Post by peterthehealer on Sept 23, 2015 15:25:04 GMT -5
GOD IS ALIVE AND WELL UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE
(Originally published Aug 8, 2015 LinkedIn)
If you think God is dead, think again. While it's true that the biblical God of our childhood has suffered some justifiable jabs over the years at his credibility as an old man with a white beard hovering in the white billowy clouds above, what he or it stands for and the concept behind it has for the most part stood the test of time. This is true especially when you consider the entirety of existence, which by some estimates is 17.5 billion years; it is only in the last 200 years or so that Modern Science has questioned the reliability of God's existence.
Its major argument has been to say that the existence of God has yet to be proven when using any of the tenets of scientific methodology. When searching the Internet I came across this definition:
"What is the "scientific method''?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made."
Unfortunately, in order to prove a hypothesis you need to control all the variables except one: the variable you make predictions on. Although this is useful when manipulating chemical substances in test tubes or rats in mazes or various conditions in a controlled laboratory, it is quite another matter when trying to make predictions in an uncontrolled environment such as the world we live in - Earth.
So basically we have a theory (scientific method) that at best can help explain maybe .000001 % of all phenomenon on Earth and you can throw that optimistic statistic out the window as soon as you talk about the vast majority of phenomenon that exists in the rest of the universe, which by some estimates occupies trillions and trillions of more space than our tiny little spec of Earth occupies. Why? Because the "scientific" measures used in our earthbound three dimensional linear view of reality no longer apply. That is because there is no such thing as time and space as we know it in the rest of the universe which occupies the fourth, fifth and beyond dimensions and therefore cannot be measured by the scientific methods so far developed by Scientists.
So if Science cannot measure it with its overly glorified scientific method, does this mean that the rest of the universe does not exist? Does this mean that other dimensions do not exist? Does this mean that God does not exist? Personally, I would rather put my faith in the existence of God than in the scientific method that has far too long been used as the ultimate yardstick "for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion."
What is it but lies and delusion when Science tries to convince us that life itself was created just by chance alone? This totally ignores one of its most utilized and trusted scientific methodologies: The Law of Probability, which basically states that a phenomena is likely to be true if it can occur repeatedly at a degree of probability that is greater than chance, or greater than 50% of the time.
Time magazine published an article entitled, "Why Science Does Not Disprove God" April 17th 2014 by Amir D. Aczel. The following citation I think summarizes in one paragraph why the scientific method is flawed when it comes to explaining anything outside a laboratory:
Why did everything we need in order to exist come into being? How was all of this possible without some latent outside power to orchestrate the precise dance of elementary particles required for the creation of all the essentials of life? The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)
Belief in the existence of God (or whatever way you wish to call it - Source, Creator, Cosmic Energy, etc) is at the heart of my work helping people to experience the Light. No other explanation can explain the healing power and wisdom that is available to all who ask for it, for the miracles that can be achieved by it, and for the Love that is forever enshrined by it.
God Bless and May You Experience The Light!
Peter-The-Healer
(Originally published Aug 8, 2015 LinkedIn)
If you think God is dead, think again. While it's true that the biblical God of our childhood has suffered some justifiable jabs over the years at his credibility as an old man with a white beard hovering in the white billowy clouds above, what he or it stands for and the concept behind it has for the most part stood the test of time. This is true especially when you consider the entirety of existence, which by some estimates is 17.5 billion years; it is only in the last 200 years or so that Modern Science has questioned the reliability of God's existence.
Its major argument has been to say that the existence of God has yet to be proven when using any of the tenets of scientific methodology. When searching the Internet I came across this definition:
"What is the "scientific method''?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made."
Unfortunately, in order to prove a hypothesis you need to control all the variables except one: the variable you make predictions on. Although this is useful when manipulating chemical substances in test tubes or rats in mazes or various conditions in a controlled laboratory, it is quite another matter when trying to make predictions in an uncontrolled environment such as the world we live in - Earth.
So basically we have a theory (scientific method) that at best can help explain maybe .000001 % of all phenomenon on Earth and you can throw that optimistic statistic out the window as soon as you talk about the vast majority of phenomenon that exists in the rest of the universe, which by some estimates occupies trillions and trillions of more space than our tiny little spec of Earth occupies. Why? Because the "scientific" measures used in our earthbound three dimensional linear view of reality no longer apply. That is because there is no such thing as time and space as we know it in the rest of the universe which occupies the fourth, fifth and beyond dimensions and therefore cannot be measured by the scientific methods so far developed by Scientists.
So if Science cannot measure it with its overly glorified scientific method, does this mean that the rest of the universe does not exist? Does this mean that other dimensions do not exist? Does this mean that God does not exist? Personally, I would rather put my faith in the existence of God than in the scientific method that has far too long been used as the ultimate yardstick "for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion."
What is it but lies and delusion when Science tries to convince us that life itself was created just by chance alone? This totally ignores one of its most utilized and trusted scientific methodologies: The Law of Probability, which basically states that a phenomena is likely to be true if it can occur repeatedly at a degree of probability that is greater than chance, or greater than 50% of the time.
Time magazine published an article entitled, "Why Science Does Not Disprove God" April 17th 2014 by Amir D. Aczel. The following citation I think summarizes in one paragraph why the scientific method is flawed when it comes to explaining anything outside a laboratory:
Why did everything we need in order to exist come into being? How was all of this possible without some latent outside power to orchestrate the precise dance of elementary particles required for the creation of all the essentials of life? The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)
Belief in the existence of God (or whatever way you wish to call it - Source, Creator, Cosmic Energy, etc) is at the heart of my work helping people to experience the Light. No other explanation can explain the healing power and wisdom that is available to all who ask for it, for the miracles that can be achieved by it, and for the Love that is forever enshrined by it.
God Bless and May You Experience The Light!
Peter-The-Healer
