Posted on 04/05/2009 8:10:35 PM PDT by betty boop
The Atheist Perversion of Reality
By Jean F. Drew
Atheism we have always had with us it seems. Going back in time, what was formerly a mere trickle of a stream has in the modern era become a raging torrent. Karl Marx’s gnostic revolt, a paradigm and methodology of atheism, has arguably been the main source feeding that stream in post-modern times.
What do we mean by “gnostic revolt?” Following Eric Voëgelin’s suggestions, our definition here will be: a refusal to accept the human condition, manifesting as a revolt against the Great Hierarchy of Being, the most basic description of the spiritual order of universal reality.
The Great Hierarchy is comprised of four partners: God–Man–World–Society, in their mutually dynamic relations. Arguably all the great world religions incorporate the idea of this hierarchy. It is particularly evident in Judaism and Christianity. One might even say that God’s great revelation to us in the Holy Bible takes this hierarchy and the relations of its partners as its main subject matter. It has also been of great interest to philosophers going back to pre-Socratic times — and evidently even to “anti-philosophers” such as Karl Marx.
In effect, Marx’s anti-philosophy abolishes the Great Hierarchy of Being by focusing attention mainly on the God and Man partners. The World and Society partners are subsidiary to that, and strangely fused: World is simply the total field of human social action, which in turn translates into historical societal forms.
Our principal source regarding the Marxist atheist position is Marx’s doctoral dissertation of 1840–1841. From it, we can deduce his thinking about the Man partner as follows:
(1) The movement of the intellect in man’s consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe. A human self-consciousness is the supreme divinity.
(2) “Faith and the life of the spirit are expressly excluded as an independent source of order in the soul.”
(3) There must be a revolt against “religion,” because it recognizes the existence of a realissimum beyond human consciousness. Marx cannot make man’s self-consciousness “ultimate” if this condition exists.
(4) The logos is not a transcendental spirit descending into man, but the true essence of man that can only be developed and expressed by means of social action in the process of world history. That is, the logos is “immanent” in man himself. Indeed, it must be, if God is abolished. And with God, reason itself is abolished as well: To place the logos in man is to make man the measure of all things. To do so ineluctably leads to the relativization of truth, and to a distorted picture of reality.
(5) “The true essence of man, his divine self-consciousness, is present in the world as the ferment that drives history forward in a meaningful manner.” God is not Lord of history, the Alpha and Omega; man is.
As Voëgelin concluded, “The Marxian spiritual disease … consists in the self-divinization and self-salvation of man; the intramundane logos of human consciousness is substituted for the transcendental logos…. [This] must be understood as the revolt of immanent consciousness against the spiritual order of the world.”
How Marx Bumps Off God
So much for Marx’s revolt. As you can see, it requires the death of God. Marx’s point of theocidal departure takes its further impetus from Ludwig von Feuerbach’s theory that God is an imaginary construction of the human mind, to which is attributed man’s highest values, “his highest thoughts and purest feelings.”
In short, Feuerbach inverts the very idea of the imago Dei — that man is created in the image of God. God is, rather, created by man, in man’s own image — God is only the illusory projection of a subjective human consciousness, a mere reflection of that consciousness and nothing more.
From this Feuerbach deduced that God is really only the projected “essence of man”; and from this, Feuerbach concluded that “the great turning point of history will come when ‘man becomes conscious that the only God of man is man himself.’”
For Marx, so far so good. But Marx didn’t stop there: For Feuerbach said that the “isolated” individual is the creator of the religious illusion, while Marx insisted that the individual has no particular “human essence” by which he could be identified as an isolated individual in the first place. For Marx, the individual in reality is only the sum total of his social actions and relationships: Human subjectivity has been “objectified.” Not only God is gone, but man as a spiritual center, as a soul, is gone, too.
Marx believed that God and all gods have existed only in the measure that they are experienced as “a real force” in the life of man. If gods are imagined as real, then they can be effective as such a force — despite the “fact” that they are not really real. For Marx, it is only in terms of this imaginary efficacy that God or gods can be said to “exist” at all.
Here’s the beautiful thing from Marx’s point of view: Deny that God or the gods can be efficacious as real forces in the life of man — on the grounds that they are the fictitious products of human imagination and nothing more — and you have effectively killed God.
This insight goes to the heart of atheism. In effect, Marx’s prescription boils down to the idea that the atheist can rid himself and the world at large of God simply by denying His efficacy, the only possible “real” basis of His existence. Evidently the atheist expects that, by his subjective act of will, he somehow actually makes God objectively unreal. It’s a kind of magic trick: The “Presto-Changeo!” that makes God “disappear.”
Note that, if God can be gotten rid of by a stratagem like this, so can any other aspect of reality that the atheist dislikes. In effect, the cognitive center which — strangely — has no “human essence” has the power of eliminating whatever sectors of objective reality it wants to, evidently in full expectation that reality itself will allow itself to be “reduced” and “edited down” to the “size” of the atheist’s distorted — and may we add relentlessly imaginary? — conception.
To agree with Marx on this — that the movement of the intellect in man’s “divine” consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe — is to agree that human thought determines the actual structure of reality.
Instead of being a part of and participant in reality, the atheist claims the power to create it as if he himself were transcendent to, or standing outside or “beyond” reality. As if he himself were the creator god.
This type of selective operation goes a long way towards explaining the fanatical hostility of many Darwinists today regarding any idea of design or hierarchy in Nature — which, by the way, have always been directly observable by human beings who have their eyes (and minds) open. What it all boils down to seems to be: If we don’t like something, then it simply doesn’t exist.
We call the products of such selective operations second realities. They are called this because they are attempts to displace and finally eliminate the First Reality of which the Great Hierarchy of Being — God–Man–World–Society — is the paradigmatic core.
First Reality has served as the unifying conceptual foundation of Western culture and civilization for the past two millennia at least. What better way to destroy that culture and civilization than an all-out attack on the Great Hierarchy of Being?
Thus we see how the gnosis (“wisdom”) of the atheist — in this particular case, Marx — becomes the new criterion by which all operations in (the severely reduced and deformed) external reality are to be conducted, understood, and judged.
Conclusion
Marx is the self-proclaimed Paraclete of an a-borning utopia in which man will be “saved” by being reduced to essentially nothing. With God “gone,” man, as we denizens of First Reality know him, disappears also.
But whatever is left of him becomes a tool for social action. He becomes putty in the hands of whatever self-selected, self-proclaimed Paraclete seeking to promote his favored Second Reality du jour (usually for his own personal benefit) manages to stride onto the public stage and command an audience.
Such a charmed person blesses himself with the power to change human society and history forever, to bring about man’s self-salvation in a New Eden — an earthly utopia— by purely human means.
Of course, there’s a catch: As that great denizen of First Reality, Sir Thomas More, eminently recognized, the translation into English of the New Latin word “utopia” is: No-place.
In short, human beings can conjure up alternative realities all day long. But that doesn't mean that they can make them “stick.” Reality proceeds according to its own laws, which are divine in origin, and so cannot be displaced by human desire or volition, individually or collectively.
And yet the Marxian expectation argues otherwise.
Out of such fantastic, idiotic, specifically Marxian/atheist foolishness have great revolutions been made. And probably will continue to be made — so long as psychopaths hold the keys to the asylum.
Note:
All quotations from Eric Voëgelin’s article, “Gnostic Socialism: Marx,” in: The Collected Works of Eric Voëgelin, Volume 26 — History of Political Ideas: Crisis and the Apocalypse of Man. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1999.
©2009 Jean F. Drew
April 4, 2009
My friend — the astrophysicist Attila Grandpierre, Senior Researcher at the Konkoly Observatory of the Hungarian Academy of Science — conjectures the following (in The Book of the Living Universe, as yet unpublished in English):
We point out that virtual particles are ideal tools for biological organization. The spatial position and timing of creating and absorbing a virtual photon is allowed by quantum physics. Therefore, virtual photons can be created in due time to realize biologically useful couplings which serve as the physical basis for biological functions.Thus as Alamo-Girl has pointed out, in this model, the "sea" of virtual photons would be the communications channel of Shannon theory.On this basis, we can expect that biological organization acts within the realm of virtual photons; i.e., below the quantum level. According to our proposal, virtual photons realize the timing of biochemical processes as well as the activation of the biologically useful biochemical reactions that could not occur in the absence of activation. This means that virtual interactions and biological organization can hold the key to a full understanding of the forces of nature. Therefore, our proposal tells that at all interactions in which the vacuum can play a role, biological effects can be present.
Perhaps needless to say, Dr. Grandpierre seems not to regard physics as the "largest model," with biology a "special case" of that model. His proposal involves the conjecture that biology itself is the "largest model," and physics is a special case of it.
That's a very bold and daring thing to say nowadays. There's a huge pushback from the orthodox science community, to say the least, when a person says such a thing....
[[Still it seems to me that questions regarding the “intelligent organizer”]]
Ragarding the intelligent designer Himself is perhaps beyond science, but regarding His work, how He worked, What methods He used, How He accomplished them is not beyond the scope of science i nthe least it seems to me- given that all forensics science needs to do is show the how, not hte who (DNA evidence not withstanding- that’s a different issue in forensics nowadays, but does not udnermine the reliability of the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ conclusions of hte past- while some cases might be proven wrong by DNA today, the VAST VAST majority of cases based simpyl on forensic annaylisis of hte how stil lstand as viable beyond resonable doubt conclusions
Macroevolutionary science certainly has nothign akin to DNA forensics to disprove God was hte Creator, Heck, they haven’t even got litmus tests to prove mutaitons were capable of violating scientifi laws- let alone address the Creator Hismelf- butr science does have hte tools and hte means to investigate the how
I’ll jhave to read your friend’s statements more carefully later- I spoke with a fella that theorized that water, under great pressure, created light, and experiments have confirmed this- He theorized that this light was the first light spoken of in hte bible, and htat it had implications in other areas as well- I’ll see if I can’t find his articles now- He took his argument to Darwin Central I beleive it was, but got hammered there (Per usual- as per hteir petty tactics of argue via attackign hte messenger)- but college professors were pretty impressed with his theories form what I gathered-
I’m sorry- it was on sound producing light- not water producing light- Matter moving accordign to that which is spoken- in otherwords, matter responding to cummonication- light beign produced by communicaiton, light transporting the message, etc- Here’s a quote from him:
“But here is the kicker: information only comes from a mind—and EVERYTHING in the universe is a body of information in the form of energy. It is held together by mathematics and belief. The transmission vehicle for any thought is what? The only one —the spoken Word (also written= different form).”
His name was Samson Dakato- Can’t find hte link to his site right now though- but Google might bring it up under somethign liek “Samson Dakota light hteory”
and your definition of final cause
Lastly, the final cause (telos) is the end or purpose for which the Boeing 747 exists.
You can't separate 'final cause' from 'someone's purpose.' Unless you want to change your definition of final cause.
Yes it is a myth. I can see that I am making progress : )
Or to me either, CottShop. Indeed, science deals with the "how" of things, not the "why" of things. The universe manifests the "how." It can be profitably studied without regard to its "why."
I very much appreciated the following insight from Robert Rosen, in Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life (p. 183). This is in Chapter 7, and he's not yet speaking directly of living systems, but of those material systems in Nature that we call machines. But the same observation holds for living systems as well:
But what, exactly, is a machine? What is the intrinsic, distinguishing characteristic that separates machines from material systems that are not machines? The most obvious distinction, e.g., between a machine and a stone, is that the former is fabricated and the latter is not, but this is worse than useless for the machine metaphor. For one thing, it involves the history of a thing, rather than any intrinsic characteristic; for another, it invokes aspects of intentionality that are simply unacceptable in this context.To avoid these difficulties, and yet retain the machine metaphor, there is nothing to fall back on except the organization to which I have already referred, something that Descartes could already notice. What distinguishes a material system as a machine, as distinct from a stone or a crystal, must somehow reflect its intrinsic organization. Where the organization has come from is now irrelevant; fabrication, and history in general, do not enter the matter at all. Such concepts pertain to a different order of question; an order that we must not invoke in characterizing machineness per se, but that we must not forget, either. [I added the boldface for emphasis; italics in the original.]
Not so, LeGrande. It is entirely possible to regard a final cause independently of its causal agency (i.e., "someone's purpose"). See Post #1007 for an example of how this can be done.
Fascinating, CottShop! I'll have to Google Samson Dakato and see if I can find his article!
Thank you ever so much for writing!
No, you are just trying to put an extra layer of confusion in between the 'final cause' and the creation.
And on an earlier post you claimed that the odds against life are huge, which is interesting. It is true that the odds are incredibly high against a dozen die all coming up 6's at once, but if you roll the dozen die and collect the 6's each time it will generally take less than a dozen rolls to get all 6's.
Perhaps the greatest disservice to science came when people started trying to compute odds of unknown variables and come up with finite results. True, math may be unreasonably effective sometimes, but it is useless without data to back it up.
Now you are attributing personal motives to me of which you can have no direct knowledge whatsoever.
You wrote: "True, math may be unreasonably effective sometimes, but it is useless without data to back it up."
Which seems to miss the point that where math is unreasonably effective, the data "backs it up."
I have to tell you of my very strong sense of where "contemporary science" is nowadays. It's as if the entire scientific community has willfully shut itself up in a very small, cramped, and by now thoroughly stuffy and foetid room — and promises to destroy anyone who tries to open a door or window, so to let in light and fresh air. Metaphorically, to me the situation is akin to that described by Plato in his famous Myth of the Cave....
Because science is fundamentally a public enterprise (according to Einstein and Bohr at least), this is a very concerning situation to me.
JMHO FWIW.
Where science is used to promote a political, religious, or moneyed agenda I would have to agree, but it has always been that way. Many people would rather die than change their opinion.
It is certainly true (based on my observation) that "many people would rather die than change their opinion." Somehow I believe that you do not fit that category. I do have reason to believe that you care about Truth. Call it basic intuition....
LeGrande, what of the case when "many people" are attempting to use science as a means either of (1) supposedly disproving the existence of God; or (2), in grudging acknowledgement that that is an exercise in futility, then settling for "second-best": supposedly proving that God is entirely irrelevant to anything pertaining to the natural world?
Boiling it all down, where do we humans get the universal idea of Truth from in the first place, if there is no universal standard by which it can be (1) identified (perceived); (2) known; and (3) relied on? [Check out the seeming paradox implicit in that statement.]
There is nothing in the natural world that is "universal enuf" to serve as a ground for Truth, to provide an ultimate criterion on which logic could be constructed. So to speak. Everything "here" — i.e., within the range of direct human experience — is finite; i.e., "in time." Yet universality has the essential quality or property of timelessness. The quality of universality is what makes a law of Nature a LAW....
I do believe that is the very insight at the heart of Descartes' observation that the idea of God is the necessary foundation of every other idea we have or could ever have, including the idea of the personal self, or (as he put it) the ego.
Jeepers, contemporary science's apparent monomania on this issue appears to me to utterly "queer the deal" when it comes to the quest, the search for Truth.
JMHO (resting on many great ones), FWIW.
The odds are nothign like a dozen die comming up all sixes- the odds are overwhelmingly impossible:
“A commenter suggested that he could throw five decks of cards into the air and the combination that would fall to the floor, the order of those cards, would illustrate to me the reason I am wrong about statistics. The odds would be wildly against that particular order of cards to have occurred and would be completely unlikely to occur again should he devote his life to throwing cards up in the air. Yet it happened!
Here is the answer: Throw the five decks of cards up in the air until they fall to earth in one neat stack, sorted by suit and consecutively by value. Then we can talk. For you see, the Huxley Horse argument is still misunderstood. The absolutely ridiculous odds against a horse ever evolving were one over (In Huxley’s own words):”The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print! ... no one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened.”
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/06/odds-against-evolution-beginnings.html
THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM
Coincidence is a mathematical term and the possibility of an event’s occurrence can be calculated using the mathematics of probability.
The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. The phrase “extremely unlikely” is inadequate to describe this possibility.
Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.
According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10^10^123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10 to the 123rd means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 10 to the 78th believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose’s answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10^123 zeros.
Or consider: 10^3 means 1,000, a thousand. 10^10^3 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it’s called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10^123 zeros.
In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10^50 means “zero probability”. Penrose’s number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose’s number tells us that the ‘accidental” or “coincidental” creation of our universe is an impossibility.
Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10^123 successive 0’s. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a “product of coincidences” one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God’s existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs.
DNA Molecules and the Overwhelming Odds Against Spontaneous Generation
Within each cell there is an area called the nucleus which contains the all-important chromosomes. [133] Chromosomes are microscopically small, rod-shaped structures which carry the genes. Within the chromosomes is an even smaller structure called DNA. [134] This is one of the most important chemical substances in the human body or in any other living thing. Increasing scientific understanding of DNA molecules has revealed enormous problems for materialism.
DNA is a super-molecule which stores coded hereditary information. It consists of two long “chains” of chemical “building blocks” paired together. In humans, the strands of DNA are almost 2 yards long [approx. 1.82 meters], yet less than a trillionth of an inch thick [approx. 0.0000254 microns]. [135
In function, DNA is somewhat like a computer program on a floppy disk. It stores and transfers encoded information and instructions. It is said that the DNA of a human stores enough information code to fill 1,000 books each with 500 pages of very small, closely-printed type. [136] The DNA code produces a product far more sophisticated than that of any computer.
Amazingly, this enormous set of instructions fits with ease within a single cell and routinely directs the formation of entire adult humans, starting with just a single fertilized egg. Even the DNA of a bacterium is highly complex, containing at least 3 million units [137], all aligned in a very precise, meaningful sequence.
DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism a miniaturized marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet! [138]
Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. [139] No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA.
Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 1040,000 that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000th is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it! [140]
How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old [141], and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th (1018) seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! [142]
In other words, probabilities enormously favor the idea that an intelligent designer was responsible for even the simplest DNA molecules.
Chemist Dr. Grebe:
“That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code.” [143]
Researcher and mathematician I.L. Cohen:
“At that moment, when the the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt. …the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today.” [144]
Evolutionist Michael Denton:
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.” [145]
Famed researcher Sir Fred Hoyle is in agreement with Creationists on this point. [146] He has reportedly said that supposing the first cell originated by chance is like believing “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” [147]
The notion that… the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. [140]
—Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle
Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes. [148] Many Evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures. [149]
Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this “master program” could only have originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture.
Dr. Wilder-Smith was an honored scientist with three earned doctorate degrees. He was well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What, in his considered opinion, was the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal?
“… an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA… is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information.” [150]
“As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell.
There is an author which transcends the material and the matter of which these strands are made. The author first of all conceived the information necessary to make a cell, then wrote it down, and then fixed in it a mechanism of reading it and realizing it in practice so that the cell builds itself from the information…” [151]
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html
FReepMail 4U...
I found his site: http://www.scienceprovescreation.com/
Click on ‘intro’ for info about his hteory- basically it builds on ‘string theory’ (or superstring theory), evidences for oscillations of everything in the universe, which he beleives is residual evidneces showing that creation was caused by voice- very interesting stuff- Even hte rocks shall cry out to God in the end- and htis may be that even hte rocks are part of htis superstring theory which shows evidneces of oscillations which will cumul,ate and declare God’s creation in the end- God did say there is plenty of evidence that He exists and created everyhting- and htis may just be another proof/evidence of His creation:
“Brian said “The winds of change, according to superstring theory, gust through an Aeolian universe.” What he means by this is that he doesn’t know how to explain what is happening. “Aeolian” is the state of giving forth musical sounds, produced as if by the wind; of or relating to Aeolus who is the little g god of the wind in classical mythology. Here he is trying to say that some unknown force is at work and they don’t know what that force is. He would even attribute the force to a false god and not the real God; bewildering. There is a beginning and a cause to everything that is part of natural creation, and superstrings, plucked by the power of God’s word, are instrumental to that effect; as we will soon provide evidence for.
“This relationship shows that matter can be spoken into existence by a sonic influence. Since there is a mathematical relationship between all matter and sound, matter can not only be manipulated by sound, i.e. melting ice, breaking glass, boiling water, manipulating DNA — but matter can be spoken into existence, developing from sound, into light, then into matter. Sound manipulates and creates all matter and movement in the universe.”
So, here now is the beginning of proving creation! One very important scientifically verified reality that Samuel brought to the forefront was a process called Sonoluminescence. This is a process where water contained in a spherical flask is caused to effervesce or bubble up. A loud high frequency sound is then sent into the bubble causing the bubble to expand and collapse 30,000 times in one second. Meanwhile, the bubble heats up to a temperature that is nearly as hot as the corona of the sun. The bubble walls then collapse shrinking it to less than a hundredth of its original size in about 15 microseconds. Then, as the bubble nears its minimum size, it emits a bright flash of light. We see by this simple exercise that light is created by sound being forced through water bubbles. This is recreated in science laboratories and confirmed by a variety of scientific studies such as Sympathetic Vibration Physics and others; it is not theory.
Samuel explains that adding a small amount of noble gas (such as helium, argon, or xenon) to the gas in the bubble increases the intensity of the emitted light dramatically. In light of this he says “Perhaps all the so-called ‘Dark Matter’ in the universe is collapsed water bubbles…, [and that] the Holy Spirit is the addition of substance ‘X’ that increased the intensity of the emitted light—ergo the electromagnetic Spectrum, ergo Light or ‘Day’ as Genesis describes it. From which of course, would come the power and energy to create all other elements and compounds in the universe.”
We know by the testimony of Genesis 1:2-3 that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, then God spoke “Let there be Light.” We conclude here that the Genesis record is the same process as the sonoluminescence experiment. The sound of His voice, forced into the waters, caused a universe sized sonoluminescence (light). We can’t say this is precisely how God created light; all we can say is that the Genesis record fits the sonoluminescence experiment perfectly. Anything that is proven to be true, can be, and has been, duplicated in a laboratory. And what Genesis describes has been recreated in laboratories everywhere. God is light, and by virtue of that fact, light forming in the universe by His command is simply accepted by faith. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause, and as we can clearly see, God is the cause.”
No soup for me
I’m partial to the ladies... ;-}
I used to be a lady, but that was before hte accident
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.