What is a soul?

Take 1 part spirit, mix it with with 1 part body, stick in an oven for 10 months and voila!  You have a soul!  But what happens when you add a robotic arm into the mix?  Read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Nicolelis

"...the monkey had become dedicated to controlling the robot, as if it were an extension of itself."

Once machine becomes an extension of self, we begin to question what self really is.  If you judge that I speak presumptuously on your behalf by using the subjective personal pronoun of "we", then to you I extend my apologies.  I was only speaking for my self and the extensions thereunto pertaining.

Eucharistic Eukaryotes

I was contemplating the ways of God today. Specifically, how consciousness is affected at the cellular level, when the term Eucharistic eukaryotes came to mind. I think creationists would get a Eucharistic kick out of that one.

God wants relationships, not religion.

Why was Christ was put to death? Why were there people who hated Him? Who were these people? Were they homosexuals? Were they pro choice? Were they people who preferred to stay home and watch football instead of go to church? No, in fact, they were the super religious, conservative, fundamentalists of their time. Over and over again the phrase, "Religion killed God," has played in my head for the last week or so. Science, Christianity, and the very belief in God is under attack and I attribute it all to the same evils that exist in religion.

I feel strongly that God hates religion. "Obedience in better than the fat of rams." Obedience to what? The spirit of God guides us to Christ who teaches us of the Father and it was Christ who taught that our Father's kingdom is within us. The Babylonians did not understand this, which is why they though they could build a tower so high it would enable them to reach heaven. That tower was one of the first "churches" built and men have been building them ever since.

I have watched quite a few YouTube videos lately. I have notice that theism (belief in God) is under attack by a series of successive videos created by various atheists. First let me state that every (without exception) atheist I have met in person, I judged to be a highly intelligent, kind, moral person. This is significant because I met many atheists as a missionary. The majority of atheists I see presenting arguments on YouTube however, have faulty premises, faulty logic, and sometimes both and seem to hold a contempt for theists in some cases, especially Christians. To be clear, this post is not a personal counterstrike on atheist but an attempt to bring logical, intelligent people to an awareness of the war that is ensuing about them.

Atheism seems to be gaining popularity in this country which is disturbing to me because this growth seems to be fueled by a religious and fervorous, dogmatic belief that their is no God. To prove that something exists is infinitely easier than proving that something does not exist which is why the assumption in science is that something does not exists unless it is observable. Not only is this fair but wise because otherwise we might as well believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny and all other creatures of imagination. So as far as science is concerned, there is no God. To be real it must be proven, but to be dogmatic about atheism is more foolish than the religious fanatic who is dogmatic about the earth being created in six days.

I can respect a person who says, "I do not believe in God because I have yet to see any evidence of such a being." Likewise, I would expect the same respect in return for my belief in God and my testimony that I have experienced His divine influence in my life. To witness the majesty of the universe and of life is, in my opinion, observable evidence, though not conclusive, which is why it is a belief.

I recently watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and Richard Dawkins in his interview with Ben Stein said that if you believe in evolution then you can not believe in God. Perhaps I do not fully understand evolution because I don't see why God could not have been the author of such a process if that is in fact the way it happened. However, what troubles me is that the process of evolution is still very fuzzy and Intelligent Design theorists have come along to challenge the paradigm. So what is the reaciton of the Darwinists? They treat evolutionary biology like a religion and act as though it is sacrilegious to challenge Darwin theory.

I think of Poor Charles Darwin, and the tremendous suffering and humiliation he went through as a scientist. To this day, religious fundamentalists think he was an evil man. The Vatican Church put so much pressure on Darwin that Charles renounced his Theory before he died. You would have thought that the Catholic church would have learned their lesson with Galileo but that's how incredibly ignorant religion is. Now here we are, centuries later, with all our knowledge, education and advanced marvels of civilization and now we witness a body within the scientific community acting like a bully? First we have the crusades and now we have terrorists dressed in lab coats flying their planes into the twin towers of science.

So I submit to you, that this is the very type of thinking that killed Christ. It is a spirit of pride and one of hostility towards any new way of thinking. If we are to to be Christian, we must shun any connotation of religiosity. We must be open to new ways of thinking, and if we find that we disagree with these new ways then we shall resist the ideas while loving our neighbors and the new ideas they share. Even if you do not belief in God at all, it would be wise to adopt this attitude. How many more must needlessly suffer or even die?

Irreducible Complexity - Response to comments

Click to read original post w/ comments.

Determinist,

"Atoms are like soap bubbles..." - Clever

What are "vortices"?   I assume the word is in the plural form (of vortex?).  I tried to research the term and I did not get very far. L

I realize that when we are talking about a flagellum motor that we are way past the atomic level however, the reason why I suggest something at the sub-atomic level or beyond is because classical physics goes out the window when we start talking about point particles like electrons.  There is a complexity there that could very well lend itself to understanding self-organizing structures or even at even higher levels such how the brain functions and how people interact with one another.

Ensign,

"Consider this: an idea that I've had for the better part of 11 years is that all interactivity in the universe--from the subatomic level to the gravitational interactions between galactic clusters--is mirrored by human behavior. While nobody outside of the individual can explain a single persons motives, it is relatively easy to predict and explain how people (and subsequently friends, cliques, ethnic/religious groups, nations, etc...) will interact with each other. How do you feel about this?"

My first thought is Astrology reversely engineered to predict cosmic events based on what I eat for breakfast (haha).  Individuals are not as predictable as they are when observed in as system.  At higher levels of organization, statistically based predications can be made with increasing accuracy.  Does the universe mirror our behavior, or do we mirror the behavior of the universe?   Consider that we are not only part of the universe but made up of the very things we are attempting to observe.

For example, assuming that you have a normal body, if you measure the distance from the tip of your finger to the first joint-line and compare it to the distance from the first joint-line to your second join-line you will get the Golden ratio (or close to it).  If you continue to do this with the second joint-line to the third and so on and compare these measurements to the distances of the solar planets from the sun, you will notice that it is a very close match.  Is there any surprise then that the proportions of the Temple of Solomon also match that of the solar system if you consider that the means of measurement was the hand and cubit?  Perhaps not, but I still find it to be quite Divine.

Other thoughts:

-          I can post a more detailed explanation about the proportions if you’re interested.

-          Heisenberg uncertainty principle

-          “…our entire reality is based on relevant perception.”

Irreducible Complexity

I went to lunch with a colleague of mine this week and decided to run a few ideas by him. We started off talking about Big Bang Theory and moved into discussing Intelligent Design (ID). More specifically, we discussed the major supporting idea of irreducible complexity (IC). The problem with IC is there still needs to be a scientific explanation of how we go from atoms and molecules to complex proteins and a functional system within a cell. Without one, we are back to the fundamentalist creationism way of thinking of God creating everything ex nihilo, which I do not support per se (I’ll save my argument that the sum of the universe = zero for another post). I suggested that there had to be some sort of ‘DNA’ at the sub-atomic level. That is to say that atoms, within themselves, must have a set of instructions to follow to explain something as complex as a flagellum motor.
Then the idea of Cymatics occurred to me and it offered itself as a probable explanation. So how could something complex come from something relatively simple? First take a look at Cymatics in action, and then listen to one of its proponents. Now, I do not outright agree with everything stated nor do I blindly propose that this is the answer to how God spoke the universe into existence. However, I certainly do propose that some similar mechanism may be at work. These patterns are created because of the natural path of least resistance. As such I am interested in identifying what design can be created by using the lowest frequency possible, then using a scale of pitch where the intervals strictly following the Golden Ratio. I am also interested in other energy waves or fields (e.g. electromagnetic). If anyone can find some correlation between all this and fractals, I’m interested.

The Sun of God

There are many stars in the universe but there is only one that gives the energy needed for life, which we call our sun.  Although only a small fraction of the sun's massive energy actually makes it to our humble planet, it is sufficient to sustain all the organisms that live here.  The following is an over-simplified model of the flow of energy commonly known as the food chain:

1. Through photosynthesis, plants convert energy from the sun into storable biochemical energy known as sugars.

2. These sugars are consumed by various organisms.

3. These same plant eating creatures which contain protein and fat are consumed by various prey.

As energy flows through the food chain a perfect one to one conversion does not occur because most of the energy is lost as heat (2nd law of thermodynamics).  As a result, life on earth depends on a continuous flow of energy from the sun to sustain all living organisms at both the bottom and top of the food chains.  This flow of energy is rather linear, however, some of the energy is recycled back through the food chain.  When an organism such as a lion dies, vultures, insects, and bacteria come along and scavenge the carcass for whatever food energy remains.

If I may now relate this line of thought abstractly, God's spiritual energy flows through us in much the same way.  Although some of His energy is recycled as we serve one another, were it not for His continuous and massive energy that nourishes our souls, Humanity would surely perish. Surely, humanity would stand to benefit from striving to become superconductors of this Divine energy.  Moreover, God did much more than put a star in our heavens that it may give us life; He also sent His Son to dwell on earth.

Ones & Zeros

I am fascinated to see mankind moving towards an age of Artificial Intelligence (AI).  With each technological advance humanity is narrowing the gap between man and machine.  Will a computer ever match the complexity of the human soul?  Is it possible?   Is it wise?

While you sit there and read this post, consider that you are looking at the computational culmination of simple binary code  (ones and zeros).  A ones tells the computer "yes" and a a zero tells the computer "no" and I submit that the only thing that separates us from computers computationally speaking is that we can handle one and zero at the same time (i.e. maybe).  As I understand it, this concept is the basis of a quantum computer.

However, even when quantum computation is achieved, an AI computer will still not be like us the day we plug into the wall, at least not like an adult.  No, just like a baby, it will have learn whatever abilities we give it and how to use it's abilities to navigate and manipulate its environment.  Robotic engineers have invested a great deal of time developing programs of instruction on how to walk but with quantum computing an AI robot could learn the way a baby does and in doing so, I believe the result will be far superior to any type of programming we could invent.

The scientific method

In my life experience, most of the atheists I have come to know have impressed me with their strong sense of morality and ethics. As a missionary, I honed my ability to find common ground beliefs and build upon them however this was especially challenging when it came to atheists. I became fascinated with the idea of understanding God in the purest (religion free) way and being able to explain this in the simplest and most direct manner. For the past seven years or so this process has stayed with me and I have been cultivating these ideas. Throughout the years I have shared my thoughts with a select few to gain new perspectives. By means of this blog I hope to accomplish this now at an accelerated pace.

The sum of my observations of people of various religious backgrounds is that the humanity at large follows a process analogous to the scientific method. Those who understand the history of religion and science can surely appreciate the irony of this statement however, I am convinced that our spirituality is a follows a set of scientific rules and that theses rules, if better understood, would help alleviate much of the frustration felt in our trial and error approach to know God.

"Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

Wikipedia offers us a linearized, pragmatic scheme as a guideline (which I have slightly modified):

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment
5a. Collect data
5b. Analyze data
5c. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
6. Publish results
7. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

In religious terms I offer up a parallel:

1. Desire
2. Seek
3. Hope
4. Faith
5a. Experience
5b. Understanding
5c. Wisdom
6. Testimony
7. Repeat as desired

The fundamental difference is that the soul is the recording instrument. As we have no present means to extract this information directly from a person's soul we must rely on their testimony. Arguably, data from scientific experiments are more reliable as they are not subject to misinterpretations, exageration or lies; or are they? Is this not the importance of retesting a published scientific conclusion? If the experiment is reproduced with the exact specifications of the origional it should produce the same results and I submit the same holds true to spiritual matters.

If one man plants a seed and tends for it and another man goes and does the same does it garantee that either seed will grow? Consider that if a man says, "Plant this seed for it is good," and it is done to no avail what are the possible reasons why the seed did not grow? The same reasons could be aplied to why religion does not work the way people say it does. I submit that those who frequently experience God's joy in their life is the direct result of understanding this process to some degree or another.