefore God exists, is very much arguable. Evolutionist argue that DNA is not a code in the way you define it. You are in fact wrong to continue trying to defend your argument because the only argument you have is your belief that DNA is a code in the same way a computer code is. Unfortunately for you that is not a fact, it is only your opinion, so your argument is wrong.
Keith,
DNA’s status as a code is not merely my opinion, it is a definitional fact. Just pick up any biology book.
By the same definitions I have observed that all codes we know the origin of are designed.
The fact that some people disagree with me does not make me wrong. The fact that some people think the earth is flat does not make it so.
Every definition I have used is standard and non-controversial. I have proven that God exists.
Perry
dear dr. marshal
in 1 of your pages u mentioned:::
“””””””””Asking “Where did God come from” is a lot like reading a John Grisham novel and saying “This book has lawyers and judges and secretaries, but what page is John Grisham on?”
The answer of course, is that John Grisham is not in the novel at all. He lives outside of the novel. He wrote it. He created the time line, the story and the characters. The novel is a book with a finite number of pages, a beginning and an end. But John Grisham lives a life that extends far beyond that book. “”””””””””””
then in the same context i would like to say that if in this example characters are in John Grisham’s book which is a different world and John Grisham lives in a totally different world apart then you say god wrote the DNA code so we are in God’s written book then someone also must write the story(or better say code) of GOD!! and the process goes on unending….
God may be present in a totally different dimension…..but who controls his(GOD’S) dimension…….
reply PLEASE……….
Q: Who Designed the Designer?
A: The Designer is an Uncaused Cause.
Philosophers almost universally reject any form of infinite regress because the result is an infinitely complex answer to a finite question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress.
At some point in the past there is the inevitable reality of an uncaused cause.
Some say that the universe itself is its own uncaused cause.
However everything that has a beginning must have a cause.
Since the universe has a beginning, it has a cause.
Therefore the universe is not its own cause. It has to have been caused by something else.
It is possible to hypothesize that it came from another universe and that’s fine but it doesn’t bring us to any conclusion.
The question we have to answer is, what could cause the time, space, matter and energy to come into being at a single point in time and for the universe to expand at an exact rate with 120 decimal places of precision?
I would like to suggest that the only adequate explanation is an intelligent, willful, eternal being outside of space and time, namely God.
Hello Perry,
You said: “I have mountains of evidence that codes require a designer.”
“It doesn’t prove DNA is designed, but it infers it 100%. Which is as good as science ever does.”
Im dealing with this question myself…if the way we define codes actually require intelligence and we call DNA a code as defined, then it seems circular since that is how we have defined codes right?
I told this person, we can simply call the process in DNA isomorphic with codes, which then allows us to make the inference.
What do you think?
JohnM,
Shannon’s theory was developed in 1948. The Genetic Code was discovered in 1953. So clearly the Shannon’s theory was developed on its own, independently of DNA.
Man develops communication systems and then he finds out there’s been a communication system at the core of living things for 3 billion years.
I think that is a very POWERFUL inference.
Perry
I am an atheist, and am fascinated by all attempts to “prove” that God exists. This one was fairly easy to poke holes in, after reading your site for just a few minutes. I realize that yes, DNA is a complex code, a language even. I realize that yes, languages and information (especially codes) have to come from a source of consciousness.
However, nature is infinitely more complex than anyone can understand, and human achievements have barely scratched the surface of discovering all of it’s wonders. We can mimic nature, through technology, but we are still woefully behind the technology produced in the natural world. Which makes sense, and is applicable to this discussion when you consider this:
1) A computer does not have consciousness. It can do mechanized things, but it cannot think for itself.
2) Computers can generate codes all on their own.
Sure, computer codes can be generated using specific criteria as directed by programmers, but still, an unconscious entity is able to generate codes. Even language. As nature has done.
Yes, the information you presented was easy enough for a child to understand, but sadly, it was also basic enough for a young teenage atheist (me) to defeat. Once again, I invite you to disprove me, take me on. All opinions are valid.
Natalie,
Computers are designed. So yes, they can produce codes but they all originate in the activity conscious beings. If you want to dismantle my argument you need to show a code that comes from pure physics / chemistry.
Perry
DNA is a natural code. You wanted just one, right? There you have it.
Prove that it’s naturally occurring.
I had some where read the quote which goes like,”Those who believe in God no explanation is necessary.Those who do not believe in God no explanation is possible.”But i am bit confused with different gods in different hemispheres.And gods of various kinds.Sun god, rain god, death god etc.And exploitation in the name of god.How to overcome the dilemma of believing or not believing.
Scroll to the bottom of http://evo2.org/faq for my view on this.
The truth is there is no truth.
If G-d exists and G-d is capable of the things credited to G-d then G-d transcends logic. Since truth is a logical value it follows that there are no truths about G-d. Thus G-d exists, G-d does not exist and we cannot know if G-d exists. There is no resolution beyond this. There also is no dilemma in believing or not, since both paths are equally valid and equally invalid.
Mike,
Your very first sentence is self-contradictory. It’s almost the same as the liar’s paradox, “I am lying.” ‘Nuff said.
Thanks for your patience. Will get to other questions as I’m able. My apologies to others whose comments are still in the queue.
Perry
No, it actually isn’t. It can be validly applied to virtually any situation in space-time. Consider the question, ‘what colour is the sky?’ there is not a single correct answer to this question, the question itself interfaces with physical reality in such a way that the truth is there that is no truth in any single answer to the question. Consider now the question, ‘how many waves are there on the ocean?’, again this question has no uniquely correct answer. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t incorrect answers, just that there is no correct one. This is one of the differences between natural language protocols and formal logics, and one which is carried within UG.
Try it this way:
THE TRUTH regarding the existence of G-d IS that truth values are not applicable to the existence of G-d b/c G-d is not confined by formal logic therefore THERE IS NO TRUTH.
You just said: “The truth is that there is no truth.” The statement is self-contradictory.
Perry, it’s not self contradictory if you use a multi-valued logic to analyze it, namely one with truth values of ‘true’, ‘false’ and ‘indeterminate/unknown’.
What the statement is saying is that the truth value for ‘G-d exists’ is indeterminate, but since it’s being phrased with regard to a bivalent logic it is appropriate to say that the truth value of that assertion does not exist and in a very literal sense this is what the truth value of indeterminate really means so it can be translated easily into a statement that works properly within our three-valued logic: ‘The truth is, the truth value is “indeterminate”‘. Of course within the three-valued logic there actually is a truth value, but this aspect of the exercise demonstrates that conscious choices of the sort that lead to the development of formal systems like logics do not actually function in the same domain as generalized language. UG permits predication which is impossible under formal logics and formal logics are capable of predication which is unparsable by UG. As such it is rather non-sensical to assert that language is the product of intelligent design as it doesn’t follow the patterns of intelligently designed systems.
Mike,
The universe has some origin.
Origin of the universe is either God or something else.
If the world was created by God, then God exists.
If the world was NOT created by God, then God may or may not exist.
If there is a true answer to the question “where did the universe come from” then you cannot categorically state that “God exists” and “God doesn’t exist” are equally valid statements. If cause and effect are real then “God exists” is a perfectly valid statement and “God doesn’t exist” is a dubious statement.
The truth is, if the sequence of cause and effect from past to present is valid, then to say “the truth is there is no truth” is a denial of cause and effect.
Yes, of course. But you’re missing the point that it’s a contextual denial of cause and effect. Within the universe causality is obviously operative, but we don’t know that that’s true external to the universe.
The universe does have to be caused by something. And you’re right, at some point causality is not operative. That’s why theologians have said for 4000+ years that God is uncaused.
But it’s inappropriate to argue that G-d is uncaused, b/c we do not know that causality is not operative external to the universe, we only know that it’s operative within the universe. This, by the way, gives us a 100% inference that it is operative external to the universe, though curiously you don’t seem to be arguing for that.
My point about causality is actually considerably more pointed than you seem to think. If causality is potentially isolated to within the universe then arguing that the universe has a cause is arguing that the universe existed before it was created. If the universe doesn’t yet exist then how can a mechanism that is isolated to the universe be operative? Thus it is actually illogical to assume that the universe had a cause. As such, there is no possible purely logical argument for G-d.
Mike,
I would not isolate causality to within the universe. I would invoke Gödel’s incompleteness theorem to say that the universe has to be contingent on something. I would draw the circle of causality such that the universe is entirely contained within it. The universe itself is bound by causality. Logically, something has to not have a beginning.
Mike,
Does Mike Minnich exist?
I’m a physical being contained by the universe, which is a domain in which bivalent logic often functions. As such, the intended implication that this question has bearing on the existence of a creator god is logically invalid.
My conversation with Derek addresses this question here: http://evo2.org/incompleteness/
Just to be clear, I hate playing musical websites. I don’t follow your links unless you provide at least part of an argument in your replies, even then I’m tempted not to. As far as I’m concerned it’s a matter of etiquette. Simply posting a link demonstrates that you don’t care enough to have an actual conversation so why should I waste my time following it?
Mike,
I’m not sending you all over the Internet. I’m sending you to a handful of articles on this same site where I have laid out my thesis very carefully. I do not ask you to do this any more than absolutely necessary.
You’re trying to argue with me without even knowing my original argument. If you won’t read my original thesis why should I waste my time arguing about what you think it says? Please! You at least owe me the courtesy of knowing what my argument is before you try to rebut it.
As for the Gödel articles, they deal directly and exactly with that particular topic and if you want to discuss that, it’s better to do so on that thread.
You say that you can prove to use that you can prove God exsist but you cannot. You will never be able to. You say that this one questin is stumoing us and we will never be able to answer it but can you actually say the? Do you know it all? How can you be sure God is real?
You say this question make us believe but there are questions that can be solved by science.
There is NO supernatrual being that is above us.
Also you cancel yourself out a few times on this website. You say you will prove it but it might be true and all this stuff.
Q: Have you actually PROVEN that DNA is designed?
A: No, because science cannot formally prove anything. However I have shown 100% scientific INFERENCE to design.
Most scientific laws (gravity, thermodynamics, conservation of matter and energy, relativity) cannot be proven, they are only inferred through the consistency of observations.
There is no known exception to the laws of gravity, so we infer a law of gravitation.
Heat flows from hot objects to cool objects 100% of the time, so we infer the laws of thermodynamics.
In science, if an observation is supported by 100% inference, it is eventually considered to be a law.
I submit to readers of this website that information systems are designed by conscious minds 100% of the time, no exceptions. Thus we can propose a law of information, that coded information is always directly or indirectly caused by a conscious agent.
This observation is just as reliable as the laws of thermodynamics and gravity. There are no known exceptions.
So to the extent that science can prove anything – which is 100% inference – we can conclude that DNA is designed.
In my experience any theory that predicts natural phenomenon within 2% tolerance is considered a very solid one. Newtonian Gravitation in fact is not always this accurate yet it’s still the model utilized by NASA when modeling trajectories for rockets to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and now Pluto. So the problem isn’t really with the inference, it’s with the shallowness of the inference. A good theory should be able to stand up on its own from just about all angles you view it, but this inference is only solid when viewed from a certain point of view. If you begin to move around in logical space you begin to see that there are not only no other inferences supporting this one there are in fact many which directly contradict it.
You have yet to support this statement with inferences supporting the materialistic view.
hello sir, i went through “If you can read this sentence,
I can prove to you that God exists” newsletter and what i could make out of it was that u basically meant to say “information exists (in the form of language, patterns , DNA codes etc) , information doesnt exist on its own out of mere nothing and hence it must have been created, This proves the existence of God” … correct me if i am wrong here …i am putting it my own words ” that a complex system exists and complex systems dont just come out of nowhere(let those be languages, DNA codes, programming of my PC’s operating system , even the rule book to a soccer match) are all results of the efforts of an intelligent creator”
and here are a few doubts that i have about it
*first, if information and complex systems dont come out of nowhere and need to be created than neither does the intelligent designer who creates that information or system and we end up on the usual deadlock
” was the creator also created by another intelligent creator? ”
Yes or no …. ur argument of intelligent creator looses ground (i dont think i need to explain it further)
*Second, Richard dawkins demonstrates through computer simulation that “highly complex” systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated yet naturally selected steps, rather than an intelligent designer guiding it.
also taking my birth as an example, from the very first living organism there were “almost” infinite possibilities of what may take place or not, in the coming years and yet out of those there was one that i get born on 31st july 1990 and guess what it came true but that doesnt make billions of other possibilities less valid and still if we look behind there seems to be pattern guided by the so called God who planned me and guided evolution in order to make me a reality and yet i might also be a result of billions of random natural selections. with all the other possibilities (almost infinite) stacked up besides me …. but the truth is i was also a possibility and i came true n other ones did not .
keeping all the social n religious mumbo jumbo aside taking hard facts into consideration DNA coding was a possibility(also was some other system which i am not creative enough to think of ) , english language was a possibility (n also was some other language probably called “igar” with a a script similar to “devnagiri”) , some particular pattern of clouds was also a possibility (n also was some other system instead of clouds ).
thinking some hurricane in a junk yard can organize the metal scrap perfectly in the shape of a 747 jumbojet might sound funny or even absurd
or
some 1st grader learning numbers and alphabets might end up writing a sourcecode for a music player just randomly in the language C++ might also sound equally absurd
but looking at myself in the mirror n thinking , everything has been working out just fine for the last billions of years so that i can be here doesnt sound so absurd does it ? cos me n you are the living proof of the power of random selection (yet billion n billion of other who were equally probable as us didnt make it )
i also read how u encountered hostile atheists n how atheism is now becoming more n more like a religion indulging in the numbers game of getting more n more disciples n i totally agree … but thats a different subject altogether
Naveen,
Richard Dawkins’ programs all have the end result programmed in at the beginning. He’s cheating.
Q: Who Designed the Designer?
A: The Designer is an Uncaused Cause.
Philosophers almost universally reject any form of infinite regress because the result is an infinitely complex answer to a finite question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress.
At some point in the past there is the inevitable reality of an uncaused cause.
Some say that the universe itself is its own uncaused cause.
However everything that has a beginning must have a cause.
Since the universe has a beginning, it has a cause.
Therefore the universe is not its own cause. It has to have been caused by something else.
It is possible to hypothesize that it came from another universe and that’s fine but it doesn’t bring us to any conclusion.
The question we have to answer is, what could cause the time, space, matter and energy to come into being at a single point in time and for the universe to expand at an exact rate with 120 decimal places of precision?
I would like to suggest that the only adequate explanation is an intelligent, willful, eternal being outside of space and time, namely God.
I am also of the opinion that atheism is for all practical purposes a religion.
Perry
Sir but all this does not opt out that some thing like DNA can evolve randomly
….. taking into account all the times this process on the planets in the rest of the universe, might have failed or would not have concluded in similar way as it has on earth, the probability of this happening on some other planet still exists ..
who knows some day we might run into some life form on some distant planet who have something other that DNA , something far more advanced or something far more primitive in functioning.
and the adequate explanation that u give of an intelligent willful eternal being outside space and time, namely god … is not good enuff cos it all comes back to if god doesnt need a creator, why does the universe?
i think i can say ” i can read this sentence and u still havent proved the existence of god”
all u have proved is that having a god might make it easy to explain a few natural phenomenon …. but aint that what all religions do in the first place?
something that the “cheater” as u called him, Richard dawkins explained pretty nicely as the god of gaps
Naveen, I heard Richard Dawkins on the radio in 2005. He said DNA was “a happy chemical accident.” I can hardly think of a more unscientific statement.
I have yet to encounter anyone who can produce a convincing statistical model that says DNA was likely to occur randomly.
Some people have faith in God with a capital G. Richard Dawkins believes in Chance with a capital C.
You’re both ignoring a critical point (just as everyone else here seems to be). If logic is also an aspect of the fabric of the universe just as you’re assuming space, time and engery/matter to be then it’s not actually possible to say that the universe must have had a cause. Remember that logics are derived from the manipulation of energy/matter (leading into reiterative manipulations of the resulting patterns to get at new patterns) and so we actually have a 100% inference that logic is indeed confined by the universe (you gotta love the multilayered irony of that sentence). So what is the justification in assuming that we can use logic to discuss a cause for the universe? We cannot validly infer that the universe had a cause or that the cause of the universe had a cause w/o utilizing an axiom which can be proven invalid. Note, however that this doesn’t speak of truth in anyway, just the validity of sequential inferences.
Mike, that’s a perfect segue to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. See the conversation that develops between me and Derek on this post, it specifically addresses this question. http://evo2.org/incompleteness
It seems to me the problem you pose is straightforward to solve. The answer is that the information in DNA was derived from the environment through experience, that is, by trial and error and taking notes. DNA records each variation, and selection determines which variations get preserved, so the DNA ends up recording what works. If you think about it, this is exactly what humans have done, much more rapidly, by taking our own notes, which other species have not mastered. We’ve reverse engineered nature.
So yes, the information in DNA is very important and has many properties that we traditionally have associated with an immortal soul. But it’s just a recording medium that has been recording for billions of years with a filter that culls out those things that work.
سيدي العزيز
أظن أن عملية إثبات أن الله موجود أوغير موجود لا تخدم وجودنا في شيء . و السؤال الذي يحتاج فعلا لإجابة هو
“إذا قبلنا فكرة أن الله موجود فهل يتم ا تصاله بنا عبر الرسل و الملائكة كما تزعم الاديان؟”
dear Mr.Marshal
It wasn’t derogatory ! What I tried to say was: ” If HE exists,how HE communicates with us.?”
dear sir
if you want to prove the existence of “A” then you have to prove that “A” communicates.
DNA is proof that “A” communicates because it is a communication system.
But it’s only a piece of a communication system which exists entirely within the universe. This doesn’t actually speak of any “A” external to the universe communicating within the universe anymoreso than it speaks of penguins doing fan dances for the king of Atlantis.
When tree branches rub together in the wind, it generates sound – and that sound encodes information. We can say that the sound is a language – there is a phrase for ‘The wind is gentle’, a phrase for ‘The wind is strong’, another one for ‘I’m starting to break’.
In fact, you can build an entire story from this language about ‘The wind is strong – I’m starting to crack – I’m breaking … no more tree.’
Just like DNA coding, we wouldn’t describe this as a language normally, but exactly what they both are.
To answer your basic question – Can anyone list any sources of information that are not the result of intelligence?
The answer is: Yes.
There are several classes of information sources. The obvious classes include:
* Ergodic
* Stationary
* Stochastic
There are probably millions of examples of each of these.
It is not possible to draw a diagram of a proper communication system for these things because it’s not possible to produce a table of symbols (as we do with DNA, i.e. GGG = Glycine, 1000001 = A), because there are no symbolic relationships. An electron is an electron, sunlight is photons, a snowflake is a snowflake, wind in the trees is wind in the trees. None of these things symbolically represents anything other than itself. Contrast this with DNA where three Guanines in a row are instructions to make Glycine. Three Guanines are not Glycine, they are instructions to make Glycine.
Layers of sediment or the sound of wind in the trees might be considered codes, except that no decoding takes place until an intelligent being (a human) arrives on the scene to interpret them. Therefore sediment all by itself is not a communication system because there is no decoder. Furthermore the exact meaning of the layers or the sound of the wind is certainly not fixed and digital the way the genetic code is. Decoding the meaning of the layers is and subjective.
Your discussion of “ergodic / stationary / stochastic” sources does not account for the origin of the information system itself.
Perry
IMO you’re getting lost in the abstract realm that language helps us work out for ourselves. Not all glycine molecules are in fact identical, the instantaneous positions and vectors of each electron are unique, the specific relative orientation of the neutrons and protons in the nucleus are also likely to be variable as are the specific numbers of neutrons in each atom making up the molecule. ‘Glycine’ is an abstraction, yes GGG always codes for glycine but it is blind to many variables that can differentiate glycine molecules (not all of them measurable, but that’s actually irrelevant). Similarly, snowflakes carry much more information than we reconvey linguistically by saying ‘snowflake’, as do photons in sunlight relative to the word ‘photon’. Codes are abstractions of energy/matter systems, they necessarily carry less information than their referents, thus I don’t see an actual issue with saying that the information conveyed in a code came from mundane natural forces. I actually find it quite a bit more elegant and explanatory than positing a mysterious supernatural creator god with no origin of its own.
Glycine molecules don’t have to be identical for the genetic coding table to tell us that GGG codes for Glycine. The fact that you’re even talking about Glycine and saying something meaningful at all negates your point.
Snowflakes contain no symbols. If you disagree then draw Claude Shannon’s communication system for a snowflake, including encoder, channel and decoder, and label the encoding and decoding tables for that snowflake just as I have done for ASCII at http://evo2.org/information-theory-made-simple/