God vs. logic

It occurs to me, as it may well have occurred to you at some point, that the very idea of anything “supernatural” existing is self-defeating because anything that blatantly defies our methods of analysis and understanding would totally undermine the entire show. Thus our system of understanding which is so incredibly consistent that it’s able to convince electrons to run such complex mazes that the whole internet results, would be fatally flawed if even the smallest miracle were possible.

The application of logic has yet to be shown to fail.  The world has never thrown up any scientifically verifiable evidence of anything outside of our model. Thus there has never been any evidence for any god, any miracle, any ghost, any anything supernatural.

Yet its not as if God (as rep for all things supernatural) is deliberately covering his tracks. If He was, no one would know about Him. Clearly his followers have detected some “evidence” – but amazingly no science or logical analysis has ever trapped any of it.

So if you believe in God, how can you have any faith in such a poor system, that can’t detect this God you see so evidently? The system so good it cures diseases, determines the compositions of distant stars and genetically engineers mice so they glow in the dark can’t see something so big and important three quarters of the planet believe in it.

There is indeed an elephant in the room.

107 thoughts on “God vs. logic

  1. OK then explain how the universe started itself out of nothing at a point in no-time (before time began). Astronomers and physicists have presented us with compelling evidence that time, space, matter and energy all had a beginning. What could it have been? (See my post “Science – Impossible without Faith”)

    Darwin only speculated on the origin of life. He had no clue where it came from. Believing it came here on meteors or spaceships only evades the essential question. How did it get started? And those rules and principles scientists revere so highly – did they organize themselves, or did they start at the same moment in non-time? And if the creation event was just a big explosion, how did all the order we see come out of that chaotic super-cataclysm?

    I have way more questions than answers, but when I meet someone who seems to have it all figured out, I just have to ask…

  2. Hi John,
    Thanks for your excellent comment – you cut right past most of the weaker arguments for-and-against – and get right to the gaps in the scientific model (its a work in progress!).
    It’s true that the application of logical tests to hypotheses has not yet explained the leap from organic to bio-chemistry, but this is the 21st century equivalent to the missing link, and just as Darwin’s theory was proven right on man/ape, he may be right on this. I honestly don’t know, and will have to wait for more evidence before I could even guess.
    However, the question of ‘before time’ is one up-to-date cosmology does not lose any sleep over.
    Time is simply a manifestation of the the sequence of chemical reactions occurring around us. To talk of its speed is meaningless – in fact it need not move at all. We know that as light seems to travel the same speed past you no matter how fast you are moving, that the speed of time is dependent on one’s frame of reference (level of acceleration / space-time distortion) and in the extreme (say at the speed of light) time will cease to pass at all.
    In this model, talk of “before time” is not impossible, its meaningless.
    I think the details are not as important as the big picture: to me it boils down to Occam’s razor – what is more likely, random atomic fluctuations or an all-seeing God with his entire own ‘universe’ that needs explaining?

  3. I appreciate the kind and considerate tone of your response. I’ll try to do the same.

    Still, I have to ask…

    In what way has Darwin’s theory of man/ape been proven right? Even writing 150 years ago, he wondered why the transitionary fossils were not in overwhelmingly abundant evidence. The question was never resolved in his mind, but he maintained faith to the end of his life that they would be found. Were he alive today, I wonder if he would be wavering in that faith!

    I’m not a God-of-the-gaps kind of guy. I see everything in time, space, matter and energy as having been created by God. To the extent that science learns things, it only explains a small part of the whole of what God creates. And when science engages in efforts to learn things, it always starts with an assumption about God. Polkinghorne, Miller, Collins and other Christians who engage in scientific study do not merely say, as some accuse, that “God did it”, and stop thinking. They still want to learn the secrets of the universe. And in my view, they have a much better chance of doing so than the atheist who KNOWS there are reasons to believe but chooses “see” scientific discoveries as proving God’s non-existence.

    I believe that the original sin is one that we modern people commit every day. It’s contained in Satan’s admonition to Eve that “…you will be like God..” Our problem, all of us, is that we WANT to be sovereign. We refuse to be submitted to any one or any thing.

    I agree that talk of “before time” is meaningless, although I don’t see your point about it being “a manifestation of the the sequence of chemical reactions occurring around us”. What I do think is important, though, is that the evidence says time-space started, and that an unimaginably well-ordered universe was the result.

    Scientists may one day fill in the gaps of their knowledge of just how that was done, but the metaphysical presupposition that an intelligent agent could not have been involved is simply not scientific. In fact the assumption that science and Christianity are in conflict is manifestly bogus.

  4. Thanks again John,
    I have great sympathy for your perspective, I first learned my science from that starting point (that God existed) and totally confess that the atheist position therefore starts with its own assumptions which then colour all subsequent analyses.
    But the assumption that God doesn’t exist is no more arrogant that the assumption He does.
    I certainly admit a part of me wants some sovereignty, or rather, is unhappy the idea of non-sovereignty, but I try not to let this effect my logical analysis (though perhaps this is impossible).
    Now for Darwin and the gaps. The process of natural selection is capable (and shown capable in modeling) to produce a punctuated appearance in the fossil record. The way I think about this is that imagine you had a million sheets of paper with a long story written on them and the sheets were set adrift in the ocean and allowed to spread around the world. Imagine you then started to collect them much later – when you only have a few dozen pages it will certainly give an incomplete story – and indeed many of the pages, connecting the story will have been destroyed or thoroughly lost.
    That does not of course prove evolution is continuous it just shows it is likely to look punctuated even if it were.
    I personally do not think evolution is “proven” – proof is a matter for mathematicians and the platonic world. However the combination of the evidence – the fossil record, our success of deliberate animal breeding, the genetic evidence – all support the theory and with no need for supernatural assistance.
    Now time; if before time is meaningless, then it needs no explanation! (In my opinion anyway). PS the evidence does not ‘say’ things, it is ‘read’ and thus open to interpretation (coloured by premises as I admit above)
    Lastly I want to make it clear that I do not presuppose an intelligent agent *could not* have been involved, I just don’t invest much time in unlikely explanations. I am not someone who is certain there is no God – I have not ‘proven’ it – I just think it is a theory without evidence…
    From my perspective, science is not in conflict with religion, any more than it is in conflict with any other theory – and as theories are not simply divided into ‘right and wrong’ they are rather along a spectrum from very unlikely to very likely, there is no hard conflict. I.e., science has certainly not dis-proven God and probably never will. However, as time passes alternate explanations for the “gaps” keep coming in…
    I know I must sound stubborn but I am perhaps too committed to the natural system and have ‘faith’ (unsupported belief) that there is nothing outside of it, which, I suppose, is just as bold as faith is God, but has the advantage of simplicity.

  5. What it all boils down to, my friend, is that we all must have faith in something. It is quite literally impossible to live, to think, to exist without placing our faith in something. And life, it has been said, is a one-question test. Get the answer wrong, and you sooner or later find yourself on the outside, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    What could be simpler?

  6. It seems it would be safer to just opt for God – alas I just don’t believe! I will settle for living a defensible life and hoping for the best.
    Nice ‘talking’ with you!

    PS your own blog is very readable and engaging – fairly dogma free and the overall intention is great, God or no God.

  7. Here is how logic started our physical existence. Think of nothing or the logic of Nothing, and how it represents the opposite of Something. If I were to say “I have nothing”, I would be talking of something, and always something. There has to be a comparison or neither exists and you can’t say neither exists when nothing is one of the two in comparison. Here is another example, in order to get to 1 (something) you had to have started with 0 (nothing). Some say you don’t need zero, but you do, or else you have always had 1, this means we would never need anything because we already have 1 of everything and that makes no sense. This would also mean that you were never born (or had a birth), or that you have always been an adult.

    In the infinite amount of logical ideas corresponding with the logic of nothing exists the elements, these are logical ideas in the form of substance. These elements can create infinite amounts of physical things. If you think of a big bang it was all the elements smashed down so far in infinite that the elements were basically nothing or logic of themselves. Logic is an eternal idea that needs no reason or purpose to be, it is inevitable. Because the logic of nothing we exist, and that’s the true miracle of life.

  8. Excellently put – I will feel my ‘somethingness’ a little more from now on!

    I admit though, while reading your words I couldn’t help but think about the Douglas Adams line where God debated himself to the point of vanishing “in a puff of logic” 😉

  9. I have had the theory that Logic created everything for a long time. I have been telling friends and family for years about it and a few people told me it was Greek mythology, some told me that they had heard of it before, but mainly no one really understood. So I went online and joined Yahoo Answer and told my theory, and a person told me to go to a website that was talking what I was, so I did. The website had the same idea I did. I felt like finally there’s someone else who understands. I search the web some more to find it was know by lots of people. I am now totally convinced. This kind of explains the big bang and how logic is what created us. Nothing is the logic that creates it all because nothing is the opposite of everything logically possible.

  10. To anwser the question about why we feel we never die. Think of a cup, not the name of the cup but the logic behind the cup, think of what it does, or what its for. Now if we all were to die would the idea of a cup die with us, of course not, because ideas or logic never die or are forgotten. We are logic like the cup is logic and could be anysize, any color, different looking but still serve the same logical purpose. We will return after death, so everything you do in this life is going to effect you when you come back, that is why you should do good things.

  11. Mmm. My early readings always lead me to think of logic as being outside of reality (‘platonic’ to go Greek for a second), as different as the ‘idea’ of a mackerel is from a real one. But is the world of ideas essential to the existence of ‘stuff’? Man, now I have a headache 😐
    I am thinking of trees falling in silent woods now. I have always thought the quantum ‘observers are essential’ idea to be rather fishy, so I say the world of ideas, and the idea of logic, only came into existence when the first idiot started thinking.
    But maybe the universe needs actual logic, something real rather than the idea of it? Is there logic without any idea of logic? Yes, there were Pterodactyls without the idea of Pterodactyls. Ok, now I’m with you to say it was there at the start and essential, but I would not go so far as to say it created us, but rather is just a symptom of, a property of, the universe.
    PS, I notice I said logic was ‘something’. Whoops, maybe even logic cannot pre-date the first something!

  12. Think of logic, time, and being in existence to be the same as an infinite number. Traveling through time I think is impossible because you can’t be in the same place at the same time twice, and you can’t go faster than time. To go through time is to just be in existence. Like I said think of time as an infinite number, each time you add a zero to that number there is always another zero ahead of you to write. Time, logic, and your future existence is always staying ahead of you, time giving you space, logic giving you another zero, and a future existence for your existence. Going from point A to point B real fast is not time travel.

    Picture life like a program that has been written to go many paths. Example: The programmer prompts you to answer a yes/no question. When you choose let’s say “yes” you can no longer get back to “no” you have chosen your path even though both paths where written. The only way to get back in the program is to start all over. This is why there can be psychics and Déjà. Our brains pick up all the ideas logic can produce and there are an infinite number ideas which makes an infinite number of paths, so we can only choose our future in the present and in return we choose our past. So going through time is being in the present or just plain being in existence.

    Hope that make sense, though it is only the hardest thing to explain!!

  13. Good grief Mike! Your arguments strike me as (sorry) illogical. Logic is the construct of a mind. No mind, no logic.

    Oh, the tangled webs we weave when we try to explain away the need for a creator. Jarrodhart at least remains logical. He can’t explain how the time-space continuum started – He simply chooses to live as if it didn’t matter. (Even though it profoundly does!)

    I recommend you spend time discussing your ideas with people who disagree with you. If you take on all comers and win all arguments, you’re right. And you’ll present your ideas to a wider, more influential audience. What better way to win friends, influence people and make money?

  14. Mike
    I find it very fruitful to try to put my (often vague) thinking into words, it helps in the mental parsing of the ideas. Even better is debate with careful thinkers (like John Andrew above). Such is the motive behind my posts on this site.

    You definitely lost me on the psychics and Déjà [vu?] though. I do see something in the use of the concept of infinity – because maths (topology) allows for numbers to be arbitrarily scaled (read Roger Penrose’s take on co-ordinate systems) there is no mathematical imperative for space to have en edge, or for time to have started. That doesn’t mean they don’t/didn’t, but if like me the closest thing you have to faith, is the faith the beautiful maths is better than ugly maths, then its pretty good evidence against the need for a start to time, a big bang, God, or the primacy of logic.

    Just as you can fit an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, you can cram an infinite amount of ‘time’ between now and the start of time – so how long ago was it: 14 billion years, or infinitely many? As there is no universal clock or heartbeat, or no ‘correct density’ for a gravity field, how can we really measure all of time and put a number on it? More elegant is to simply do nothing and declare the start of time to simply be a way of interpreting infinity.
    Sorry to go on and on, but I guess you poked a nerve 🙂

  15. Logic is not just a part of your mind. It is what makes things the way they are, nothing can change the truth in all things, You may be able to alter it a bit with other logical things, but inside the logic still stands.

  16. The reason I say Déjà vu is because all paths have been written before we get there, like an infinite number there is always a zero to add. Its not like when you get to 10000000000000000000000 and went to add another zero, the universe said “no you can’t write another zero because it doesn’t exist”.

  17. I say the same about time, it is more this 10000000000ect…infinity:10000000000ect…infinity:10000000000ect…infinity.
    And I’m not sure why they compare light to time? Fraction of a second? This depends on were you are. Light can’t beat time because the darkness is always ahead of it.

  18. “Logic is not just a part of your mind. It is what makes things the way they are, nothing can change the truth in all things, You may be able to alter it a bit with other logical things, but inside the logic still stands.”

    Ok, I assume you make that claim based on some scientific observations, some empirical data?

    Now, let me rewrite your sentence so it makes sense. “Truth is not just a part of your mind. It is what makes things the way they are, nothing can change the truth in all things, You may be able to alter perception of it a bit with other logical things, but inside the truth still stands.”

    Isn’t that a more logical way to put it?

    And BTW, both your version and mine contain the phrase “inside the truth still stands.” And I would agree, since I believe that absolute truths exist, and that some, not all of them can be known.

    The truth is that something existed before the big bang, but it was not logic. Logic, no matter how convoluted your explanation, still requires an intellect to both construct it and to comprehend it.

    Oh, and BTW again, I just went back to some of the things you said before and found this: “We will return after death, so everything you do in this life is going to effect you when you come back, that is why you should do good things.” Love to see you trace that back. Sounds a little like reincarnation.

  19. We are created from Logic, then forced into what I call Physiologic, and back to Logic again. This process is infinite.
    Sorry, I guess I was trying to make you read between the lines. Here’s what I ment.
    “Logic is not just a part of your mind. It is what makes things the way they are, nothing can change the truth (truth in logic) in all things, You may be able to alter it a bit with other Physiological things (gunpowder and fire new logic BOOOM), but inside the logic (logic that already was gunpowder and fire) still stands.”

  20. Nothing or its meaning creates a paradox in itself. Nothing exists as a logical thing and note I said, it exists. There can’t be just nothing when it is the ultimate comparison to something. Nothing is a logical something. Like I said before, nothing exists Only because something says it does. All logic comes from the Logic of Nothing, doesn’t matter if the logic makes sense or doesn’t, it is all there, but what does work can become a physiological thing. This is what you think is God thinking (the paradox) but it’s not, it is all logic from nothing corresponding to any something or should I say any logical thing. Think of Good and Bad. If you take one of them away, like say bad. How would you know what good is without bad to compare it to? Same question, but compare light and dark. If I take one away like say light. How would you know what dark is without light to compare it to? All of this logic put together creates everything in an infinite array of comparisons. Einstein “In Logic We Trust”

  21. Mike,
    I admit I am at a loss to go on. The question of what nothing is, is an old logical chestnut, and logic and nothingness can play chicken and egg with one another till the cows come home, but I can’t bring myself to lose sleep over it – that is ‘is’, is enough for me (wow, three ‘is’s in a row)!
    Good luck with your magnet power, boy I’ll kick myself if you’re right 😉

  22. All of existence, logical and physical are God. God is not just a being and God is not just One being, God is everything. This is what was to be understood in the bible. God can’t do anything for you, because God has already done everything, you must choose the best path in the infinite paths to choose, that is your free will. Here is an example of something that doesn’t have free will and why. A program does not have free will because all paths are not created and only some of them are infinite (have a loop). Now here is an example of something with free will. 10000000000000000000 there is always a zero to add to that, logic will create a zero/path for you, forever.

  23. Hey guys, this just popped in my head. What if in that infinite number in time or logic, that we were created because one number was off, which allowed existence to have a start. Basically in the infinite timeline we came in at the question mark 1000000000000 ? 0000000000 giving us a start, and is still always ahead of us.
    BTW I am a jack of all trades master of many/contractor in home repairs & remodeling, I am in computer school, ITT Tech, and I do programming for fun. I don’t follow religion mainly because the book to me is another serpent; I need visual proof from the real thing. I don’t know much about science other than basics and common sense, and I tend to follow the unexplained theories more which of course have no answers. Math like Einstein’s makes no sense to me. So basically of the bits and pieces of what I know from the above and my personal life experiences and being a wise Scorpio/Dragon I have come up with all of these ideas on my own. I didn’t even know people knew my theory let alone protested it already.
    Just last week I found the Einstein quote. “In Logic We Trust”

  24. Mike, do you have anyone on whom you rely to test your ideas? If not, I highly recommend you find someone, perhaps several someones. You seem to have constructed your worldview without subjecting it to criticism. In the scientific/academic world, the process of peer review subjects a paper to criticism from peers. If they can’t find a basis on which to reject it, it gets published. You might want to consider a similar process. It will help you to think more clearly.

    I do believe you are running down some rabbit trails. You will not find the truth at the end of them.

    The word nothing is one we use to describe the absence of something. It is what rocks dream about. It has no dimension, no time, space, matter or energy, and it is not something that exists. It is no-thing. Ideas are things that are constructed by minds. No mind, no idea. Logic is an idea. To equate “nothing” to logic is illogical. Your arguments would have made Mr. Spock scream. They’re not circular, they are simply incoherent.

    Darkness is not a thing – it is a word we use to describe the absence of light. In the inverse of your example, you can’t take darkness away and get light. And I will say that although you are not alone in believing in reincarnation and polytheism, neither idea stands up to scrutiny.

    I’m not saying those things to offend you, or to belittle you in any way. I completely understand how one might have come to the conclusions you have. I am saying that you need help. The good news is that you are at least trying to get to the truth. And if you seek it with all your heart, you will find it!

    Jarrodhart, on the other hand, is in deeper trouble than he realizes. He maintains a coherent line of reasoning from beginning to (well, almost) end, but in the final analysis chooses to reject the obvious conclusions he himself has traced out.

    The Bible says that the fool believes in his heart there is no God. That’s heart, not head. If you do not want there to be a god to whom you are beholden, you will see nothing but proofs that you are right, and you are lost before you even start.

    There are three great faith systems – Islam, Judaism and Christianity. All three make the cut of seeing God as existing outside of the space-time continuum. And if He does, how could we ever prove his existence or nonexistence, one way or the other? We simply must have faith in something. And God, as I like to put it, is pro-choice. He wants us to choose. And every time we do, it’s a learning opportunity.

    The most important choice is whether we want God to exist. If we do, we will seek Him. And if we seek Him, we will find Him. It’s exactly the situation He set up in the garden of Eden. He wanted Adam and Eve to choose, and they chose badly. We have been replicating the choice every day ever since.

  25. Mike, I agree with (most of) John’s points above. It the modern world though it is often easier to find a good debate through the net than face-to-face, and so this discussion is certainly part of that process.

    However, I would say that in the world of natural philosophy, just like with any other discipline (such as sumo wrestling) it is unfortunately necessary to walk before you can run, and while you are asking wise questions that do cut to the chase, there are many who have gone before and much can be learned from them. If we really hope to reach higher, we need to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before.

    This is hard work and puts many off – and of course carries the threat that you will be drawn into someone else’s doctrine (such as Christianity) that seems to have the answers rather than staying truly objective through the process.

    Your friends mentioned Greek Mythology, but I guess they meant Greek Philosophy (which was actually born in revolt against mythology). This is a common starting point, but of course to learn philosophy chronologically will mean learning a lot of wrong stuff along the way, clouding things. However, if you ask a modern ‘expert’ to pick the the ‘good stuff’ for you, they will inevitably pass on their own bias – so reading widely and filtering is really the only safe bet.
    The upside is that the process yields a fabulously crafted system that has been able to split the atom and go to the moon – and it also yields implications regarding the meaning and purpose of life, and the reason for existence.
    At this stage, you will be on your own to judge the wheat from the chaff as no one *really* knows the platitudes from the substance!

  26. Sorry you guys, I guess I was kind of ranting and raving. John, you know I do want to believe in a God but I feel that is all it is, just a want. I have a daughter and two sons and my daughter age 7 is asking questions like who created God to me and of course I say to her God has always been here, just because she wouldn’t understand and because I want her to know happy things, this is of course the first question that pops into any logical mind as you see. And is why I question it. I love and care for things and it is not lust, well maybe chocolete and video games. lol!! I would risk my life to save either of you and I don’t even know you. I don’t even kill bugs; my family is always trying to swat bees. I get mad at them for it, snag the fly swatter from them, and I pick them up (the bees, and I’ve never been stung) and let them go. But anyway sorry again. I have a little more from my brain that I want you guys to pick and poke.
    Think of dark matter and anti matter, one containing nothing (dark matter) and the other containing something (antimatter) but both still logical things or what I call Physiological things. Now both of these things exist and both are equal. Ok now here is where some would say God comes in but I think that, the Logic of nothing is behind the dark matter and the logic of something is behind antimatter. Go ahead give it to me.

  27. Actually this is what I meant. Think of matter and anti matter, one containing nothing (antimatter) and the other containing something (matter) but both still logical things or what I call Physiological things. Now both of these things exist and both are equal. Ok now here is where some would say God comes in but I think that, the Logic of nothing is behind the anti matter and the logic of something is behind matter. The dark matter is also nothing though so help me out guys I it must have a yang to. Is dark matter the nothingness?

  28. John, you say that you can’t construct the idea of nothing in your mind. I can, so to me it is a logical thing. And I don’t think a rock has a mind, it was not intended to, but humans, animals, ect. were, that is the logic in things. I am also trying to get criticism from both of you, that’s why I’m here, I have decided for some reason in my infinite paths to take, to come to you guys, to tell my philosophy/theory. Why, I don’t know why, should I be here?
    And you both don’t understand everything is actually one, we and everything are all linked because without every single piece nothing would exist, and I know that is not possible it is a paradox, like I said before. Like God creating a rock so heavy he can’t lift it. If you think of comparisons you are really just talking of the same thing in one, and is why you need both or neither exist. Example: Hot is just Cold at a higher temperature, warm is just a preference to the substance in contact. Light and Dark are on the same spectrum, everything comes from one atom. Keep an open mind guys, think logical and help us/me figure it out. Thanks !!!

  29. Nothing existing by itself is impossible. Why would nothing even exist to begin with, and where would it exist? Same questions with God/s theories? I am? Why? Because nothing cannot exist by itself. If there is a God (A being) this is also why and how. Sure wish you guys were awake to talk to.

  30. Jarrod, logical and illogical is what defines or makes a reality. Logic is what makes reality, reality. It is why things are set and defined. It is in all things or things couldn’t be right or wrong to anyone/animal/alien. On a planet that has no gravity like the moon reality is different than here. Logical and illogical thinking will tell you not to fall from a far distance on earth because you will get hurt, but it is not the same on the moon so the reality is different because of environment, this is logic defining the realities.

  31. This is some more questions I have about God. Why would God need to test us if he is all knowing, he already knows our test results? And why are we still learning if we ate from something call The tree of knowlege? See John there is some tangled webs and illogic in your theroy as well. The God theory is hard to beat, because it has so many years of history were people keep fixing the bad logic. Don’t get mad at me John! 😉

  32. Hi Mike,

    I’m afraid my understanding of matter, anti-matter, dark matter and dark energy is that they are all ‘somethings’. Matter and anti-matter have been observed, and dark matter/energy, while at the moment still just theories, may exist, and have effects on other things (the movement of galaxies). They are proposed by cosmologists as a way to explain why galaxies do not move as gravity predicts (the planets behave, why don’t the galaxies – oh maybe there is extra mass hiding out there).

    Now the moon most certainly has gravity, as does a teabag, as do you. The moons gravity is just weaker than the earth’s. I don’t see how that gives the moon a different reality – every point in space has different gravity, do they all have different realities?

    As for Logos, you’re dead right that some greek philosophers felt it was the ‘mechanism’ of the universe, like the clock parts behind the clock-face, that if you understood, you could understand the clock hands deeper. You can see clearly how God, conceived as the mechanism behind the universe equates to Logos. I think the stoics elevated logic to almost divine status!

    As for your term physiological, I think I know what you’re getting at, but the word has already been taken. The suffix ‘-logy’ from the greek ‘logia’ has come to mean the study of (the understanding of the mechanism behind) – like biology (like-study). While ‘physis’ means start or origin, so your definition may be better, but physiology has come to mean the study of ‘life’ (medicine) rather than reality/existance

    Anyway, gotta run to work now!

  33. Do you guys realize that Jesus is the Logos? As He said, ‘Before Abraham was, I AM.’ He was not making a grammatical error, He was telling us that He, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit make up the ‘Godhead’ of the Christian faith, and that as such, He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.

    You should both do some reading about and by this Jesus. That he lived as a man on Earth is historically certain. He was absolutely the most consequential man who ever lived. And He claimed to be one with God. (“I and the Father are one.”) No one before or since has made such a claim – at least no one who was not demonstrably mentally ill. And the former atheist C.S. Lewis put it this way: ““A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic–on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg–or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

    I recommend reading about him from the most reliable source (IMHO), the book of John. Read it in a modern translation, like the 1984 New International Version, or the English Standard Version. Read it like you would a history book. Read it with a willingness to actually learn something profound. Millions who have done so over the last 2000 years have been profoundly changed.

    1. Alas, we talk of logic then make a giant leap to taking a book on uncertain authenticity or authorship to as a foundational pillar. I have read the bible fairly extensively (I have a nice weather-beaten leatherbound NIV which a close family member gave me for my 18th – I have a fairly staunch christian family).
      It is of course a remarkable work, but I cannot ignore the possibility that it is simply an assemblage of writings by people and the possibility that Jesus was a composite character, with a little creative fiction to create a narrative.
      As a scientist first and foremost, logic is in a sense my God, my article of faith, and to treat the Bible as being more than a book is a serious diversion from this approach.
      As I have said before, I envy faith in God, but if I cannot build a logical structure in my mind that compels Gods existence then I simply cannot logically rank Him above the flying spaghetti monster.
      I do not mean to be provocative, I am just explaining why the Bible does not compel me.

  34. That Jesus lived is probably the single most historically verifiable fact in all of ancient history. To relegate him to the realm of mythology is simply illogical denial. And if you had studied the bible as a historically accurate set of ancient writings, which practically every serious student of ancient history contends, you would know that Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies. He was and is the promised Messiah.

    Many scientists insist that they cannot believe something until they see the proof. The reality, as Augustine said is that belief comes before proof. Every hypothesis starts with some idea the scientist wishes to prove. Those who assume God is, find all sorts of evidences that they are right. Those who assume the opposite find evidence just as compelling that they are the ones who are right.

    The prophet Isaiah said, some 600 years before the birth of Christ, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” You can insist that the Bible is not God’s Word. But even if you simply see it as ancient writings, how would you explain his getting that spot on? Clearly the fact that he did cannot be explained by logic, or by the natural realm alone.

    And by the way, you take many things on faith. By assuming it will not ultimately matter what you believe, you put your faith in your own mind. And you bet the farm you’re right. Yet how do you even know that the very thoughts in your own head came from you? You think them, so you assume they were originated by you. Yet there is no proof. You simply believe it.

    Mike is right that some things that do exist do not exist in the natural realm. Information is one example. Every strand of DNA is encoded with massive amounts of information. And in every place in the natural realm where information sends all sorts of scientists scurrying off to try to prove it could have happened naturally, in spite of mathematically incalculable odds it could not have.

    For the better part of my life I struggled with many questions. I wanted somebody to explain to me how I could take such fantastic things on faith without having to leave my brain at the door. I did not have any of the answers when I finally came to the faith. All I knew was that I saw some profound changes in some people I knew very well, and I liked what I saw. I wanted what they had. And I had finally met people who were intelligent, well read, successful and high in character, who were professing Christians. And for the most part, they were more intellectually honest than non-Christians. So in effect, I just gave up. I decided to believe, in order that I could have what they have.

    What happened was totally unexpected. I changed. I saw all kinds of things differently. Things I struggled with were revealed to me. The world and everything in it seemed more satisfying, more complete. And I discovered that there were many, many intelligent, logical people who not only professed faith in Christ, but who lived it and gave Him credit for everything they were.

    So my logical conclusion is that you can be MORE intellectually honest as a Christian than not, and that those who merely accept that as a hypothesis, will discover wonders of the universe they never dreamed would be revealed – and some of them they’ll get before they die!

    I am pulling for you!

  35. Great to hear you’ve got my back in this quest, though I hold little hope, I get seem to get further away from supernatural thinking with passing time. Or maybe my pride (always too powerful) is solidifying, I don’t know.

    However, I can take you up on the question of the verification of the life of Jesus. Most Bible scholars are clearly biased, and many defenders use the Bible to defend the Bible in a crazy circular reference (I hope that’s not what you did above with Isaiah’s fulfilled prediction).

    There are some people (I don’t know where they get the energy) who are trying to build a purely archaeological history of Jesus. For example, The Jesus Project: you can listen to interviews with a few of them here:
    I find some of their points very difficult to reconcile with the pure “Word of God” solution…

  36. Re: Isaiah: Q1 is whether the manuscripts available through archaeology are authentic – not whether they are the word of God, but whether there was a real person named Isaiah and whether the document is an authentic copy of the original writing. (It would be better to have the original, but near as I can tell, ancient writings almost never have originals.) Scholars are nearly unanimous that we have a very close copy of the original text.

    So if he was a real person, and he did say the virgin would be with child, and it is verifiable that it was written 600 some years before the birth of Jesus, we have something that is at least worthy of serious consideration.

    With regard to supernatural, you already believe in it, just in a different form. You know that logically, there is no reason for anything to exist. Yet it does. You have heard that recent discoveries suggest that the universe is not itself eternal – It began. And if all matter, energy, space and time came into existence at a single point, what got the thing started? Every hypothesis of an alternative to creation ‘ex nihilo’ presupposes that one or more of those four things already existed. So what supernatural agent, or event, or mixture of non-natural nature was its cause.

    As for the Jesus Project: wow. They certainly seem like a completely objective bunch! If one reads nothing but the Huffington Post, one gets nothing but the liberal point of view. Why not spend a little time in World magazine, or the Washington Times, or Fox News? It least you’ll get some talking points to use with all your liberal friends. Similarly, spend a little time reading knowledgeable Christian authors. Google William Lane Craig, Nancy Pearcy, or Ravi Zacharais. Also Francis Schaefer.

    Once again, it is a matter of the heart, not the head. I contend you can be more intellectually honest with a Christian worldview, not less. But the paradox is that you will never see it unless you lead with the heart. Love is not something that can be proven or disproven by the scientific method. And neither is faith.

  37. It could be possible that some fugitive aliens escaped their planet, landed on earth, decided to split up, and rule one continent each. They placed their versions of a bible where they were to keep control of us. Had devices like Chris Angel to make them look magical even though it was illusion, and may of had a device that could heal, oh and Mary was abducted and they put their seed in her, it was very easy for them because they looked like humans. HaHaHa, never know though!?!?!?

  38. I think that God is a word to use for everything. God is not a he, God is a he, she, heshe, dog, rock, logic, illogic, infinity and infinity to everything in this list, trash, gold, love, honor, a hart, brain waves, music, all of the elements, energy, nothing, everything GD thing. Without it all, nothing exists and that can’t happen because nothing is something. There is no-thing that is the greatest because of infinity. An All Powerful God cannot create a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it. Even if God does not use logic, if God was in our world God could not do it (the rock thing).

  39. Here is how I can tell that your logical existence is not totally attached to your physical existence. Imagine your logical existence (like a soul) to be a processor for your brain. Your brain holds memory like a computer, short term memories are RAM, and long term memories in your hard drive. Now your brain is like a tuning fork that picks up other logics floating in existence all around you. Your logical existence processes it for your brain. Try to imagine working both sides of your brain at once, left side and right side. Notice the simultaneous effect, left side, rights side, left side, right side, it’s like you are controlling your brain from outside of your body.
    Here is another example. I sometimes get sleep paralysis, when I wake up I can move, breathe, talk, anything but I can see what is around me and I can think, I always wake up in my room or the room I was originally sleeping in so it is not a dream everything is always in the place I left it when I went to sleep. I’ve never woke up in another room while in this state. I have read about it and doctors say that what happens is your mind wakes up but your body doesn’t. I think, I am not controlling my body anymore because I am not in it is the problem. Answer that craziness? Oh, and your brain could be an organtic memory card or like the crystal skulls or a piece of gold or fiber optics?

  40. Even people who have problems like tourettes or mental/physical problems of that sort say that they know inside not to lash out or whatever, but their bodies/brains do. It’s like a bad connection or malfunctioning part in a computer, and the operator/user (soul, logos, logical existence) is doing the right operations but the machine doesn’t work.

    Here’s another weird one I seen on TV long time ago. They were hypnotizing people, and while hypnotized the people start talking in other languages like they were their fluent language, languages that we don’t even use anymore. Kind of sounds a little like reincarnation to me.

  41. “The Word Became Flesh

    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2 He was with God in the beginning.
    3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
    4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.”

    Should read like this:

    1 In the beginning was the Nothing, and the nothing was with logic, and the nothing was logic.
    2 Everything was with Logic in the beginning.
    3 Through everything all things were made; without everything nothing was made that has been made.
    4 In everything was existence and that existence is the physiologic of all creation. The existence shines in the nonexistence, but the nonexistence has not become everything.

    Aliens rewrote he’s version, mine is the logical version. 🙂

  42. Please forgive me, but I am in no position to debate the metaphysical; although it is of course fundamental to seek origins and I do care to understand, I do not see that three people throwing theories into the aether will progress my understanding, and I so don’t have the necessary motivation to meditate deeply on the points made overnight.
    I get genuine reward for starting with more certain understanding (gravity, energy, space) and pushing it carefully forward towards the boundaries of time and distance and examining how they break down.
    The method of leaping wholesale into the unknown leaves me with nothing to build on and ‘anything goes’ out there, including aliens inoculating the continents! Likewise, no-else has the foundation to crush your proposals either. Stalemate that way lies!
    So you are welcome to your Ouruborus, I retreat to the frontiers of my own carefully constructed fortress!
    John, I know you will lament my choice of words, but it is a fortress without mortar, willing to be improved, but on the other hand, built on a single foundation (nay continent) I have previously implied assumes no God, so to go right back and change that assumption would imply starting to build a new fortress on that other rock so populous, so far across the ocean 🙂

  43. Jarrod,
    You have to realize that using science to discover the creation of everything is infinite but not a bad idea. Because we can understand things we don’t understand better by comparing what has been found correct through science. Making life much easier for us all. Looking for God, or looking for the reason why everything got here is like looking for a white dot on a white piece of paper. Like John said you have to use your heart. But remember following your heart leads you to the truth in logic. There will always be a question which means there will always be an answer.
    Imagine looking into outer space it is so large in infinite that you will never see it all, so it must be so small in infinite that there is nothing or the logic of its self to see/imagine. It is all logic. Oh and metaphysics that was the word I was looking for, and it kind of sound like metamorphosis.

  44. “John, I know you will lament my choice of words, but it is a fortress without mortar, willing to be improved, but on the other hand, built on a single foundation (nay continent) I have previously implied assumes no God, so to go right back and change that assumption would imply starting to build a new fortress on that other rock so populous, so far across the ocean :)”

    Ah, yes. Well said. And few are the brave souls willing to set sail before their own personal continent is crumbling beneath their feet. Why not be one of the stout-hearted few who are willing to sail off on the unfounded hope that there may be another whole world to discover?

  45. Two thoughts on Heraclitus. First, as Nancy Pearcey states in Total Truth, “Something has to be taken as self existent – the ultimate reality and source of everything else.” I see no indication that Heraclitus saw logic, as you seem to, as that ultimate reality. (His seem to be either fire, or “universal flux”)

    Second, he seems not to have been a very happy guy. He “died alone, at the age of 70, due to his intense dislike for human company!”, and he was apparently “an arrogant and surly aristocrat, given to eccentric behavior”.

    I commend you for the drive you have to get at the ultimate reality of things. But like most things in life, any gift or talent will ultimately be wasted if not disciplined, trained and challenged. You have an excellent mind. But the longer you delay the pursuit of formal education, the further from the truths you seek you will get.

    He who is a slave to the compass, has the freedom of the seas.

  46. Hi John.
    I read the article and am familiar with the angle of attack.
    Sure matter is insubstantial and hard to pin down, but we have energy, space and fields to think about too.
    Some of the statements made in the article (about subatomic theory) are also not actually fully accepted in the physics community.
    ‘Potentiality’ and the importance of the observer’s role for example – this solution is only one of ways we can explain interference, other ways do not need to invoke these concepts (although it is popular, mainly for its crazy implications rather than its merit).
    In the end it is the writer’s turn of phrase when talking quantum that bothers me. I cannot but help but suspect he does not have enough insight into the variety of approaches available in quantum theory… and thus I can’t help but think he is just doing what he says he isn’t – putting God into that gap. I confess I don’t get quantum theory – no one does – as Richard Feynman said, if you think you understand it…. you don’t understand it.
    But simply not understanding it, and even the possibility that we never will – does not mean we shouldn’t try.

  47. Heraclitus is definitely wrong about Fire because it takes multiple substances to make fire, which means there is still logic’s controlling it. He should have been able to tell fire was in the same boat everything else is, because water kind of works the same way and it is its opposite. But when he talked about the universal flux and how all things have an opposite and those opposites are one in the same and that without one the other isn’t, and that all, is the parts of this “universal flux” (woven logics).
    Could you imagine having all the knowledge of the universe in your head at once, I think it would be so intense that your head would explode; this is how I think things came into physical form. And this doesn’t sound anymore as farfetched as a God theory. How else would you get something physical from nothing? You can create logic with other logic, and you can create physical with other physical, so why couldn’t logic create substance. Considering there is logic behind everything physical and nonphysical (ex. radio waves). Think about every invention created on the planet was first in the form of logic or an idea (and ideas are from the mind, no mind, no idea, but the logic of it will always be) then we use substances to create it. If I die my ideas die with, if they haven’t been told but the logic of it will always be there for anyone to pick up from anywhere to become their idea. That is the difference in logics and ideas to me.
    John I will get back to you on that article tonight, I’ve been doing homework all night.

  48. Heraclitus also said that you can never step into the same waters twice because it is always flowing. Sounds similar to my infinity, time, and existence theory above.

  49. Ok, I think I figured it out, everything has always been, and time is just an illusion. There is no time. There was no start and is no end only new beginning, transformation. Time is just counting to a number at a certain speed to get 24hrs on earth. Go to mars and you would have to speed up earth’s clock to get 24hrs a day/night there. It’s like playing hide and seek, someone counts to a suggested number, and that someone counts it at a certain speed. The only thing that is happening from day to day is that things are changing positions. Today is the same day as yesterday; tomorrow will be the same day as today. Think of what I said above about logic creating substance. In logic or logical form everything is already here, the reason is infinity that logic exists the way it does in physical form. Imagine the thought of infinity with any idea you can think of, to the point you can see it. Humans do it every day when we invent something we just think of it than change the positions of the substances to create anything logically possible. Think of these idea’s, the logic behind them, or their meanings; existence to infinity, substance to infinity, strength to infinity, energy to infinity, determination to infinity, all of this woven together and everything we know and don’t know brings everything to life. What we are in is a bunch of infinite woven logics to infinity each logic having its own meaning and its own individual essence but multiple times, and this weave of logics are changing positions and creating things as they touch, and because of strength or the logic of strength and some other logics things stay solid or together. When other stronger logics come in contact they can transform themselves while still having their same logic/s within, like burning something it turns to smoke but still is the something it was before, just in smaller particles, like your DNA it is created from environments and substances our bodies have come in contact with. Think of clones it is possible to create you/us over and over and over again. Everything you can think of can be, will be, has been, or your mind could not think of it like that infinite number you can never get ahead of and as that number grows it is comprehended by you because it is created before you can think it. All the ideas in your head are the logics of the universe and have been given to you and all things to help create the logics in existence to come to be, like a human making a car. And you say yeah doubt nature could make that we must be made from God. Wrong we are nature to, like wind making a breeze. Why do you think ants work so hard, or bees work so hard? We are part of all the creators we are all Gods in one, though individual. We do exactly what we were meant to do. And with that I will take a break and leave you with this final note to always remember. “You’re never late and never early you arrive precisely when you mean to.” Lord of the Rings quote from Gandalf.

  50. Oh, and Nothing is still the reason it ever was, Nothings logic, its meaning is why Nothing can’t be by itself, yet still be, and why everything has always been (before), * always is (now)*, and can always be (after) always in the now, the transformation. They all must have opposites on the same spectrum.
    Nothingness = without or with no-thing
    Logic = somethingness or nothingness Remember the above: *always is*
    Somethingness = with or without nothing
    Logic is the center point like warm is in hot and cold. Logic defines things like warm defines hot and cold to all in contact
    They will both bounce between their meanings to infinity. Something can even be things like love, nothing can be things without love, something can be a car, and nothing can be no-car. It is endless.

  51. I agree with Jarrod “I can’t help but think he is just doing what he says he isn’t – putting God into that gap.” There will always be questions and always be answers their infinite. Plus, I doubt we will run out of mortar and if we do we will just use something else. There is always another way and a better way.
    I have never had an atheist knock on my door (lol:)) but I have had plenty of religious people knock on my door, so yes, they do seem more presentable but they seem like prisoners of their own belief, and not at all free, free willed. Some religions don’t use technology, wear close to hide their faces, in the past sacrifice, need I go on. If there is a God he wants you to do it on your own, love without a reason unconditionally. To not know he exists or to not believe and to do these things with your own free will is to me a more noble way of life. God does not want you to bow down to him but to hold your head up high, with a divine, honorable, and noble attitudes. The perfect friend for God, and in equal understanding. Birds of a feather flock together. Does a movie star like paparazzi, ok maybe some but only some of the time? I would never ask my daughter to bow down before me. I will become more and more proud as she grows and becomes wise & independent minded. Oh and my daughter will not be any part of the XX number of virgins in heaven for a single man.

  52. My version of time = clock = counter = speed + length.

    Time is just a size or distance; it is a simple measurement used to find how far away in length (a counter at a certain speed) things are from each other. All it is, is a point A to point B equation. It has nothing to do with the illogic of time travel created by science fiction, because we know we are always in the now, and that is logical time travel. Time/clocks/counters are relative to the length and speed (both together change define a time length) things are from one thing to another. A clock is a way to keep track of how far away you are from something on this planet to stay in sync with each other and things globally and sometimes universally.
    I do believe in teleportation like on “The Fly” or warp drives, halo decks, a computer that can create substances made with pure elements and energy, turn your body into energy particles and back to their original form like “Star Trek”. They are wasting their time on time travel. I think scientists will have a chance with the above (warp drives ect.).

  53. Hi Mike,

    Your comments about time got me thinking about time increments, so I just put my ramblings into a new post here:

    As for teleportation, I don’t hold out any hope based on my understanding of time – it would create some very tough contradictions and I am too late in my career to take on the task of addressing them. I am too committed to my present contradiction free model. Of course John Andrew, religious thinkers and many philosophers could (and do) point out the main issue of the hard-core physical/mathematical approach is that it can’t really ever hope to explain things the ‘why’ of things, only the how. We get over that pretty simply by saying there is no why. The universe is pointless. Issue addressed.

    Note: this view also implies there is no right and wrong, by the way, which leads some to think it not only Godless but without morality – yet it seems I’m no psychopath, so go figure!

  54. For you John,

    Atom was first, Eve was before, together now, this is the future.

    Atom is something physical; Eve is something logical. Eve is anything Atom wants to be in equal size. Together they make everything possible.

  55. To find the answer to how everything got here we must try and find what it is that is blind to our eyes, what is alluding our eyes, paralyzing our brains, making us create illusion with dreams of fantasy by removing the material world Earth, then remove the Universe, remove all the Atom there are, and lastly remove the biggest dream of all God. Now that there is nothing out there to remove from existence that we know of, think where would Nothing sit, where would nothing be, would nothing have walls made of nothing to contain it, would it be infinite, why would it even exist, how could it exist? Now that I have created the thought of nothingness in your heads can you see that it is a logical thing that because of logic we and if there is a God exists because nothing is a logical thing and is the opposite of everything your mind can imagine, maybe even a God/s that are stuck in the same sh*t everything else is. There is no end and there is no beginning only change from transformation. Now let me explain the atom. The atoms we see are at the fullest existent of that spectrum of logic, theses atoms can be smaller and larger than our eyes/microscopes/telescopes can see. Each atom contains all possibilities all logical possibilities. This is why time is just a measurement that can be filled with any speed, and the future and past is the now.

    Think of what would happen if the atom was split infinite times..THE BIG BANG, not just a big bang, The Big Bang, in infinite directions.

    I think Atoms are at two speeds. Coming into existence and they will never leave so we can’t catch them all, and going in a direction to its surroundings. The larger the atom/s the more weight, less movement. When an atom is a certain size, weight, ect. it will collect or attract to other atoms of the same.

  56. Jarrod,
    Not sure but if you can make the atoms of the same size/weight/ect (I would imagine very, very small atoms) go in a circular motion (like a tornado) and make the same atoms move in a strait direction (use hot, cold, hot, cold to make them do another circular direction) at the same exact time same speed?, this might create a black hole for a vacuum that will pull micro microscopic atoms into view, not existence because they already exist, but into view?

  57. Mike, are you aware that you speak in oxymorons?

    oxymoron /ˌɒksɪˈmɔːrɒn/
    ▶noun a figure of speech or expressed idea in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.

    Your sentence “Atom was first, Eve was before, together now, this is the future.” would seem to meet that definition.

    I point this out because first, if that is what you actually mean to say, you may be in need of psychiatric help. Another possibility is that you are on mind altering drugs, which also have the effect of making one think he/she is thinking with crystal clarity, when quite the opposite is true. In saying that, I in no way mean that as a put-down or slur. I am simply saying that you are not thinking straight.

    The second reason I point it out is to say that if you really mean something other than what you said you should be told that what you said does not make sense.

    Logical thought requires a progression of thoughts and conclusions. They should have a hierarchy. Foundational ideas are those upon which we can build. New ideas must not cancel the ones upon which they are built. And if they are merely random thoughts, with no foundational basis, they will ultimately fail unless they can be rigorously tested enough that they can become new foundational ideas.

    But if you are going to be an idea gunslinger, you need to learn how to support your ideas with true logic. Oh the irony!

    1. Hear, hear John.
      I can’t really add to that except to reiterate that the start of things is at the limit of where logic can take us, but it is a logical tower we climb to get there and if we are to abandon logic when we get there then we cannot help but fall back down. These comments don’t make sense to me, they float without foundation and thus cannot be built upon.

  58. John, you don’t understand I am not dismissing a God, I am trying to expain how everything got here, no science, no God. Atoms are here, Eve means before (logic or ideas what the heck ever you want to call it) and there never was nothing by its self in existence. This all together is the Now in infinite directions. And no I’m not on drugs.

  59. Thank you Jarrod, “reiterate that the start of things is at the limit of where logic can take us, but it is a logical tower we climb to get there and if we are to abandon logic when we get there then we cannot help but fall back down.” logic is the tiniest form of existence, we and all you can see are at logic or whatever you want to call its fullest existence.

  60. Stem cells are a way we will keep from falling back down that ladder and eventually the world will need to work together to start planet jumping because the earth will not last forever. The people of the world will not work together with many religions so to remove them all and do as I said above and be Gods equal (hold head up high and love unconditionally) rather than follower will be the only way we will survive. Stem cells are the cup of life.

  61. Yeah, and don’t abandon the logic in the fact that if you put your hand in fire for to long it will not be a hand anymore.”New ideas must not cancel the ones upon which they are built.” Only transformation.

  62. Mike,

    My primary issue is that your statements don’t all fit together like a neat puzzle in the way, say, Aristotle’s did. His arguments hang together as a comprehensive model of how things are – his models made predictions and could be used to inform questions of ethics, morality and sociology. Of course he was found wrong on many subjects, and we have improved his model using the scientific method. We have mixed and matched the ideas of many philosophers and scientists, but always with an eye on the coherence of the model.

    Your arguments lack this coherence and thus do not seem to predict or inform. They need to at least make such a promise to convince people like me to consider them properly.

    You also seem to be trying to answer a question I have never asked. At the risk of inspiring more, I have to ask – what is the question you are answering, and then ask yourself, do I have the incentive to want to know the answer?

    A key part of engaging other people in refining your theories is to keep them interested, it’s a little bit of give and take. This discussion is unfortunately too one-sided with John and I expending effort but the reward is unclear.

    At the moment, to be blunt & honest, the only thing that motivates me to answer is best summed up in the old cartoon:

  63. None of my ideas come from the internet. How would I even know what to type into Google search bar unless I questioned it to myself first?

    Time travel being impossible, time is an illusion, and Logic being that paradox we think is God, would be a couple of those. You just have to imagine as I am and do, how, and why everything is even here, God, us, everything.

    I removed all things I knew, and thought deep and of course a place of nothing came to mind. I said to myself where would nothing be if nothing was to exist by its self, and it must be infinite, with no stopping point. I then said to myself nothing could not exist if it had no place to exist, nothing inside of nothing, how would nothing even get here, and why. I thought hmm the opposite of nothing is something that was there, and nothing is an idea of a physical thing or anything missing. I figured the smallest thing that could ever exist would be an idea but then I thought no that is what you think of, stupid ideas are even out there and everything has a system and behold Logic came to mind, it is the system. Nothing and Something, anything must be logic at the same time it is physical. The now and forever, always was. Atoms carry out that system perfectly. Transformation of the atoms is what is happening not age. The logical idea of you or anything will always be if it ever has. How else would you see yourself to begin with is that not crazy enough?

    Does this make sense?

  64. The transformation is in the atoms, and the logic stays the same. The atoms that make up you will be different atoms your next life, John you might look like Jarrod next life but inside will still be you. We are both logic and atoms right now. The idea of a human, the idea of John and Jarrod and not your names but you inside will always be a logical existence. I often wonder how many individual people could exist at one time. I think that I heard that the bible says that there are only 5,000,000,000 souls made, but we have exceeded that number. There are around 6,500,000,000 people on earth. If there is infinity we may be transformed to another plain of logic and never come back here?

  65. Jarrod,

    I’ve used fps to explain time, but now I know you can’t because a camera doesn’t see in infinite frames. (The speed of reality, I will explain later) I was actually writing about that scenario before you posted your article, “Does time flow in baby steps?”. I learned a new word “Planck time” I will have to look into its meaning when I have time, kind of sounds like the speed of reality I just mentioned. I am working on my finals for this quarter of school, wife, 3 kids, work, and a life, so it is hard to respond to all of your comments and it is hard to give total detail to my ideas. John thinks he knows it all, so all I can do is tell him my ideas, he knows we both know his and his theory make’s life less adventurous  Once I go on break I will write it all more clearly. I do think if you can think it, it probably is, God could exist. I can think of the meaning behind or the logic of a God, though I think God and all of us are part of this amazing miracle of existence that is here before us. I have been learning my theory as I think and talk about it when I have time. I without a doubt know you can’t play with time because it is an illusion, it fits with the infinity scenario I explained above you can’t get ahead an infinite number.


    My theory explains the alpha-omega why/how it has always been, why time is an illusion, think how can you go back in forth in time if it is always the “Now”, the alpha-omega.
    Like I said when I go on break I will explain all of it perfectly and give you both some of the give instead of the take, as you say Jarrod.

  66. I just have to say, not in a mean way but, I am just wondering how anything could be here including a God. I am the only one thinking clearly, both of you aren’t thinking outside the box. Jarrod, you can’t think that how we got here is just plain physical stuff, why is it here? John, did you not know, a creator is a creation? To think I am on drugs, because I believe in finding a logical answer, with format, while you believe in something you have never seen is the only hot irony being thrown around here. I could say the same to you. I like what Jarrod said. “There is indeed an elephant in the room.” If we fill the gaps with God every time, we stop learning and learning is infinite. It would be a boring place if we knew it all.

  67. Read this like a poem,

    They say there was no beginning, and that there is no end. They say that alpha-omega, is one in the same. They say it is the thing you seek. They say it is how you think. They say God said I’m what you speak, I am, I am the one named Mink. They say God tested us with tree, and one bad serpent full of greed. They say God can’t, control what we do; God gave us free will, so that we would be true. They say God made the light before us, to see the dark that’s filled with horrors. They say God created good and evil; it’s just a thin point, like the tip of a needle. They say God is infinite in all directions. They say God is, without correction.

    Now it has come to my attention, they never said, or even mentioned. God is the something, that came from nothing, and like him We aren’t assumption. This is all of creation, thumping, thumping from sensation. Why we wonder, how this too. What is something, who is too. But when you look real far you’ll see, it’s there the Logic flowing free. Logic is the only function, that makes this place not just presumption. Take my words they are from me, I give them to you all for free.


  68. Ha ha, that’s why I like you Jarrod, you’re a cool dude. John, you are as cool as well but you should lighten up, because you have no proof either of your theory only ancient writings and as I explore my theory I find mine are somewhat too. Jarrod should really be accusing the both of us for being on drugs; we both are speaking of invisible things that can never be proven. Though it’s the combination of the three of us that make good movies.

    I will return when I have a Complete theory to tell you both. But here’s a little science for you Jarrod.

    Do you think that the fossil fuels we are pulling from the ground are taking away fuel for/from the earth’s core, and also creating cavities? The cavities could leave pockets that will fill with gas, as the pressures in space smash down on earth those cavities fill and volcanos erupt from the gas pressures or even earthquakes? We had an earthquake the other day in VA. The question came to my mind that day. Yeah, I think a lot.

  69. Mike,
    We are on firmer ground when asking me to talk about digging things up from underground as this is my day-job. The earth’s core is kept warm by radioactivity spread thinly throughout the mantle and core. We only mine oil and gas from very close to the surface relatively, and usually we are mining stuff that was once a swamp or forest, so part of the natural ‘churn’ anyway. So I think damage will never be too huge, but there is real risk of sinkholes, water-way contamination, and of course the big cahuna, global warming. If you want something to worry about, look no further. The last time all our carbon was out of the ground, the weather was hot and the sea was deep. Nuff said.

  70. Here is my latest write.

    John, I think everything is the Higgs boson.

    Consider Nothing the first thing in existence just for a second. Think of Nothing not existing, what would there be; take Nothing away what would be left. That’s right, still Nothing and an infinite amount of it. Or if you think logically if you take Nothing away you will still have something left. Think about it. Why is anything even here at all even nothing. Reason, because even if you take all of it away including Nothing there is still NOTHING. Now think of what nothing is made of. It is not something you can touch, or really even see because there is always a something to see where nothing is or something was, always, even if it is just darkness. So as we can see nothing can only be made of “Logic” an idea of something that is not there, something that was there, or something that can be there. And you think logic is the same as an idea, wrong. Ideas are individual, logic is for all. Think about every invention created on the planet was first in the form of logic then idea (and ideas are from the mind, no mind, no idea, but the logic of it will always be) then we use substances/atoms to create it. If I die my ideas die with, if they haven’t been told but the logic of it will always be there for anyone to pick up from anywhere to become their idea. That is the difference in logic’s and ideas to me.

    Nothing the opposite of everything, any possible or impossible things logical and physical you can and can’t see, touch, think of, ect, ect. Nothing can be ANYTHING missing. Nothing of this, and nothing of that. As Something comes from the Nothing that something is a logic also, and always. Ok, you now wonder how does it become physical. Imagine all the things that can be or are meant to be physical like your body, a rock, an animal, a computer, a TV, a watch. These things are in logic to be as physical things so they are. They are, and are in the form of atoms. Even Nothing is in the form of atoms, microscopic atoms, actually beyond nano size atoms infinitely small a black hole is I think the smallest we know of. Think of splitting a hair in half, then split that half of hair in half, keep doing this and that hair becomes Nothing it becomes logic of what it can be, or was, or is. A hair is a bunch of atoms. Atoms are the physical things of logic. Now imagine things that can’t be physical only logical. Love, hate, wisdom, good, evil, time, or speed and many more. These things are as logic because they were not meant to be physical. Here is the funny thing, all things have always existed so nothing was never first, nothing is just why something like everything we know and see can and must exist, Nothing is the true miracle of all existence including a God if there is one. Nothing is the cause of something, nothing is logic that is the uncaused cause, and nothing is the inevitable. Nothing can’t exist without Something here to say there is nothing there this is the alpha-omega. Logic is our creator and the logic behind nothing is why. God is not a being, God is everything Logical and Physical including you that is the real meaning of God. God cannot do anything for you because God has already done everything; God is everything, unless you help yourself or others do that is all the help you get from God because everything is God including the others of course. And I mean God is all the Logical and the Physical things around you. There is no end ,and there is no beginning only transformation of the atoms in the present, time is an illusion. Oh and we are all logic, logic is like an idea, idea’s never die, so we are eternal we will be back, we are logical ideas that if ever known to be created will always be, have always been, and also haven’t been, but Never won’t be. The transformation is the unknown as we use science we will find more but never all.

    God did not create anything, God is EVERYTHING.

  71. John,

    “Mike, are you aware that you speak in oxymorons?

    oxymoron /ˌɒksɪˈmɔːrɒn/
    ▶noun a figure of speech or expressed idea in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.

    Your sentence “Atom was first, Eve was before, together now, this is the future.” would seem to meet that definition.”

    You of all people I would have thought could understand this the most. Alpha-Omega, before and after, all in one. Thats what it means.

    You guys know that in religion there is time and in science there is time yet both say that it is possible there can be no time. Science says there was a start from nothing in a place with no time yet they say you can time travel (if you could you may travel back to where there is no time and that makes no sense) and religion says there was a start in time from God and outside of our physical world/universe there is no time (where God is). So will you guys just agree that time is an illusion. Time is just the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd dimension in the time/speed/length equation before a complete transformation. To us time is what it is because, we made up Length measurements, then we made up Speed measurements, then Time just fell in place or was it Speed fell into place, anyway. It is the other of three measurements that give us a way to find equation when only two of the dimensions are available. Time determines how far away something or something’s are from contact or transformation. Once in contact a possible transformation happens if the time gap is filled. The time length is still not finished when things touch, to us once two things meet that is the end or time/speed/length is at zero but that is wrong. In between there is still space to fill. When the length is at zero and I don’t mean when surfaces touch I mean when the objects combine the time gap is filled to a certain extent never completely filled though this would mean that the atoms that made something to begin with don’t exist which would make no change or transformation, they just become real close, Hehe. Time does not determine how long we have existed it determines how close or how far apart the atoms have gotten from/to each other. Physical things have time lengths Logical one’s don’t that is why Logic is the engine for its possibility it doesn’t need time to be here. Fire or heat is I think the closest Atom in time. If you put something in fire it only has a short amount of time (length before complete transformation) before it is toast. This is because when the time gap is filling transformation is faster because fire is closest to all things in existence. I say with fire being the atom you want to make transformation with, things will transform faster because fire is the closest atom; so cold must be the furthest atom in existence or time. Even when things that are not as hot as fire come in contact with other certain things, transformations or reactions will still occur slower, and sometimes just small and unnoticed ones sometimes putting things in stases or making them dormant. Though what is weird and tells you things are infinite and all one is that cold can also transform things very fast. That is the spectrum of all things they can be infinite in temp, speed, length, time, seconds. Everything has its own time but in a time, that last time I just mentioned is existence “plank time” (there I used it). Think of internet games were an environment is created this environment is where things can exist and this environment is its own existence, but all of the things in this environment exist separately but can still interact. The players and objects are the separate existences.

    I am not trying to say that any of what I write is the way it is for sure but it is what I’ve noticed and makes for new insight considering no one can explain with full explanation how we things even exist.

    Oh and here’s another try to think of a New Color that no one knows of. If you can do you think you made that color or do you think that the color has always existed? Logic created it first!!!

  72. Oh for the above, why do they call Eve, Eve when she came second? The word eve means before the coming of something. Why call her Eve unless she came before? Answer that John, or is the name BS? Wasn’t the bible written in Hebrew? Maybe translated it isn’t Eve; though how do you translate a name anyway a name is a name because of the way it is pronounced. Never quite understood that I mean you can translate an objects name because we all know what we are talking about but a name is not something you can explain it is a sound a familiar sound or it isn’t your name, so weird. Or does the name Eve, and Eve (the before meaning) in Hebrew mean the same, that is why it means the same in English. If so it would mean before like I said above. And Eve came first or before anything.

  73. Mike, I still feel this argument has run it’s course; I am not convinced that ‘logic’ as an entity can bear the responsibilities you give it; furthermore, your method of debate is also unpredictable, all-over-the-shop – which is tiring and does not give your fellow debater the satisfaction of a point settled. For example, what is the point of debating whether Eve is a good name for the first women in the bible? Any dictionary will tell you the Hebrew root is ‘life/living’, which you could look up; and anyway who cares if the word is not ‘perfect’? For me a good debate requires work by all parties, think through your own arguments before you expect others to; you can’t just have fun flow-of-consciousness and expect us to pick through it with fine tooth combs hoping for gems; it takes effort to digest your long posts, so to do so, I need the promise of a reward, and without it, I, like most anybody would, simply move on…

  74. I thought I was talking of science or a theory, with the time thing. I wrote the Eve thing for John. I am really trying to elaborate or give better understanding to the Nothing thing that scientists say we came from. And is what I said we came from before scientists said it to the world. People aren’t just going to believe that we came from nothing. And all the scientific mumbo-jumbo really doesn’t explain it in a way anyone can understand it. My theory takes both science and religion and puts them together. There is a physical and nonphysical reason we are here, not just one or the other, both or we would have never thought of either, duh. And all of it can be explained with science, all of it has an explanation. Even the invisible crap has explanation. I mean you think and you are physical so why does anyone think that we are just physical. I mean why would there be to forms in idea if only one existed. Come on Jarrod, you know your brain produces nonphysical things (ideas) see, so it can’t just be a physical world it has to be both.

  75. I know not all of the pieces fit in my theory, I do read them over before I post them. They are just ideas though and I am throwing them all out there on purpose because they are all in my head. I was hoping to get others including you two to untangle them with me. Because a lot of them do have worth and are worth debate. Or at least I thought they would be?

  76. Without your brain your body doesn’t work or at least most of the parts of the body. And I know you know it but I will say anyway that in your subconscious things are running your body parts without you even knowing it. This means that it takes thought of some sort to make things work in the body. Thought (Logic) is the engine running your body. For the things that don’t have a brain that exist don’t need a brain because that is logic and is why I say Logic created everything not ideas, ideas would imply that a God created it and that is not what created us because you still need an answer to what created God. Your brain just makes your parts work together.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *