The Logical Concept of God
Zachary Gleason
June 28, 2009
Can God logically exist? Does it seem like a fairy tale that there is a person who can read our minds, control the elements, and watch over billions of people simultaneously in an individual way.
It is commonly accepted that the average person only uses a very small percentage of the minds capability. Modern day savants give us a small glimpse of the untapped power of the mind. Compare the mind to a computer and think of the storage capabilities it would take for a computer to remember all of the sights, sounds, movements, emotions, smells, and feelings we have experienced. Even a modern day super computer is not capable of storing that much information let alone producing the creative products of a human mind; that said, we wonder how a higher power can listen and respond to the needs of so many people? We do not find it surprising that a very basic internet server can simultaneously respond to the unique requests of hundreds of thousands of different people in almost real time. We go to Google, type in a request and find the information we are seeking in a matter of seconds, all while millions upon millions of other people are going through the same process. If Google can perform this function with man made servers and software then it is not a far stretch of the imagination to say that a person who has tapped 100% of the minds capabilities could do something similar.
Could a higher power really read our minds and influence our thoughts? Modern sensors can now be placed on a person's head, read the impulses and blood flow patterns of the mind and control simple robotics. Companies like Honda are advancing this technology with their Asimo robots. For a decade now video camera's have been connected to the human brain, giving limited but functional sight to blind people in the Dobelle Artificial Vision System. If humans, with their relatively crude technology can read thoughts, as well as put images into the mind, then why not someone who is infinitely more advanced?
How could someone live so long? Modern science has shown that the human body is literally programmed to age and die. The sequence of aging is currently part of our DNA, however, many advances are being made that already reduce and even reverse the aging process. Stem cell technology promises the ability to make replacement organs and tissues as needed. Nanotechnology has the potential to eradicate the most common diseases. It is not unrealistic to think that over the next number of decades humans will find the ability to extend life by double, triple, or even more. Imagine a person who already understands the technology of the human body perfectly. If this person understood aging and the processes of life perfectly, then it is easy to imagine how this person would have the ability to live forever.
Why do trends exist to discount the existence of a higher power? Humans have a natural desire to understand the world around them. To know why things move, react, and interact in the ways they do and human nature inclines us to say we have the answers and there are few if any gaps in our thinking. The scientific process is amazing, and often humorous. It is not far off to say that each new generation of scientific theory scraps 80% of the theories of the generation before. They realize they had it all wrong. This pattern is especially revealing in astronomy. The humorous and amazing aspect of this pattern is that each new generation confidently declares, "they had it wrong, and look, we figured it all out" only to be out "figured out" by the proceeding generations. We like to think we understand the world around us, yet there are basic elements of the world around us that we still don't know anything about. For example, gravity; we feel it, we measure the effects of it, we can predict it's effects quite well because it is so consistent, we even use it to our advantage, yet we sill have absolutely no idea why gravity exists. We say gravity is the attraction of two bodies of mass, we know that the more mass the greater the pull, but why? Why are two bodies of mass pulled together? What element, what energy is it that is actually pulling the mass together? We take things like gravity for granted because we experience them every day; yet, like the ancients of Earth knew that the sun would come up each morning, they really had no idea why, just that it was consistent.
Imagine that the ocean represents all the truth about everything including all knowledge about every single element, how each element interacts to each other in every way, and how each element, or combination of elements interact with heat, energy, light, sound, or any other atomic or non-atomic force. This ocean of knowledge would include all truth about every atom, photon, quark, or any other piece of microscopic mass. Additionally, it would include all truth regarding every aspect of every living thing. I personally believe it would be quite generous to say that we have discovered even a gallon when compared to the ocean, but let's just say we know 5%. No one in their right mind would think that human kind has discovered more than 1/20th of all knowledge. If you disagree then you have no hope. If you agree that we still have at least 20 times more knowledge to gain, if not millions of times more knowledge, then is it really safe to say that we have discovered enough to discount the existence of a God. It is absurd to think that the scientific community can take the microscopic knowledge we have, and extrapolate it so far that they deduce there must be no God. The idea that we have enough information to say, "there is no God because we know so much," is not founded and is not logical. One could say there MIGHT not be a God, but would definitely not be able to say there is no God. Assuming that the people reading this will accept that we can not denounce the concept of a higher power based on our fractional knowledge, let's address the concept of there might be and there might not be a God.
Let's take the concept that there might not be a God and that our existence was not intelligently designed. Without a "design" for life as we know it means you and I and all living things are the direct products of random chance and the spontaneous generation of life. We agree that to our finite minds the world we live in is unbelievably complex. The human body, it's ability to move, think, act, and regenerate goes beyond anything we are able to duplicate from scratch, yet life continues to flourish and evolve.
Think about a deck of cards and stack it up in your mind. The deck of cards doesn't seem that complex right? Now toss the deck of cards into the wind and let "random chance" restack the deck. Unless you are imagining some very interesting wind patterns at this point you have probably realized the cards will never restack. Some might say that given enough time they will restack; well, fast forward a trillion years to see if the cards have possibly restacked. You probably realized that after floating further and further apart for years the cards ultimately disintegrated into dust and they didn't even stand a chance of restacking. Now, a deficiency in the analogy exists in the fact that the example uses only one deck of cards to demonstrate the possibility of order randomly coming from chaos. To address this deficiency, take a billion decks and stir them together over billions of years and a properly stacked deck of cards may randomly form in the mountains of cards; however, keep stirring. The once in a million millennia moment when a properly stacked deck of cards would randomly form is now gone. Now compare the stirring mountains of cards to the random generation of the human body over time. Imagine that given enough time the deck of cards did restack, if you add a lot of glue to your imagery you might even convince yourself that the deck stacks properly and stays together indefinitely. With the glue and gazillions of cards that never disintegrate in the elements you might get a deck of cards that stacks and stays stacked. So if the cards could do it then couldn't human life spontaneously generate over billions and billions of years? It is safe to say that the deck of cards is slightly less complex than a human body. Let's make the equation slightly more relevant by adding just a hint of complexity. Imagine that over time the other cards spontaneously generate a box and cellophane wrapper for the cards and spontaneously put the cards in the box. Given billions and billions and billions and trillions of years is this ever going to happen, let alone finding the nice little designs on the box like we see on bicycle playing cards. No. This will never happen no matter how much time the pile of cards is given. Even if you throw millions of high resolution photo printers into the mix it still won't happen. One might argue that it was human creativity that put those designs on the box so it's not really applicable; then we ask what is easier to spontaneously generate over an infinite amount of time, a nicely packaged deck of cards, or human creativity. In case the example is not clear, a deck of cards is far less complex than human creativity. If a deck of cards can't randomly be generated, how likely is it that the human body and mind would be spontaneously generated, let alone go on to spontaneously generate the deck of cards? Not very likely.
Follow the logic, 1) life spontaneously generates, 2) out of life human creativity spontaneously generates, 3) human creativity spontaneously generates the spontaneous idea that human life was spontaneously generated. Sounds ridiculous? It is!
So the concept in question is, God may or may not exist. Logic tells us that spontaneous generation of complex life forms might seem a little far fetched. My question is, how could we exist among the chaos of the cosmos without some intelligent power out there to promote and ensure our existence. I don't think we could exist without that power. I personally believe it is the same power that gives a seed the ability to grow, a child the mind to laugh, a father the power to love, a mother the will to sacrifice, the Earth it's orbit, the moon it's place, the sun its setting and rising, and the stars their perfect movement along the night sky. Where you go with the concept of who or what this higher power is, is up to you, but one thing is clear, there is a higher power that influences all of our lives in infinite ways.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
THE CONSTITUTION AND MARRIAGE RIGHTS
By Zachary Gleason
zack@zgleason.com
November 17, 2008
One of the arguments for the same sex marriage debate is that according to the U.S. Constitution everyone should be treated equal, regardless of race, religion, creed, color, or sexual preference. The Constitution is often cited as the "legal" basis of same sex marriage. It is a constitutional right to marry "anyone" you please, right? The overlooked fact is that the constitution does not address marriage. To say the constitution protects an individual’s rights to marry whom they please is simply incorrect and shows that the person making this argument has probably never read the constitution, at least in a very long time. Equality in the constitution is addressed in the statement that no citizen will be denied "equal protection of the laws." The constitution does not say what all the laws will be, it simply states that all citizens will be protected equally under the law. The constitution does not protect people FROM laws, it protects people ACCORDING to laws.
One attribute of the constitution that makes it one of the most powerful and influential documents in the world is the fact that it was written, at least originally, as a document to govern the government, not to govern the people. The constitution is simple in the fact that it lays out rules for governing and puts in place relatively simple checks and balances on elected and unelected officials to prevent ill intended "leaders" from gaining despotic power over the people. The fact that the constitution lays out laws for the government of the people, and not the people itself, is one of the reasons for its power and part of the reason the United States became and remains the greatest country in the world.
How DOES the constitution relate to the same sex marriage issue? The constitution specifically outlines the “Powers of Congress” in Section 8, none of which are of a social nature. Powers not given to congress were reserved for the states by the 10th Amendment in 1791, the entire amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The constitution is very clear in regards to the fact that unless a power is specifically “delegated” to congress then that power lies within the states. By the fact that social issues were omitted from the constitution, those powers are of a nature to be decided by the states, in ways which best reflect the voice of the people in those states. In relation to the same sex marriage issue the constitution has thankfully not been completely tossed out the door. The issue has remained in the states. During the presidential election the topic of same sex marriage was brought up in error frequently, the President of the United States, or congress has nothing to do with the issue, and never should. Any federal official that thinks it is their place to attempt to push laws through congress that have a social nature should read the constitution, sadly they are in direct disregard for the constitution as it pertains to the ruling of our nation.
Additionally, some proponents of same sex marriage believe that the 1st amendment protects the right of same sex marriage. The 1st amendment is the only other part of the constitution that a person might, lacking judgment and understanding, attempt to twist as a way to make their point. The part of the 1st Amendment in question reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. Same sex marriage advocates say that preventing same sex marriage is the same as prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The fact is that in any state in the union two consenting adults of any sex can be married by and according to their religion. In fact, there are same sex religious unions taking place every day, no one is stopping them, and no one should care from a legal stand point. The biggest problem with legalizing same sex marriage is that action would not only be a misunderstanding of what it means to allow the free exercise of a religion, but the action would actually violate the 1st amendment in the fact that it makes a federal law respecting an establishment of religion. Once again, the issue is left for the states. Marriage in fact has always been a state issue. One size fits all social laws from the federal government are thankfully prohibited by the constitution.
Hopefully we can all come to grips with the fact that according to the constitution the same sex marriage issue is a state issue. When a state enacts laws regarding the same sex marriage issue the constitution steps in to make sure that everyon is treated equally according to those laws, and that is it. The laws regarding marriage for most states, whether by statute or otherwise are built around the concept that two consenting human adults, not closely related, not of the same sex can be married according to the law. Whether you are gay or straight the law applies in the same way. According to the law a person cannot marry someone of the same sex, whether they want to or not. Is it "unfair" that the law lies within the personal preference of one group and not another? Perhaps, but it is still the law and it applies to everyon equally. There are laws I think are unfair of which I am morally against; however, my objection does not give me a "right" to have the law apply to me or my group of friends in a different way. Hence, we go through the democratic process to determine what the law will be and move on, perhaps readressing the laws again as time goes on. When the voice of the people of any given state decides as a majority in that state that the law must be changed, then I will personally respect that law, even if it makes me mad, even if I think it is unfair, even if it hurts my feelings, even if I think it is wrong, stupid, or the wrong direction.
When judges decide to overturn laws put in place by the voice of the people they disregard the law and the constitution, they weaken the democratic process, and they set a very dangerous prescident for our country's governance. Unfortunately judges do this occasionally, but the power of the people remains in their ability to elect those who will govern. I am grateful for this country and the democratic process which remains. I do not blame "bad" politicians or judges for the things I disagree with because the power lies with us to put those people in their positions of power or to take them out. Because that power, the power of the people, remains in tact, America is still the greatest country in the world.
zack@zgleason.com
November 17, 2008
One of the arguments for the same sex marriage debate is that according to the U.S. Constitution everyone should be treated equal, regardless of race, religion, creed, color, or sexual preference. The Constitution is often cited as the "legal" basis of same sex marriage. It is a constitutional right to marry "anyone" you please, right? The overlooked fact is that the constitution does not address marriage. To say the constitution protects an individual’s rights to marry whom they please is simply incorrect and shows that the person making this argument has probably never read the constitution, at least in a very long time. Equality in the constitution is addressed in the statement that no citizen will be denied "equal protection of the laws." The constitution does not say what all the laws will be, it simply states that all citizens will be protected equally under the law. The constitution does not protect people FROM laws, it protects people ACCORDING to laws.
One attribute of the constitution that makes it one of the most powerful and influential documents in the world is the fact that it was written, at least originally, as a document to govern the government, not to govern the people. The constitution is simple in the fact that it lays out rules for governing and puts in place relatively simple checks and balances on elected and unelected officials to prevent ill intended "leaders" from gaining despotic power over the people. The fact that the constitution lays out laws for the government of the people, and not the people itself, is one of the reasons for its power and part of the reason the United States became and remains the greatest country in the world.
How DOES the constitution relate to the same sex marriage issue? The constitution specifically outlines the “Powers of Congress” in Section 8, none of which are of a social nature. Powers not given to congress were reserved for the states by the 10th Amendment in 1791, the entire amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The constitution is very clear in regards to the fact that unless a power is specifically “delegated” to congress then that power lies within the states. By the fact that social issues were omitted from the constitution, those powers are of a nature to be decided by the states, in ways which best reflect the voice of the people in those states. In relation to the same sex marriage issue the constitution has thankfully not been completely tossed out the door. The issue has remained in the states. During the presidential election the topic of same sex marriage was brought up in error frequently, the President of the United States, or congress has nothing to do with the issue, and never should. Any federal official that thinks it is their place to attempt to push laws through congress that have a social nature should read the constitution, sadly they are in direct disregard for the constitution as it pertains to the ruling of our nation.
Additionally, some proponents of same sex marriage believe that the 1st amendment protects the right of same sex marriage. The 1st amendment is the only other part of the constitution that a person might, lacking judgment and understanding, attempt to twist as a way to make their point. The part of the 1st Amendment in question reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. Same sex marriage advocates say that preventing same sex marriage is the same as prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The fact is that in any state in the union two consenting adults of any sex can be married by and according to their religion. In fact, there are same sex religious unions taking place every day, no one is stopping them, and no one should care from a legal stand point. The biggest problem with legalizing same sex marriage is that action would not only be a misunderstanding of what it means to allow the free exercise of a religion, but the action would actually violate the 1st amendment in the fact that it makes a federal law respecting an establishment of religion. Once again, the issue is left for the states. Marriage in fact has always been a state issue. One size fits all social laws from the federal government are thankfully prohibited by the constitution.
Hopefully we can all come to grips with the fact that according to the constitution the same sex marriage issue is a state issue. When a state enacts laws regarding the same sex marriage issue the constitution steps in to make sure that everyon is treated equally according to those laws, and that is it. The laws regarding marriage for most states, whether by statute or otherwise are built around the concept that two consenting human adults, not closely related, not of the same sex can be married according to the law. Whether you are gay or straight the law applies in the same way. According to the law a person cannot marry someone of the same sex, whether they want to or not. Is it "unfair" that the law lies within the personal preference of one group and not another? Perhaps, but it is still the law and it applies to everyon equally. There are laws I think are unfair of which I am morally against; however, my objection does not give me a "right" to have the law apply to me or my group of friends in a different way. Hence, we go through the democratic process to determine what the law will be and move on, perhaps readressing the laws again as time goes on. When the voice of the people of any given state decides as a majority in that state that the law must be changed, then I will personally respect that law, even if it makes me mad, even if I think it is unfair, even if it hurts my feelings, even if I think it is wrong, stupid, or the wrong direction.
When judges decide to overturn laws put in place by the voice of the people they disregard the law and the constitution, they weaken the democratic process, and they set a very dangerous prescident for our country's governance. Unfortunately judges do this occasionally, but the power of the people remains in their ability to elect those who will govern. I am grateful for this country and the democratic process which remains. I do not blame "bad" politicians or judges for the things I disagree with because the power lies with us to put those people in their positions of power or to take them out. Because that power, the power of the people, remains in tact, America is still the greatest country in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)