God – A Deducible Approach

One thing I’ve noticed about atheists is that they seem to use the principles of science to dismiss the existence of god. Instead however, I believe science supports the existence of god.

The numerous discoveries in physics, chemistry and in other sciences have demonstrated that our universe obeys laws: the laws of nature. For example, the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, rather it can only be transformed from one form of energy to another. Moreover, in chemical reactions, to conform with the law of conservation of mass, there must be the same number of each type of atom on both sides of the arrow. Human beings, for example, are created according to the makeup of their DNA. Our brains are simply a medley of electrical signals and biochemical reactions behaving in accordance with the laws of physics. If we accept these concepts, we are able to conclude therefore that the universe does indeed have order. Science in general seems to be a method of accounting for the phenomenon in the universe.

Furthermore, Newton’s third law of physics states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If this is true, it leads to the following conclusion: every action is a reaction to another prior action. This substantiates the notion that the universe is ruled by cause and effect or causality, which in turn lends credence to the fact that we are, in the present moment, defined by our past. This also means our future can be hypothetically predicted based on our past.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system is always increasing. Accordingly, our universe will reach a point in time when there can be no more disorder. Either that or the universe will reach point in time very close to a state of ultimate disorder. This would be the hypothetical death of the universe. If in fact, this will happen, that our universe is destined for some sort of theoretical death, then logically our universe must have also had a beginning. Isn’t the idea of an eternal universe contradictory to the reality of the present in which change does exist? If I drop a ball onto the floor from my hand, there is change. That is, the ball moves from my hand to the floor. So if we were destined to become a sea of photons as some scientists say we are, then shouldn’t we have already arrived at that stage an eternity ago? Why, if the universe is eternal, is there change? If the natural tendency of our universe is going toward a state of ultimate disorder and in times past, our universe was, by nature, less disordered, that means that whatever the opposite of a sea of photons is was the initial state of our universe. It then begs the question: what forces and powers brought about this primary state of the universe? If you line up a series of dominoes and push the first one over, it therefore necessitates that the line of dominoes had to have been set up at some point beforehand. If I empty a bag of marbles onto the floor from a certain height, the marbles will hit the floor and disburse and go in multiple directions. This therefore implies that, in the beginning, I had to gather the marbles together and put them into the bag. I had to raise the bag to the starting height from where I dropped them.

The crucial point to understand is that the timeline of our universe is a sequence of unfolding events in which one event gives rise to a subsequent event, which in turn, gives rise to another event and so on. This leads one to wonder that if events of times past have engendered the events of the present, what produced the first event to begin with? What tipped over the first domino? What came before cause? Although the answer seems irrational, it is the only rational answer. If we predicate our argument on the premise that our universe does indeed have a beginning, that means that some force must have engendered the progression of events of the universe in the first place. How can such a chain of events originate from nothing? Well, it can’t. That would defy the laws of nature. Therefore, the answer must point to the existence of a force that, in fact, defies the laws of nature. This evinces the existence of the supernatural. As what is the supernatural creator of the universe customarily known? God.

“The Stranger” – A Poem by Rudyard Kipling

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control–
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf–
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

Perception

A topic of discussion that floats around sometimes is religion and the belief in a deity. I thought I would give you my personal take on it. Does god exist? I believe he does. What is the definition of god? Well, according to the American heritage dictionary, it is “a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.” I believe there is an entity that has characteristics of what we define as god. If god doesn’t exist, I think there must be a being very similar to God.

Going back thousands of years and seeing many different peoples and nations around the world worship some form of deity, one might ask: could they all be wrong or are they on to something? What I believe is that gods of all different cultures are simply attempts at defining the same phenomenon, a phenomenon we do not yet fully understand. Our limited understanding, however, doesn’t mean that that entity we are trying to define doesn’t exist. Are billions of people throughout the world and throughout history all worshiping nothing at all? Now an atheist may argue that the majority of religious people are simply blind followers of their respective faiths simply because religion is something that is culturally encouraged in their region and that perhaps only a very small percentage of religious people are believers due to well thought-out reasoning.

I think, however, for billions of people around the world for thousands of years to have some sort of deity in their culture is saying something. It’s saying that humans are observing real phenomenon in the world that leads them to rationally believe that some form of god-like entity exists. Many religions contradict other religions, but that doesn’t mean that one religion is right and another is wrong. They could all be valid. Differences in religion are commensurate with the differences in various ethnic groups from which different religions originate.

Our perception is what makes the world around us real. To other animals like flies or snakes who perceive the world differently, what’s real for them is different than real for us. Is there one correct way to perceive the world way in the way that it naturally exists? I don’t think there is. This leads to the question: what is the true nature of the world?

As an example, when light hits hits an atom, the atom absorbs all of those electromagnetic wavelengths except for those wavelengths which are reflected, some of which we can see with our eyes. What about all of the wavelengths we can’t see? What if we could see them? Would it change our understanding of the world? We don’t see those invisible wavelengths because it has not been something required of humans by the imperative of survival. Survival is the only driving force that gives us our traits. In other words, all the traits we possess, we possess in order to survive. None of them are just luxuries.

My point here with wavelengths is that it’s a microcosm of the way we perceive reality in general: that it seems like human understanding perceives only a small sliver of all true phenomenon. There’s too much we don’t understand. This would point to the existence of a greater force, a greater power.

Fate of the Furious – Movie Review

So overall, this film was great! Seriously. Unfortunately however, because I’m writing a movie review, I’m obliged to say a bit more than that. Thus, this brings me to talk about the things in the movie that I didn’t like. I know. I know. The negative things in a film, or the negative things in anything in general shouldn’t get more attention then the positive things. I hate being a cynic and bringing up the negative side. I totally understand that but I felt the following topics were the things in the film that stood out the most. Caution: the parts I’m about to describe contain spoilers.

I’ll start by saying that the acting in this film was satisfactory and convincing, with the exception of Chris “Ludacris” bridges.

I felt the story itself was rather trite. The female villain in the film, Cipher, seemed more preoccupied with destroying the protagonist, Dom than achieving her main goal of international terrorism. Dom caught up with one of the Cipher’s henchman in an alley in a city. The henchman was pointing a gun directly at Dom’s wife. Dom then pointed his gun at the henchman’s head at which point the henchman lowered his gun and walked away. Dom followed, leaving his wife behind, and the two men finished their heist by escaping with a briefcase containing nuclear codes. Later, on Cipher’s airplane headquarters, Cipher decided to punish Dom for defending his wife by having her henchman shoot his Dom’ son’s mother in the head (a different woman), an act which is although predictable for a stereotypical villain in a movie, made no practical sense. It did not seem to bring Cipher any closer to achieving her ultimate goal.

Her ultimate goal, by the way, was rather vague. Cipher wanted nuclear codes, but she didn’t explain exactly why she wanted them other than for the reason that she wanted to “hold governments accountable” assumingly by devastating national capitals with retaliatory nuclear strikes, a line of logic that is neither immediately clear nor relatable to the audience.  It was your quintessential movie plot where the villain just wants to take over the world for reasons not really imparted to the audience other than she’s evil. This part of the movie surprisingly stood out because in recent years, Hollywood actually has done a very convincing job of conveying the rational of the motives of the antagonist, not only the motives of the protagonist.

I have to admit also: the special effects in this movie are sublime with one small exception which probably only I could notice. I could plainly tell that the high speed car chase scenes in this movie were shot while the cars were going relatively slowly. It stole a sense of reality from the film.

Finally, Fate of the Furious is a totally entertaining film which I give a “yes.” Definitely worth the price of admission. The escape factor in this movie is huge.

Inequality

Why did God create us unequal? Why did he disadvantage some and give advantages to others? There can be no denying that this diversity is the plan of god (or nature, if you don’t believe in god.) This therefore means that a crusade against inequality is a crusade against god. Also accordingly, to bring about diversity must be to do the work of god.

Free Will

I hate free will. If there is one error god has made in creating mankind, it is the endowment of free will. It is so because free will gives humans the power to make the wrong decision. Other species don’t seem to have free will. Ants don’t get to choose whether they become soldier ants or worker ants. Birds are simply driven by the imperative to survive and reproduce in the best way they know how.

The patients on the show “My 600lb Life” are the perfect example as to what happens when free will is exercised. Most of the patients are failures, degenerates, losers and most of all miserable, destined to die in their fourties due to obesity-related medical problems. Okay, my 600lb life is an extreme example, but in my life, for example, i have made many decisions that have lead to failure and misery, knowing when i made those decisions, that they were the wrong decisions. I’m sure we’ve all done that in our lives.

True, there are the few of us who do make the right decisions consistently and they are, likewise rewarded for it.   Have we, those of us who have lost the very imperative to survive and reproduce in the best way we know how? Or perhaps,

Or perhaps, free-will doesn’t exist after all. Perhaps those of us who make bad decisions were never destined to make good decisions and vise versa.