“If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists”

See this blog post I just wrote, that you’re reading right now?  This blog article is proof of the existence of God.

Before you read/watch/listen to “If You Can Read This I Can Prove God Exists,” read THIS first. (700 words – 2 minutes) – then come back and continue reading. Thanks.

Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy.  But I’m not asking you to believe anything just yet, until you see the evidence for yourself.  All I ask is that you refrain from disbelieving while I show you my proof.  It only takes a minute to convey, but it speaks to one of the most important questions of all time.

So how is this message proof of the existence of God?

This web page you’re reading contains letters, words and sentences.  It contains a message that means something. As long as you can read English, you can understand what I’m saying.

You can do all kinds of things with this message.  You can read it on your computer screen.  You can print it out on your printer.  You can read it out loud to a friend who’s in the same room as you are.  You can call your friend and read it to her over the telephone.  You can save it as a Microsoft WORD document.  You can forward it to someone via email, or you can post it on some other website.

Regardless of how you copy it or where you send it, the information remains the same.  My email contains a message. It contains information in the form of language.  The message is independent of the medium it is sent in.

Messages are not matter, even though they can be carried by matter (like printing this email on a piece of paper).

Messages are not energy even though they can be carried by energy (like the sound of my voice.)

Messages are immaterial.  Information is itself a unique kind of entity.  It can be stored and transmitted and copied in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.

Messages can be in English, French or Chinese. Or Morse Code.  Or mating calls of birds.  Or the Internet.  Or radio or television.  Or computer programs or architect blueprints or stone carvings.  Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete plan for you.

OK, so what does this have to do with God?

It’s very simple.  Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind.  A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences.  A mind that expresses both desire and intent.

Whether I use the simplest possible explanation, such as the one I’m giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence:

“Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind.  No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.”

Nature can create fascinating patterns – snowflakes, sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites.  Tornadoes and turbulence and cloud formations.

But non-living things cannot create language. They *cannot* create codes.  Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk.  And they cannot create information.

It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose accidentally from the “primordial soup,” the early ocean which produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.

But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to answer the question, ‘Where did the information come from?’

DNA is not merely a molecule.  Nor is it simply a “pattern.” Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.

DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs.  With very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them. It is formally and scientifically a code. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

To the person who says that life arose naturally, you need only ask: “Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn’t come from a mind.”

As simple as this question is, I’ve personally presented it in public presentations and Internet discussion forums for more than four years.  I’ve addressed more than 100,000 people, including hostile, skeptical audiences who insist that life arose without the assistance of God.

But to a person, none of them have ever been able to explain where the information came from.  This riddle is “So simple any child can understand; so complex, no atheist can solve.”

You can hear or read my full presentation on this topic at
http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

Watch it on video:
http://evo2.org/perry-speaks/perryspeaks.html

Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.  Everyone can agree on that.  But information has to come from somewhere, too!

Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and energy.  And information can only come from a mind.  If books and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all living things inevitably came from a superintelligence.

Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read, every packet of information that zings across the Internet, is proof of the existence of God.  Because information and language always originate in a mind.

In the beginning were words and language.

In the Beginning was Information.

When we consider the mystery of life – where it came from and how this miracle is possible – do we not at the same time ask the question where it is going, and what its purpose is?

Respectfully Submitted,

Perry Marshall

Full Presentation and Technical Details (please review before posting questions or debates on the blog, almost every question and objection is addressed by these articles):

“If you can read this, I can prove God exists” – listen to
my full presentation or read the Executive Summary here:

http://evo2.org/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

“OK, so then who made God?” and other questions about information and origins:

http://evo2.org/faq/#designer

Why DNA is formally and scientifically a code, and things like sunlight and starlight are not (Please read this before you attempt to debate this on the blog!!!):

http://evo2.org/blog/information-theory-made-simple and http://evo2.org/faq/#code

-The Atheist’s Riddle: Members of Infidels, the world’s largest atheist discussion board attempt to solve it
(for over 4 years now!), without success:

http://evo2.org/iidb.htm

Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/

Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

2,215 Responses

  1. Forrest Charnock says:

    Dear Perry:

    Everyone has a bias and everyone has already decided truth before they look at the evidence. I agree the secularist has an a priori commitment but so does the theist.
    I.D. has always made the mistake of trying to deny their bias and it hurts them. We are all biased, that is not the right question to ask but which bias is best?

    Mine is that the Bible is true as written and that view makes perfect sense of the evidence.

    • I suspect you will agree that I have made my own bias sufficiently clear.

      However I think you can come to this question purely as agnostic and simply say:

      “I don’t know if there’s an Intelligent Creator or not. Maybe there is one, maybe there isn’t. Which is the most probable explanation?”

      Actual scientific practice, especially anything remotely related to communication theory, linguistics, engineering, product design etc., strongly points to design being the more probable explanation, and chance being a very unlikely explanation.

      Having talked to 1000’s of atheists (literally) in the last 5 years I am convinced that their #1 reason for rejecting this is their disappointment in the imperfections of the world. It is really a sort of moral argument regarding evil and the dysfunctions of biology, like birth defects, that causes them to say there is no God.

      The atheist argument is really a moral one, not a scientific one. Darwinism is much more comfortable for such a person than Design, because “crap happens” is a lot easier to swallow than “God permits bad things to happen in the world.” Beneath atheism lies a deep sadness and a bitter anger that the world is the way it is.

      • Forrest Charnock says:

        Hi Perry:

        What I see that is clear in the case I was responding to and in general with you is you tell the materialist he is starting out with firm conclusions and you are completely open minded. This is common with ID theorist.
        As long as ID goes by this “rule” that the discussion of origins is all scientific you have lost before you start. The materialist still has his worldview, he does not compromise, only you do.
        For instance you agree with Gitt but make a point to use Shannon as if using their favorite argument will help you break through to them.
        My question is what are you trying to accomplish? Converting someone to design theory will not change their eternal condition which, if the Bible is real to you all that really matters.

        You have also made it clear that you use science to interpret the Bible instead of the other way around . What does this tell the non believer?
        How are you any different in the regard you are asking people to trust you instead of the scriptures than a Priest or an Imam who tells me I need him to “interpret ” the Bible or the Qu ran?The Bible says a child can understand it and the Bereans were more noble because they listened intently, then studied to see if those things were true.

        Let’s role play for a second Perry. I am a truth seeker and I come to you and say that after reading the Bible that the Big Bang is true or the Bible because the Bible says God made the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day , He made the earth of water ,Gen 1 ,2nd Peter 3, made it ALL in 6 days Ex 20 8-11 , as well as several other places in Exodus and Deuteronomy etc. That the genealogies seemed awfully important to God and you can’t stretch them past 6 ka.

        Also thw world’s leading Hebrew scholars teach Gen 1-11 is written as historical narrative and no where in the Bible , not in one of the over 200 references to Gen 1-11 does it remotely even suggest it could be interpreted as poetry or parable and the church fathers until about 200 years ago unanimously agreed and over half of all Americans still do.

        So Mr. Marshall how should I decide ? Do I use the Bible as the authority in my life or “science” ? How can I ever be sure if I choose science as it is often wrong? Most top scientist are atheist, is it not logical if science is the authority that they are probably correct?

        The design argument is logical ,it was used to write the Watchmaker Theory by Bishop Paley. The basis of his ancestors in thought, ID theorist ,got much of their argument from the creationists Design is the only thing we agree on but is no where near as important as the age of the earth. With an old earth the Bible loses all authority and makes atheism possible. Paley failed because he had no answer for evil, pain, suffering and death. His argument was brilliant and can not be refuted, it is simply ignored. Where he missed the boat , and where ID misses the boat is your goal is short sighted. You choose to compromise to make theism “less offensive” . Jesus Christ offended lots of people, they killed Him for it.
        The core belief of Philosophical Materialism is millions of years, the core belief in atheism is millions of years , evolution is an inevitable conclusion that stems from it. It was Lyell’s teachings that mislead Darwin and all of secular geolofist for over a century and a half. Brittan’s best geologist, the late Derek Ager used th word “Brainwashed” and Gould called it bit’s of cunning to sell a geology that the evidence did not support. Where is the logic in discounting the basis of millions of years yet never questioning the conclusion?

        “Having talked to 1000’s of atheists (literally) in the last 5 years I am convinced that their #1 reason for rejecting this is their disappointment in the imperfections of the world. It is really a sort of moral argument regarding evil and the dysfunctions of biology, like birth defects, that causes them to say there is no God.”

        That is precisely the point Perry! You can’t see the forest for the trees!
        If the earth is millions of years old then death is a good thing, Gen 1-31.
        Darwin could not see how a loving God could take his precious Annie ,as well as the others he lost. It was his acceptance of Uniformitarianism that he based his atheism on, not evolution! Once you reject the God of the old earth , a logical conclusion based on his incredible cruelty, then even if you never heard of evolution you would have to make it up!

        Perry you have all the facts, you just can’t see the obvious conclusion.
        This whole debate is about God , not science. That part you see , that the God you offer them is an ogre no loving person would care to worship goes right over your head.

        If millions of years is true God let untold billions, perhaps trillions ,of animals die in pain for no reason. Who needs a god like that?

        The God of the Bible created basic kinds of animals with incredible variability to adapt to changing environments. Death is punishment for Adam’s sin. The God I worchip. the God of the young earth ,the God of the Bible is a thrice Holy God and cannot look on sin . But He loved us so He became a man to die for our sins so we can spend eternity with Him. If death is very good then He died for nothing.

        Please think this through Perry. If this is about God, not science as you say then why are you trying to present your argument as purely scientific? Obviously the atheist did not surrender their worldview, why surrender yours?

        I.m.h.o. it is a grievous mistake to try and use Shannon’s theory for anything. It is irrelevant . Why allow the materialist the upperhand by acknowledging it as relevant to genetics? Killit as far as gentics ids concerned and move on.

        One more question as the truth seeker:

        Mr. Marshall :

        The Bible says that there will be no sun in heaven and there will be a New Heaven and a New Earth. If it took billions of years for God to make this one what will happen to us in the billions of years between this one being destroyed and the new one appearing? Also if Jesus will be the light of heaven does that not destroy the argument that the chronology of creation in Genesis 1 can not be trusted , that the sun had to be there to give light? Is anything too hard for God? Including leaving us a message that needs no interpretation?

        May God Bless you, and give your family a healthy and Happy New Year

        • Forrest,

          Romans 1 says, For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

          I take this literally and seriously. Everyone knows there is a God because it is evident in the physical world. Therefore science can tell us something about God. Theologians can debate whether it’s enough information to save someone, but it’s clearly enough to condemn them. I believe that the physical world tells the truth about itself and I don’t believe there’s any conflict between the Bible and science. You do. Thus I disagree with you.

          If you think I’m wasting my time by talking to people about science, then what are you doing here talking to people about science?

          In Genesis 1 when God finished his creation He said it was good. He did not say it was perfect. The existence of death does not make God an ogre. What are you saying, Forrest, if the earth is actually old then you want nothing to do with God?

          Forrest…. what if you’re wrong?

          People do not doubt God because animals die. People doubt God because people die. The fact that God gave Adam and Eve fruit to eat is proof that death existed before the fall. How can you eat fruit without killing a cell?

          And what’s the difference between killing a plant cell and killing an animal cell?

          Where does the Bible say physical death did not exist before the fall?

          The death God promised to Adam and Eve was spiritual death, not physical death. If you read Romans 5 closely, it bears that out.

          Your last question is escatological. The Bible doesn’t say there will be no sun, it says there will be no need for a sun. This is a totally specious question. As though Jesus and the sun are in some kind of competition. Makes no sense.

          • Hrash0 says:

            I don’t see why people are talking about the Bible here. This is about theism in general. Talking about the Bible when arguing the existence of God is akin to talking about ‘The Origin of Species’ when arguing against it.

  2. GM says:

    In respose to Mike Minnich, the Bible isn’t a scientific text book. According to accepted chronology it dates to 6000 BCE. Science can only reverse engineer and speculate as to what happened 6000 years ago. The mental state of people then was certainly filled with lunacy. Anyone interpreting the Bible today is nothing more than a charlatan. A new book would be better than the old with so many errors.
    People certainly cling to the Bible today and its teaching not knowing the whole truth.

  3. GM says:

    Hi Scott

    I have read everything Carl Sagan ever wrote and concur 100%.

    Mr. Marshall has stated, with entropy and probability his hypothesis is 100% air tight. Entropy and probability give wiggle room.

    I’m sure you know from your learned post, all scientific laws are explainable from observation.

    Just one word on behalf of the Christian God…Christianity is only one religion
    among religions of the world. Humanity has given definitions and traits to their God.

  4. Oldstyle says:

    Perry,
    I did as you suggested. That is, I followed Google’s returns for “Atheist’s Riddle” and, indeed, I found numerous posts that used loud and rude commentary in opposition to your statements and accepted factual references. It is obvious that these particular atheists cannot accept your version of reality but that is no excuse for disrespect – but it is very telling just the same.

    About intelligent design and communication:

    In Dr. Hugh Ross’ article “New Scientific Evidence for the existence of God” he compares the latest computer of the day and its fine tuning capabilities with that of the universe, and says that God is one hundred trillion times more refined than is our best efforts to date. And that is only compared to one aspect of the universe’s fine tuning.

    Taking this figure and assuming that the 100 trillion stands for a greater intelligence, then how is it that we are supposed to communicate with this being? Would it not be ridiculous to compare this gulf in communication with any 2 year old having an intellectual conversation with an experienced PHD in engineering? I don’t think we would call that gulf 100 trillion times as much. On an intellectual basis we could not be expected to understand what a supreme being of that level of intelligence was saying to us. Or call it an infinite source of energy intelligence, but the gulf between us remains, and this intelligence would not expect us to be up to the task, would it? Just the same, there will be a language and there will be a medium for that language.

    Our computers communicate in digital format and render that into high-definition audio/video, but there are older and lower levels of communication that resonate on different frequencies. How does a sound create a picture in our mind? The sound of a fog horn on the water can do this, and the sound of the ocean waves on the shore can do this. A human voice will bring up recent or ancient pictures with equal ease.

    Of all the ways in which human bodies, human emotions and human minds communicate which, do you think, would be a default that includes the greatest scope on planet earth… if not throughout the universe? When we come to terms with the medium through which this superior intelligence communicates with us then we can consciously tune in and make use of that communication without the need to understand how it works. If we waited to understand how electricity worked before we started to use it we would still be living in the dark.

    All we need to do is ask the question… “What would a supreme intelligence find to be of the greatest value, and therefore have programmed as a default communication?

    Bring it on home and ask yourself what is it about your children that most concerns you?
    Is it what they know?
    Is it what they think?
    Is it what they feel?
    Is it what they believe?
    Is it what they…?

    When we know the medium we can start to listen in consciously instead of treating it all as noise. All of us need to find the medium in order to know what is real for us. We get good ideas from others, but what others experience and understand will probably not be a perfect match for us as individuals, and in the end it is all about our personal perspective and communication space with God that reveals the most to us individually.

    As parents we are always amazed to find that our children are very different when we see their personalities emerge. They were all given a very similar upbringing and environment, and we taught them all the same principles for living life in this world, yet they surprise us at every turn in what they need and want that is so different from brothers and sisters. In general, there is one-answer-fits-all, but individually this theory doesn’t work. There may be one medium but there are a lot of different receivers out there and they all need to hear the word in their own way.

    In all of this post I am not asking rhetorical questions and I do not expect that many people have any answers, unless they’ve already had the same questions in mind and have given those questions some attention. It’s something worthy to ponder.

    Vancouver, BC

    • My only comment is that people from all parts of the world regardless of culture or background have some sense that when we pray, we only need project our thoughts upward and God hears us. I believe that this is true; it is not nearly as complicated as all the rest of the speculations. Similarly if we listen, God speaks back to us.

  5. yanniru says:

    My Multiverse String Cosmology postulates that the Compact Manifold CM
    of superstring theory, formed from the compactification of its extra dimensions,
    is composed of distinguishable, programmable elements at the Planck scale, that
    may make it conscious and intelligent, besides being omnipresent, omnipotent and
    omniscient:
    http://knol.google.com/k/implications-of-a-conjectured-multiverse-string-theory-\
    in-26-dimensions#. Such are the characteristics of God.

    You argue that DNA is a code, a programmable code that requires a designer.
    Well, on that basis the Compact Manifold CM, besides having all these
    characteristics of a God, is also a code that requires a designer. That leads me
    to postulate that the CM is just part of nature, however conscious and
    intelligent, that like DNA was designed at a much higher more abstract level,
    perhaps designed to be like a god. But not the god of creation as the CM was
    itself created in the Big Bang.

    Richard Ruquist

    • Richard,

      Is the Compact Manifold CM of superstring theory a system?

      • yanniru says:

        The Compact Manifold is a subspace composed of the six extra dimensions of superstring theory that had to shrink in order for the 3 dimensions of space to inflate. So I am not sure what you mean by a system.

        • yanniru says:

          Perry,

          OK, I guess I have to surmise what you mean by system. Having read more and more of your extensive blog, I think what you mean by system is a communication system, which as you have written for the DNA system, involves an encoder-code -decoder.

          Well, it does seem to me that the intent, function and operation of the Compact Manifold might be very much like DNA, especially if “What’s above, so below”.

          The Compact Manifold CM contains the Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Biology in its code. The CM controls the interactions of all physical particles just as DNA controls the creation of all proteins. And just as James Shapiro claims that DNA is intelligent or at least has intent and has a natural genetic engineering function, I claim that the CM is conscious and functions with intelligence and intention, although I lack experimental or even theoretical proof of that claim. It is a conjecture.

          But the CM has properties that go way beyond DNA. The CM is a universal Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) and as such it feels eveything that is happening in the Universe instantly or almost instantly. It is the Cosmic Witness for everything.

          And it is present everywhere in the Universe as an array of Planck-scale six dimensional structures that possess spin vectors in six directions as well as string connections to every matter particle in the universe on which quantum waves are carried.

          There are a sufficient number of solutions to the equations of string theory: 10^500, that each infinitisimal 6d CM structure can be unique and distinguishable, and therefore countable and programmable.

          But the CM was created during the inflation period of the Big Bang and therefore is a product of God the Creator, but still maintains many of the characteristics of a creator god, and probably is One with God, which to me means they are all entangled, just like separate BECs can be entangled, and all the particles in a BEC are entangled.

          Is that what you wanted to know?

        • Is there anything contained by that space?

      • yanniru says:

        I think I finally found your definition of what a system is not:

        “First of all God is not divisible – which is to say Father, Son and Holy Spirit are never at odds, never in disagreement. Always in communion and always in harmony. So God is not a system.”

        On the basis of this undefinition the Compact Manifold CM of superstring theory is definitely not a system because all of the CM is instantaneously in intimate communication and harmony with itself since it is totally entangled being a BEC- Bose-Einstein Condensate. Anything that happens anyplace in the universe is felt by and know by the entire CM. The CM is one with itself.

  6. thaj says:

    You said God is beyond the time & space, so that What do you mean by God ?, that means What is the meaning of God

  7. Oldstyle says:

    Richard said:

    “If you believe in God then good for you – why do you feel the need to convince everybody else???”

    Now, I can track what Perry says and add to it with my own speculation, but I believe Richard has a valid question here. Why does anyone care to wage a debate when it doesn’t prove a thing. Evidence has been, is, and will be found to support intelligence, but it proves nothing. All the evidence can be argued right up to the point of saying… show me God.

    Perry, what do you get out of debating scientific evidence with those that are not interested in the evidence you have to present? Is there something you are trying to prove? As much as I enjoy your articles and find them fascinating I, too, wonder what you are getting out of debating the arguments.

    Whenever mixed messages are present you end up with noise, not a clear intent. The energy changes from a pure focus to a degraded signal, and that’s fine if that is what you are trying to create with this blog. I’m just not convinced of the purpose and the value. But keep writing your articles because I love the information they provide.

    BTW
    LynneMcTaggart in her new book “The Intention Experiment” writes about DNA as the source of expressing light energy from healers. Other interesting evidence to support much of what you are saying.

    • Why are you here reading a debate if it doesn’t prove a thing?

      Why consider any evidence at all?

      Why not just make up whatever you want to make up?

      Do you really believe that evidence cannot lead you to the truth? Personally I doubt you believe that. Personally I suspect that you’d like the information to converge and for a clear winner to become apparent.

      What do I get out of this? Good question. I’ve had hundreds of people write to me and thank me for setting them free from the depressing, reductionistic materialism that tells people they’re nothing more than chance assemblages of molecules. Science itself speaks of more than that. God has made us to be far more than that.

      And I”m also pointing the way to the next revolution in information technology, which will come from DNA.

  8. Andrew.Gie says:

    The biggest mystery still remains – what is consciousness ?
    If Information (the Will) is represented on a Z-axis, as something which exists independently from matter (X-axis) and energy (Y-axis), and we agree that you cannot produce information without a mind, then is it not a miracle that the mind is made up of matter and energy ?

    This surely proves that the mind itself cannot be made up purely of matter and energy, there must be a part of God’s DNA built into the mind – perhaps even giving us DNA-like instructions to think the thoughts we think ?

    • At the very least information has to be understood as being patterns that have their own ontological existence, even if they don’t actually contain a 3rd essence. It’s the only sensible way to talk about them.

  9. Db says:

    Mr. Marshall. Your ideas are intriguing and the effort you have put into compiling your research is impressive. But there remains one vital flaw in your claims toward evidence and proof. Everything that is being said here requires a basic assumption of Faith in a superintelligence, which is no different than the presumption of “athiest” scientists and pundits that everything that we experience now in existence is the result of infinite random processes. Both boil down to the same thing, which is, the “answer” to these arguments is beyond the scope of our ability to comprehend. So far, at any rate.

    It boggles the mind to think of the odds that a set of amino acid molecules would by eventually find themselves in the configuration of an RNA strand, which in turn had the tendency to replicate itself using amino acids in its environment. RNA/DNA itself is a non-living object. It has no reason or purpose to replicate itself. One might say it does so because it can. In a very simple sense, this tendency could be likened to the crystal development of a snowflake. Now, how that “first RNA strand” managed to replicate itself to the point of populating this planet with the multitude of life that we see today is what we have to get our minds around. Without the presence of a guiding superintelligence, the only other possible explanation is Time. The period of time we are talking about is almost unfathomable; it is truly immense. The development of life on this planet does not need a great designer to explain its existance, nor is it really a “random” occurence. The development of ever more complex forms of life are the result of successful RNA replication, and later the succession af lifeforms that carried that information. It follows that unsuccessful RNA sequences of the past are no longer with us. Indeed, “low-level” lifeforms, such as bacteria or short-lived worms, etc. have longer and more complex genomes than “higher” organisms simply because their branches of the tree of life has gone through numerous more generations than, say, humans.

    For lack of a better foundation, the human mind requires the projection of a superintelligence to explain the awe with which we view our existance. And honestly, I have seen no good arguments against the existance of a superintelligence. Who are we to say that we know for a fact that no god exists and is watching over everything? But likewise, to insist on its existance sheds no more light on the matter than not. It simply gives us mooring by which to make sense of it all. It is just as easy to say that religion is a human construct. This by no means is a derogatory statement. The depth of the mind, and its ability to plumb the cosmos is yet another uncharted frontier. To see further into the workings of the universe beyond the simplification of a superintelligence, we must expand our understanding to encompass vast possiblilities. And until that time, we must remain humble in the face of our ignorance.

    Daniel Brownwood

    • You are certainly right that some level of faith is necessary. Some people believe in God with a capital G; some people believe in chance with a capital C.

      Kurt Gödel proved that there are always more things that are true than you can prove with his Incompleteness theorem. Faith and reason are intertwined at the deepest level.

      The problem with “Chance” is that they have no empirical data to confirm their theory that chance did it. Nobody has ever seen a nanomachine arise by chance. Ever.

      They should have such proof but it is not there. Their beliefs violate their own standards.

      If you do any kind of statistical analysis on any of these scenarios you’ll find that 13 billion years is not even close to enough time for any of this to happen by chance.

      You can say that religion is just a human construct. But I ask you: Why are ALL humans and ALL cultures religious? Why are even atheists religiously zealous in the advocation of their beliefs?

      Doesn’t it make more sense to say that religion is in the human DNA, so to speak? That we are essentially spiritual creatures?

      Yes – above all we must remain humble. Thanks for your note.

  10. Dina says:

    My question does not refer to the existence or not existence of God. I am Christian and have no doubts about Him. My first question is rather a technical one. You said that messages are not energy; even though they can be carried by energy; messages are immaterial. We know that messages give us some information, they transform in thoughts, but thoughts, according to the latest scientific researches, are not immaterial. They are high-frequency energy vibrations. I am not the physicist, but I like the so called “new physics”, because it continues to bring together God and a lot of unanswered questions of science.
    And my second question: you said that rocks cannot think and they cannot talk. OK with it. But as for ability of the non-living things create information… Have you read about torsions? Or about macrocosm in microcosm? A lot of unanswered questions there…

    • I’m not saying that information has some third essence like spirit or ether or anything like that. I’m saying that it has to be dealt with on its own terms. The brain may be entirely physical and thoughts may be chains of entirely physical events. But information can only be handled and understood in abstraction.

      It only makes sense to talk about Romeo and Juliet as something that actually exists, as a real ontological entity. What exists is the PATTERN. The pattern can be verified by physical means so therefore the pattern is real.

  11. Kim says:

    According to the onine Science Dictionary (referenced at http://www.dictionary.com), the definition for “Genetic Code” is:

    Science Dictionary
    genetic code (jə-nět’ĭk) Pronunciation Key
    The sequence of nucleotides in DNA and RNA that serve as instructions for synthesizing proteins. The genetic code is based on an “alphabet” consisting of sixty-four triplets of nucleotides called codons. The order in which codons are strung together determines the order in which the amino acids for which they code are arranged in a protein

    A CODE is a human invention to describe a sequence of something, similar to the use of “alphabet” (another HUMAN invention) in the same definition.

    A CODE is a HUMAN INVENTION; this goes contrary to Mr. Marshall’s main premise.

    Moreover, Mr. Marshall’s reference to his participating in the “Infidels” blog and winning his argument with them…not quite, if you actually read the rebuttals. His arguments are quite convincingly debunked.

    But it is an interesting subject.

    Kim

    • You need to make a distinction between “recognizing” code and “inventing” code.

      We did not invent code. The first code so far as we know was in the first living things.

      We just discovered it and gave it a definition.

      Cells encode and decode independently of our observation of them. DNA has four nucleotides that have a symbolic function regardless of what names we give them.

      If you feel I have been debunked at Infidels then let us know what naturally occurring code they have discovered. As far as I can tell they’ve just been making the same failed arguments over and over again for 4 years.

  12. God Chaser says:

    Great site and great Job Perry!!!

    From Talkorgins:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html

    Claim CB180:
    The genetic code is a language in the normal sense of the term, since it assigns meaning to arbitrary symbols. Language is obviously a non-material category of reality; the symbolic information is distinct from matter and energy. Therefore, life is a manifestation of non-material reality.
    Source:
    Baumgardner, John, 1995. Six problems with evolution: a response to Graham Mark. The Los Alamos Monitor, 31 Mar. http://globalflood.org/letters/baumgardner310395.html
    Baumgardner, John, 2001. Highlights of the Los Alamos origins debate. http://globalflood.org/papers/insixdays.html

    Response:
    The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a “stop” marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step — from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal — is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.

    Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.

    An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.

    The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf’s Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).

    Language, although symbolic, is still material. For a word to have meaning, the link between the word and its meaning has to be recorded somewhere, usually in people’s brains, books, and/or computer memories. Without this material manifestation, language cannot work.
    References:
    Tsonis, A. A., J. B. Elsner and P. A. Tsonis, 1997. Is DNA a language? Journal of Theoretical Biology 184: 25-29.

    Thoughts?
    .

    • “An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object.”

      That statement is completely false. The exact opposite is true. Any word can refer to only ONE object. At least in any particular context. DNA is fixed but there is no law of physics that fixes a certain pattern to a certain protein. The genetic code is arbitrary.

      There are all kinds of papers that equate DNA to linguistics. Just type “DNA linguistics” into a search engine or Amazon and you’ll see what I mean.

      And finally human language is just as “material” as DNA. It is expressed via sound or light waves and through our bodies in the form of neuroconnections.

      Nice try, Talkorigins.

  13. dechlin says:

    “… DNA has not been proven to have a naturalistic origin,”
    – Perry Marshall

    It doesn’t have to be. It is a natural reality and to attribute it to a supernatural “designer” becomes the hypothesis that needs to be proven. You have proved nothing!
    I do admit that you have made a very intriguing and seemingly logical progression in your “proof” but it shows only that the flow of life and the role and dynamics of DNA etc. are remarkable — but natural and observable. We should be trying only to understand these biological processes instead of attributing their design to a fanciful entity. Just let them be what they are.
    Taking my time from Bertrand Russell in his comment about the universe, and as a naturalist, I personally find it much more intellectually comfortable to accept that DNA is “just there” (having self-generated within that first bit of protoplasm) and proceed from there to reach understanding rather than seek an ultimate cause (which probably doesn’t exist).
    The whole dynamic of our observable portion of the universe proceeds according to the “laws of nature” (I hate using that term). These realities are not physical but are real nonetheless, immutable and just as much a code as the physical structure of DNA and just as controlling of how things progress, and clearly at least equally complex. These rules may be referred to appropriately as a Code of Conduct for all of nature — the universe.
    Let’s not make things more complex than they are by introducing a magical overlord in the sky! That doesn’t make sense.
    Dave

    • The statement that DNA self-generated is illogical and irrational. Something cannot generate itself.

      Where did the laws of nature come from?

      Isn’t Bertrand Russell abdicating by accepting that something just “is” and not asking for an explanation?

      Dave, I understand that this doesn’t make sense to you but that’s only because you are willing to accept irrationality as an adequate explanation. Atheism is irrational – it punts on cause and effect when push comes to shove.

      • Mike Minnich says:

        Just to make sure we’re all on the same page, it is okay to ignore a cause for G-d? Would that qualify as rational?

        One of my myriad points that you refuse to address is that accepting G-d as uncaused is identical in its logical form and rationality to accepting that the universe is uncaused. Both put a limit on the scope of causality, and very nearly exactly the same limit. The true reason that you refuse to acknowledge this is not because you’re more rational or logical, it’s because you cannot even for the briefest moment work with these ideas without fiercely maintaining the axiom that G-d is the creator. You are so stuck in that mindset that you can’t work outside of that box that you built for yourself. Because of this you don’t genuinely understand what anyone countering you is actually saying, all you hear is, ‘there is no G-d’ and shut down, but in reality we’re just trying to get you to have a reasonable conversation about the possibility that ‘the question of the existence of G-d is irrelevant to the existence of DNA’.

        I’d also like to reiterate that you’re never genuinely talking about a ‘mind’ creating codes. The only entities which create codes are human beings (you’ve established this very decisively in your own writings), thus your only valid inference is that a human beings created DNA. No other assertion about the intelligent origin of DNA is logical or rational based on scientific principles (which require observation, observation only shows humans creating codes, not mystical ‘minds’). Since humans require DNA to exist, it’s then both irrational and illogical to posit that they designed DNA due to causal difficulties, it’s thus irrational and illogical to posit at this point that a ‘mind’ designed DNA.

        I don’t think you can validly weasel out of these difficulties.

        • Mike,

          The reason why the universe cannot be its own cause is Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. I discuss this at http://www.evo2.org/incompleteness

          If the universe is consistent (rational, mathematical) then it is incomplete. In this blog post I work through the logic.

          My syllogism is:

          1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
          2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
          3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.

          Within this statement I have remained completely within the realm of known scientific inference and scientific principles.

          The creation of codes is one of the most advanced disciplines of modern technology and is taught at every major university in the world in the department of computer science. All of the coding concepts that are taught in CS departments are semantic and none of those semantic concepts are derivable from pure physics and chemistry. The process of designing codes is WELL understood. It is a cognitive intentional process. And it is considered a science.

          Yes, you are right, only humans are known to create codes. So we then have 5 possible explanations:

          1) Humans designed DNA
          2) Aliens designed DNA
          3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
          4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
          5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

          (1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (2) could very well be true but only pushes the question back in time. (Is not SETI essentially a search for codes?) (3) may be a remote possibility, but it’s not a scientific explanation in that it doesn’t refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It’s nothing more than an appeal to luck. (4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is (5) a theological one.

          Yes, I fully acknowledge as soon as we consider items (2) through (5) we have stepped outside the realm of empirical science. In fact there is currently no such thing as an Origin of Life theory that can be properly considered scientific.

          So to the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything (100% inference), DNA is proof of a designer.

          • Mike Minnich says:

            ‘The process of designing codes is WELL understood.’

            The problem is that it’s not quite that simple. The process of designing codes in the presence of cognitive intent is a well understood process. It’s not at all clear that cognitive intent is in fact a requirement, since the existence of G-d is otherwise questionable it’s not satisfactory to claim that it is a requirement simply b/c positing the existence of G-d allows for it to establish DNA. Where you see an even paradigm I see opportunity to explore exciting possibilities. Human languages and codes based upon the human language instinct do require some level cognitive intent, of course I concede that and I always have, but it is important that only humans produce languages and codes and that rocks do not but it’s also important that dolphins do not and meerkats, penguins, tarantulas and yaks do not as well. All of these creatures can be said to have ‘minds’, thus your contention that minds produce codes is highly questionable. ‘Mind’ is not specific enough, humans are the only known creators of codes, and yet this does not explain the existence of DNA. Thus it stands to reason that some process other than one specific to minds, and not generalizable to them, is at work in the generation of codes. This observation then doesn’t require a disembodied eternal intelligence, since it’s not clear that intelligence is required at all.

            I also question your willingness to sweep your third option under the rug. Many things in nature happen randomly and spontaneously and they’re perfectly within the realm of scientific exploration (the appearance of a new comet, the appearance of a supernova on the sky, hurricanes, religious opinions, etc.).

            So to the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is not proof of a designer, since non-intelligent origins of DNA are within the realm of reasonable explanations. It is inappropriate for you to generalize the human ability to easily generate purposefully designed codes as an action specific to minds, b/c most sorts of minds do not have this ability and at the same time all of them are dependent upon the precondition of genetic coding. This last point can be reworded as, ‘we have a 100% inference that DNA is required for minds to exist and operate’ this is inconsistent with your assertion that DNA is dependent upon a mind. Therefore you are not approaching any of this from a remotely agnostic point of view but from a theistic point of view b/c you are arbitrarily favouring the option which affirms the possibility of G-d rather than recognizing the genuinely agnostic (not to mention scientific) approach of giving neither option preference w/o further evidence. This failure to recognize all the options leads to a circularity in your logic (and the same is true of the atheist stance which gives irrational preference to the point that DNA is required for minds to exist and operate), which in turn stalemates the entire argument. Additionally, the agnostic approach is also unsatisfactory, since it leaves us just as much in the dark as we were before, preventing exploration of the question of the existence of G-d. The alternative is to explore the possibility that the existence of G-d is irrelevant to these questions, which is really what the Abrahamic traditions say when their logic is fully extended anyway, since they assert that G-d is uncaused. What this uncaused character really means is that G-d is and is not, must be and cannot be. G-d uncaused is G-d untouchable by bivalent logic. If your G-d is untouchable by bivalent logic then I don’t understand why you would appeal to Gödel (which I’m not convinced is even applicable to the universe in general anyway) to force a cause for the universe itself.

            These are the deep issues that you’ve never addressed and that I feel you need to. Your answers are always too shallow to approach them.

            • Mike,

              Your statement “G-d uncaused is G-d untouchable by bivalent logic” is a bivalent statement about God. Thus your position that bivalent logic doesn’t apply to God is self-contradictory.

              You are also gravely misrepresenting the Abrahamic religions. When Moses asked God who he should say sent him to Pharaoh, God said, This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’

              “I AM” simultaneously means God exists, and God is uncaused. I AM is an unambiguous statement of eternal existence. If the text says that God said this to Moses, then f God “might not” exist, who said it? Your statements are self-contradictory at every turn.

              Mike, what’s your problem with G-d?

              I understand you have all kinds of disappointment with religion, religious tradition, religious infighting; disappointments with prayers unanswered and the general ruckus we see in the world. I realize it might seem, at first, to be more emotionally satisfying to relegate God to the fringes of relevance to our physical world but eventually you find, it doesn’t solve any problems. It just sweeps them under the rug.

              Mike, I have seen as we have had this discussion ever since last August that the idea of a real G-d who has any import or significance to the real world is extremely uncomfortable to you. So much so, it forces you to make illogical statments.

              Why not simply commit yourself to following the evidence where it leads? Why not even pray and ask for wisdom, to be shown?

              7 years ago I was wrestling with these questions HARD. I had all the same disappointments with our f-d up world that everybody does. I was on the verge of becoming an atheist, because I suspected that was where the evidence was pointing me.

              One thought I had at the time:

              “Jesus might have been a nutcase or maybe he didn’t even exist or whatever, but one statement he made is a keeper: THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE. I don’t know whether I believe everything else he said or not, but I’m quite sure he was right about that one. So let’s get on with searching for the truth.”

              I completely opened myself up to the possibility that atheism could be true. And then I began to ask: If atheism were true, what else would have to be true?

              And I began to explore the realm of scientific questions which atheism would have to have an answer for.

              My willingness to ask that question brought me to a certainty that atheism is completely and utterly irrational. On this website I have provided all manner of logical reasons and inferences to back up that statement. Wouldn’t be possible had I not first considered that it might be true.

              I think if you open yourself up to the possibility of a real and tangible G-d who is involved in the affairs of the universe you will likewise become more informed.

              Onward.

              If E=MC2 and F=MA then Gödel applies to the universe.

              If Gödel does not apply to the universe then the only reason for assuming that is if the universe is not mathematical.

              If the universe is not mathematical, then the entire premise of modern science crumbles and we live in an irrational universe.

              If the universe is logical, mathematical and consistent, then it is necessarily incomplete.

              To date nobody has demonstrated any logical flaw in the Incompleteness argument for the existence of God.

              Randomness:

              Yes, you are right, many things happen in nature spontaneously. Tornados, sand dunes, snowflakes. Now to be fair these things aren’t just purely random, they are the result of well known rules and patterns, like crystal formation. But nobody has to design these things.

              If you would listen to my main presentation (Mike, I ask that you do that just once) http://perry.fingerprints.s3.amazonaws.com/index.htm you see that this is the first subject I bring up.

              Natural processes create snowflakes and stuff like that.

              So far as is known to science, natural processes never create codes.

              The “minds” of other creatures that do not produce codes, in contrast to our minds that do, simply indicates that it takes a highly CAPABLE mind to produce a code. A regular animal mind is not up to the task. And DNA as a communications protocol is light years more sophisticated than anything humans have ever created. So the only available inference is that DNA was designed by a profoundly superior mind.

              Lastly, it must be noted that cells re-engineer their own DNA. A protozoa under stress splices its own DNA into 100,000 pieces and re-assembles them to produce a protozoa more fit for its environment. This is a fabulously sophisticated phenomenon that is so amazing, it has only been accepted in the last few decades even though it was known to be true since the 1950’s. In some sense, cells are intelligent.

              Thus widening the chasm between life and non-life.

              The only logical conclusion that can be made about living things after 200 years of biology is that the cell is designed. There is no current scientific evidence to indicate any other explanation.

              • Mike Minnich says:

                ‘Your statement “G-d uncaused is G-d untouchable by bivalent logic” is a bivalent statement about God. Thus your position that bivalent logic doesn’t apply to God is self-contradictory.’

                That statement is only a bivalent logical statement if analyzed with a bivalent logic. Note the following:

                IF ‘G-d exists’ AND we use a bivalent logic
                THEN ‘G-d is uncaused’ is indeterminate, ‘G-d is untouchable by bivalent logic’ is false

                IF ‘G-d does not exist’ AND we use a bivalent logic
                THEN ‘G-d is uncaused’ is true, ‘G-d is untouchable by bivalent logic’ is indeterminate

                The problem with this paradigm is that indeterminate is not an option in a bivalent logic.

                IF ‘G-d exists’ AND we use a multivalue logic
                THEN … same as above …

                IF ‘G-d does not exist’ AND we use a multivalue logic
                THEN … same as above …

                The problem with indeterminacy is now resolved, thus a bivalent logic is less useful in analyzing the logic of G-d than a multivalued logic. Your logic is quite strictly bivalent, thus it is a perfectly logical conclusion that your logic regarding G-d is flawed.

                ‘Mike, what’s your problem with G-d?’

                This is best answered with the following question. Which one? Yours, Martin Luther’s, Jewed Makai and I’itoi, Annikadel, the G-d of Greek Orthodoxy or Ethiopian Orthodoxy, Jewish Orthodoxy, various Islamic sects, Reform Judaism, etc.?

                ‘I understand you have all kinds of disappointment with religion, religious tradition, religious infighting; disappointments with prayers unanswered and the general ruckus we see in the world. I realize it might seem, at first, to be more emotionally satisfying to relegate God to the fringes of relevance to our physical world but eventually you find, it doesn’t solve any problems. It just sweeps them under the rug.’

                What sorts of disappointment do you attribute to me? My issue is that there are as many religions as there are people, thus I see no reason to trust yours anymoreso than any other random selection, particularly when you demonstrably ignore just as much evidence contrary to your views as everyone else does (including myself). The only reasonable logical conclusion when taking this into account is that the truth is there is no truth regarding the existence and nature of G-d.

                ‘Mike, I have seen as we have had this discussion ever since last August that the idea of a real G-d who has any import or significance to the real world is extremely uncomfortable to you. So much so, it forces you to make illogical statments.’

                You misunderstand me. In saying that G-d is irrelevant I don’t mean that G-d has no significance or import to the real world. I mean that the existence of G-d is an irrelevent question. Any way you choose to answer the question you are still here with the same limitations, skills, obligations and dependencies. You are still territorial and sentimental. These lead to morality, violence and coersive behaviours. They lead to philosophy and philosophical arguments.

                ‘Why not simply commit yourself to following the evidence where it leads? Why not even pray and ask for wisdom, to be shown?’

                I have followed the evidence where it leads. The evidence I am aware of leads away from your conclusions.

                ‘THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE.’

                That assumes that truth is more than merely a side effect of human psychology.

                ‘If Gödel does not apply to the universe then the only reason for assuming that is if the universe is not mathematical.’

                Why do you assume that it is rather than notice that mathematics is not a distinct entity, not an aspect of the universe but a human devised set of codes for explaining the universe. Not only that, but highly flawed codes capable of predicting far more than is real and incapable of predicting many things that are, and only being winnowed down to reliable predictive power through liberal use of postdiction.

                ‘So far as is known to science, natural processes never create codes.’

                But you continue to ignore the fact that so far as is known to science human beings are the only observed agent to create codes, not ‘minds’.

                ‘The “minds” of other creatures that do not produce codes, in contrast to our minds that do, simply indicates that it takes a highly CAPABLE mind to produce a code. A regular animal mind is not up to the task. And DNA as a communications protocol is light years more sophisticated than anything humans have ever created. So the only available inference is that DNA was designed by a profoundly superior mind.’

                No, it’s not the only available inference. The only conditions under which it is is if you assume that the entire purpose of the universe is to serve mankind and that the maintenance of mankind is an ultimate, supreme goal of G-d. Remove that assumption and other inferences become available.

                ‘Lastly, it must be noted that cells re-engineer their own DNA. A protozoa under stress splices its own DNA into 100,000 pieces and re-assembles them to produce a protozoa more fit for its environment. This is a fabulously sophisticated phenomenon that is so amazing, it has only been accepted in the last few decades even though it was known to be true since the 1950’s. In some sense, cells are intelligent.’

                Right, so that’s cells generating ‘intelligent’ designs, not G-d. How is that an argument in favour of G-d’s intentions and continued intervention in the fate of the universe?

                • Mike,

                  Where do you get the idea that “G-d is uncaused” indeterminate? I don’t find any justification for that logic. Any entity is either caused or uncaused. I don’t know of a middle ground. Do you?

                  If God does not exist then “God is uncaused” is indeterminate, not determinate.

                  Which God? The one that is inferred by incompleteness, communication theory and logic: Not divisible, not finite, not matter, not energy, not space, not time. Conscious and intentional.

                  Any further conclusions require the assistance of theology.

                  Just because theology is messy doesn’t mean we should be afraid of it. Same with philosophy. Your dislike of philosophy and what some people do with it doesn’t make the causelessness of God indeterminate.

                  Are you saying that you believe that truth is merely a side effect of human psychology? Surely you’re having this discussion for more significant reasons than “side effects of human psychology.”

                  I have a question for you: Do facts like universes and mathematics and linguistics refer to actual realities? Are we arguing / debating about issues that have actual substance? Or do you believe we’re just verbally masturbating here on this blog? Let me know.

                  At the beginning of this last post you use logical statements to back up your point. Then you criticize my use of mathematics to describe the universe.

                  Are mathematics and logic valid ways of knowing things? Or not? Again, let me know.

                  Yes, of course I understand that as far as science knows, only humans can create codes. But what is the larger question?

                  As far as I’m concerned, the question is:

                  “Are unintelligent physical processes sufficient to explain the origin of life, or was some kind of external intelligence? Do we have any evidence to suggest that some kind of intelligence had to be involved?”

                  Information theory applied to DNA most definitely infers that some kind of intelligence was involved. It gives us no reason to assume this happened purely through the laws of physics and chemistry.

                  You are declaring in advance that in science, humans are the only available inference. You are deriving your premises from your conclusion. You are also assuming that every single spiritual experience anyone has ever had in the history of mankind is fake. I believe that equates to saying “Since I’ve never experienced God, I’m certain that nobody else has, either.”

                  The inference to design in biology – and to a Primary Axiom from Gödel – only reinforces all of the other inferences we have from art, literature, science, mythology, music and poetry. Namely that a metaphysical world is not only plausible, but in fact necessary.

                  Nowhere did I ever say that the entire purpose of the universe is to serve mankind. Don’t put words in my mouth, Mike. Those are your words. In fact I think you have just hinted at your own presuppositions of what it means if God exists. What reason would any religious person have for believing that man is the sole purpose of the universe? I propose to you that to assume that would be the height of arrogance. Let’s drop that assumption and remove one more barrier to believing in God.

                  Yes, cells generate code. And…. where did the first cells come from?

                  In addition to requiring code for replication, which always requires a design, they also contain nanomachines, motors, pumps, error correction systems, regulatory systems, sensors…. and all of those things are only seen in the world of design. None of these things exist in rocks and snowflakes and tornadoes.

                  Cells don’t create themselves. Neither do universes. If the cosmos is logical, it is incomplete. And that’s exactly what Gödel said.

                  • Mike Minnich says:

                    If G-d exists then it’s not knowable whether G-d is caused or uncaused, since G-d predates the universe. If you take your stance, that G-d is uncaused then G-d is complete. What does Gödel say about that?

                    If G-d does not exist then G-d is not caused, b/c causality only applies to the set of things which exist.

                    I thought you’d implied previously that humans were an intentional goal of creation. Did I misunderstand? You’re forever talking about design and intent, that by extension implies that we’re the intent (particularly since you’re also always hinting at our more ‘capable’ minds), which in turn means that everything else is intended for the material maintenance of us. Rather an obvious implication, IMO.

                    • God is complete. God is by definition uncaused. If you assume that God is uncaused, and that God is not a system composed of separate moving parts, and that God is boundless and immaterial, God fits Gödel’s theorem perfectly.

                      I certainly believe that humans are an intentional goal of creation but I would not dare to presume that humans are the only goal, or the highest goal.

                  • Mike Minnich says:

                    The question of the validity of mathematics and logic in regard to knowledge is contingent upon your acceptance of truth as a valid aspect of reality. Thus the question is unanswerable as posed since it assumes far too much.

                    • Mike Minnich says:

                      Try it this way. The Popol Vuh is just as logical and rational as the Bible and both are just as logical as the Book of Mormon and the Vedas. Logic allows you to build knowledge, but knowledge in this sense is not related to real truths as incompatible sets of knowledge still permit the daily functioning and maintenance of cultures, lifeways and communities. This aspect of knowledge and its tight correlation with apparent truth indicates that that is all that truth can be, apparent, rather than real. Thus truth is an effect of human psychology and there is no real truth regarding the existence of G-d.

                    • Are you saying truth is not a valid aspect of reality?

                    • Mike Minnich says:

                      The only way you can convince me that it is is by somehow weaving an argument for that hypothesis without assuming that it is an aspect of reality a priori. Since logic is most fundamentally simply the a priori assumption that truth is real manifested formally, this is by definition an impossible feat. Thus it’s at least as logical to assume that truth isn’t an aspect of reality as it is to assume that it is, and from a strictly scientific point of view, rather moreso.

                    • It sounds as though truth is a valid aspect of reality when Mike Minnich is winning an argument, but not when he’s losing an argument. Do I understand you correctly?

                    • Eocene says:

                      I could’nt have put it any better. I have’nt had the time to come visit here for quite some time, but the I admire your putting up with his intellectual condescending insults one after another. Even his use of the spelling g-d is without fail meant as a desrespectful snarky slam on your beliefs each and every time it is used.

                      I’ve stopped most all forum debates with these people. When backed into a corner, their wounded wild animal response is usually something derogitory, insulting, filthy or foul words/expressions as a result of having zero substance to intelligently and respectfully continue the discussion. In the end their conduct actually belies any claim to any proper education. I don’t consider being a card carrying member of infidels.org, richarddawkins.net or talkorigins.org to be nothing more than an Atheistical religious dogma of comfirmation (or their version of some intellectual humanist catechism). The last thing those sites deal with is anything truly scientific.

                      The really tiring thing is that they continually change the rules for debate or lower the bar for the correct definition of a term when it is necessary to fit their dogma into it. I have always had the favorite catch phraze , “Scientific Method” , forcibly shoved down my throat and yet the same rule of law when it comes to it’s meaning with regard evolution and random mutations seems to have complete immunity when it comes to offering empirical scientific evidence in which the said “Method” can never be used because it’s impossible to even set up, let alone trying to rig something..

                      Anyway, thanks again for your comments. At least I can view them in email even if I don’t always have the time to visit.

                    • Mike Minnich says:

                      If you don’t understand why I spell ‘G-d’ the way I do then you need to educate yourself on the history of Abrahamic Religions.

                      It seems to me that your problem with my arguments is that you assume that I don’t apply my own standards to myself, and that indicates strongly that that is how you yourself behave more than it indicates anything about how I behave. If you pay close attention to what I’m saying you’ll notice that I don’t drastically change the rules at any point in the course of my discussion (and neither does Perry, though there are a few points where I believe he is regularly inconsistent depending on what precisely he’s trying to say at the moment), the reason you believe that I do is b/c you’re projecting yourself onto me more strongly than is warranted by the data.

                    • Mike Minnich says:

                      Consider the frequency of ‘to be’ among all of this discussion. Consider what it means if the fundamental meaning of ‘to be’ is refuted. This is not a refutation of the probability that I will die if I fall to the ground from a height of around 500 feet, it is a refutation of the universality of the logical mechanisms we use to package, manipulate and communicate that probability. It is a refutation of the idea that the human mind is in some sense supremely capable. It is a refutation of the concept that intent is or can be a semantically contentful variable in intelligent processes. Most importantly, it’s a refutation of the supposition that intelligent design processes are distinguishable from unintelligent design processes. I offer no alternative b/c AFAIK we’re fundamentally incapable of comprehending an alternative. It is hubris to assume that b/c human logic achieves that human logic is thus infallible when taken to extremes. The truth remains as thus, ‘there is no truth’.

                      While I (unsurprisingly) don’t agree 100% with what Oldstyle is saying, it encourages me to believe that my basic point is beginning to sink in with at least some of the readers here. If logic (yours, mine and everyone’s) is imperfect (which is after all one valid way of interpreting Gödel’s incompleteness theorems) and logic is your route to deity then not only the route but also the destination are naturally suspect. This has been my point all along, I’ve merely been changing the way I say it in hopes that it would eventually be expressed successfully.

                      One layer of imperfection is underspecification, which I maintain Perry is guilty of (as am I, obviously).

                      Another layer is the assumption that intelligence is well controlled by intent. This assumption betrays Perry’s lack of creative talent, I must say, as anyone with experience as an artist, programmer, musician, writer, etc knows full well that the most profound works of their careers always come unexpectedly in a flash of semi-consciousness and all the work to reconstruct that vision is a futile attempt to mate the memory of that trance with physical experience and often along the road many new directions present themselves and rarely to never is the end result the option that is truest to the original flash. The motivation is not intent, it is panicked, consuming curiousity. Creation is a frantic, obsessive occupation, not a controlled one, it is highly susceptible to the most minute cognitive influences, rather than adhering strictly to a discrete premeditated plan. What you see as ‘plans’ for software development, architectural works, or any other creative product are in themselves the product of intense indecisiveness and tortured searches in the darkest corners of consciousness for the simplest details in search of a manifestation of a workable compromise between multitudes of incongruous original flashes, not a flash itself.

                      Further, there is the simple observation that there is no one true logic, just as there is no one true language and no one true religion. Everyone thinks differently, everyone has their own ideolect, their own axioms and their own undying beliefs whether logically well related to their axioms or not. Even the most fundamental elements of a logic are variable, such as the number of possible truth values, from a unary system (this would be like repeatedly asking whether or not a sighted person’s eye is in communication with their brain, the answer should always be the same) to insanely overcomplicated systems, favoured though are bivalent (employed natively by most natural languages) and trivalent logics (the only alternative employed by natural languages, these can easily yield very strange logical results to very simple questions from the point of view of people who natively speak languages with bivalent logic). If this level of logic is not standard and it effects the results of logical problems it follows that there is not a uniquely superior logic that can be employed, and thus the decision of which logic to use is arbitrary and can have far reaching consequences. In short, what’s logical to you isn’t necessarily logical to me and vice versa, no matter how much we communicate back and forth.

                    • Mike,

                      We might attempt to muse about what it might mean to refute the fundamental meaning of the word “to be.” But I’d rather hear it actually refuted. I hereby invite you to do so. This reminds me of Bill Clinton saying “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

                      I have had my own experiences as artist, musician, programmer, and writer. I am quite aware of the “flashes of semi-consciousness” you speak of. I very well know what it feels like to be have those experiences and to be conscious of them.

                      I also know that it would take an even more brilliant flash of inspiration than any I’ve ever had, to create something as elegant as DNA. And I know that so far as is known to science, sterile ponds do not experience such flashes of brilliance. Rocks don’t talk and random accidents don’t write code.

                      If you are unable to accept the implications of the fact that 100% of all codes are designed, that seems to me to be a lack of imagination on your part, not mine.

                      To say that since there are multiple systems of logic there is therefore no such thing as truth is a non-sequitur. Mr. Gödel certainly would not have agreed with such a statement. His own incompleteness theorem has been proven in more than one system of logic.

                      Choose whatever system of logic you want to work within and let’s follow it to its conclusions.

                    • Mike Minnich says:

                      ‘And I know that so far as is known to science, sterile ponds do not experience such flashes of brilliance. Rocks don’t talk and random accidents don’t write code.’

                      My point was that those flashes are among the most random experiences humans can have. There is no intent that initiates them, they merely occur.

                      ‘If you are unable to accept the implications of the fact that 100% of all codes are designed, that seems to me to be a lack of imagination on your part, not mine.’

                      I have no problem w/ the implications, I have a problem w/ the logic that gets you there.

                      ‘Mr. Gödel certainly would not have agreed with such a statement. His own incompleteness theorem has been proven in more than one system of logic.’

                      Exactly! Logic itself is a broken ruler.

                      ‘Choose whatever system of logic you want to work within and let’s follow it to its conclusions.’

                      I’ve done that several times and you always throw out the results in the end b/c it’s not a result that fits your logic. That’s my entire point.

                    • My hypothesis is that flashes of brilliance are NOT random accidents – far from it. They are indications of even higher levels of order, which we have some level of access to. That hypothesis would be consistent with everything else that we do know about codes.

                      You are welcome to point out any place where I failed to follow the rules of logic in debating these points with you. As are the others who are watching this thread.

                    • Mike Minnich says:

                      ‘You are welcome to point out any place where I failed to follow the rules of logic in debating these points with you. As are the others who are watching this thread.’

                      I have and you’ve ignored them.

                    • Eocene says:

                      This little tit for tat debating with Perry has unfortunately accomplished nothing. The very structure of debates makes it difficult for people to change their view without losing face. It is a contest to see which side can win. Emotions rise, strong words are used, dogmatism takes over and calm, logical reasoning cannot function. Often both sides leave as they came-each side convinced that it is right. I’ve always been amused that the one who posts last and does’nt receive an immediate answer suddenly considers him/her self the winner. I have seen this many times in Perry’s case. Go read many of the forums with regard this very subject and atheist claiming victory over at infidels or where ever and because Perry did’nt immediately respond ( or perhaps never saw the comment to respond to ) it is always claimed and championed that that individual had the question Perry could’nt answer. What I’ve seen with many of these people is that they don’t have another life outside these debate forum venues. It would seem to me that if you were an atheist, you’d be spending quality time out there living it up and going for the gusto before natural selection took a dump on you and life is gone. In Perry’s case, the man has tremedous responsibility with regards his other businesses and responsibilities and yes maybe he neglected to answer something which was ten pages back when he last visited. Who of us can possibly can keep track if we also had the heavy responsibilities he is tied too ? Who knows, maybe his own forum at times is a bit more than he can chew, let alone some vicious animalistic feeding frenzy in a lion’s den.

                      I also observed that those wanting to debate are more interested in getting attention and publicity than they are in presenting the truth. ( Dawkins, Dennet, etc, but you can also throw in a bunch of evangelicals since I don’t see any difference in either side ) It is not necessarily the truth that is acclaimed victorious by those who read debates such as these. Crowds are not always reasonable. They are swayed by bombastic oratory and showy eloquence aimed at the emotions rather than the mind. In a debate as much error as truth is presented, and by playing upon emotions and personal prejudices the final conclusions of many readers may often favor the error. In the tense climate of a debate reason and logic are frequently ignored. A legally or judicially trained mind can separate the emotion from the fact and evaluate properly, but readers generally are not so discerning. A more calm atmosphere is needed for unbiased thinking. Each side usually thinks it has won, and often some who were neutral or undecided find themselves more confused after the debating is over.

                      In this particular subject’s ( that is, what’s the definition of a ‘Code’ ? ) case, the usual tired old tactic of debating definitions of words is employed, making those definitions fuzzy or muddy are of the utmost importance in the face of an individual backed into a corner for not having a truthfully logical and believe it or not COMMON SENSE answer when presented with facts.

                      Hopefully a handful of individuals with the right heart condition will get the point.

                    • Eocene says:

                      On that very point about ‘flashes of brilliance’. I’ve always been intrigued by the mastery of artistry and beauty in the pristine natural world. The colour cordination, artistic symmetry and beauty show more of a well thought out artistic layout of a designer as opposed to billions of lucky errors copied over and over. The beautiful colours and patterns in the birds, fish, flowers, trees, etc are living proof that random mutations played zero part in the development of all bio-deversity.

                      Thus far, most of this discussion has focused on nothing more than the utilitarian functionality of DNA. And yes, I agree that that is interesting in of itself and certainly inspires awe of a designer/creator. But there are actually numerous other questions that come to mind.

                      Why is it in nature that all the diversity of life with all it’s beauty and artistry are the rule rather than the exception ?

                      If we are to believe what the good reverend Richard Dawkins describes as to the beginning of all things that there is no other motive than “blind pointless pitiless indifference” , then beyond mechanics, what accounts for all the extreme artistic beauty found in the natural world to occur as often and to the degree it is? Especially that besides as we know it, not only is an intelligent mind absolutely necessary for such accomplishments, but also, such creativity generally is an inspiration of heart and feelings of a conscious intelligent being. In the real world of art and beauty as we know of it as humans with all of it’s colour cordination, symmetry, pricision, etc it is subjective to not only an intelligent mind, but also motivated by feelings from a heart as we all understand that such artistic things usually are. ‘Blind , pointless , pitiless indifference’ has neither a mind nor heart and therefore is incapable of masterful purpose of intent with regards artistry and beauty.

                      If you ask an atheist these questions, the usual dictionary response is that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’. Typical. However, that is the exact point. It’s funny that they will actually try and explain “Natural Selection” as if it’s some sort of “blind powerful intelligent force” ( almost like a god ) that performs all of this. When asked to prove it and explain it’s so-called intelligent moves, they can’t. Therefore some explanations (fables/Fairytales) they come up with sometimes infer that the organism itself came up with certain survival strategies. But now the intelligence and brilliance becomes transfered to the organism (bacteria , snail , lizard , bird, flower, tree ,etc) as far as decision making. Do such things actually have such intellectual abilities ? Then it would seem that not only do they have power of such reasoning, but then we are to believe that they have actual physical creative power of will to make these intelligent purposeful changes in their DNA from nothing more than acting upon their own reasoning and meditations. It’s entertaining to say the least to watch them dig themselves into a deeper hole as time goes on and more and more questions need carefully calculated and creative assumptions as explanations for such brilliance in nature.

                    • Mike Minnich says:

                      Haha! Not at all. This is actually a very good example of what I’m talking about. Truth is not objective, objective reality doesn’t exist. Never for an instant have I had any sense that your arguments compromise mine, and apparently you feel the same way about your position. Thus, there is no one truth about the state of our discussion, instead truth is relativistic and much more entangled with individual psychology than anything that could functionally pass as an objective sense of reality. Something to notice is that I’m genuinely arguing against myself here just as much as I’m arguing against you, neither of our opinions can ‘win’, as such it’s never really been my objective to try to ‘win’ instead it’s been my intention to bring to your attention the ambiguity present in all alleged truths, to point out that no science, no logic, no rational thought can predict anything perfectly, and as such they should be considered with a degree of caution. Thus, in bivalent logical terms, your arguments ‘lose’, and so do mine.

                    • “Truth is not objective” – is that an objective statement, or a subjective statement?

                      “Truth is relativistic” – is that absolutely true, or relatively true?

                      “No science, no logic, no rational thought can predict anything perfectly” – is that a perfect or imperfect prediction?

                    • Mike Minnich says:

                      “Truth is not objective” – is that an objective statement, or a subjective statement?

                      Subjective

                      “Truth is relativistic” – is that absolutely true, or relatively true?

                      Relatively

                      “No science, no logic, no rational thought can predict anything perfectly” – is that a perfect or imperfect prediction?

                      Imperfect due to the relativity of truth

                    • atorrnce says:

                      As John Donne wrote: “‘What is truth?’ said jesting Pilate and waited not for an answer.” Our reasoning depends on the principle of identity and on the principle of the sufficient reason. And herein lies a problem: what is a sufficient reason for one person is in no way sufficient for another. Hence the idea that truth is relative.
                      John Donne’s quotation is from the 18th chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, verse 38. It is the end of Pilate’s conversation with Christ. Pilate clearly didn’t believe in absolute objective truth any more than you or I. And Christ didn’t give him an answer; but If he were God, surely he could !
                      In fact, Pilate asked the wrong question. The right one was “Who is truth ?” And to that question Christ had given the answer a few hours earlier: “I am the Truth.” (John 14, 6).
                      It is hard for the Western mind to accept this saying in its fullness; yet this seems to be the only way out of the dilemma you have highighted. Our reason is inadequate as a criterion of truth. Only God can be this.

                    • Oldstyle says:

                      I am impressed.

                      Mike Minnich has stated in clear terms the dualistic nature of logic that always examines two points of reference to analyze the differences and to form judgments as to a preference, and that preference is often preconceived. In other words, it depends upon one’s individual perception as to what will be the outcome, unless one is willing to abandon previously held perceptions. The logical mind is not capable of creating a holographic reproduction of true life but rather an arbitrary and linear agreement with one perspective in opposition to another. I do not refer to the logical minds ability to create holographic instruments, but holography is not a feature inherent within the logical mind.

                      There are other levels of intelligence that mankind possesses and a broader understanding of their functions and capabilities will help to shift the “logical problem” one step up in awareness so that , as a race of beings, we can get past the limitations our logical minds create.

                      As living beings we possess a level of intelligence that is associated with bio-genetics. This is what is often referred to as the “fight or flight” response to life. This intelligence is embedded in our cellular structure and is, indeed, a legacy of structure itself, and it is more than adequate to ensure our survival in a world of structure.

                      When we try to create philosophy and understanding of life from this level we are prone to see reward and guilt/punishment as a basis for spiritual homage. God then becomes an ally in our struggles against all enemies and opponents. The main downfall of a spiritual philosophy stemming from bio-genetics is that from this perspective we see a universe that posses problems and threats and it most often results in an eye for an eye in order to create balance.

                      The next level up in intelligence is a logical mind that, as I stated, takes two points of reference and creates a dichotomy of balance or imbalance. Energies are seen as forces and the perception of the universe is that of opposing forces that hold the cosmos in balance. Natural laws of force are perceived as the inner workings of the universe that bind particles together or propel them apart. This approach to perception stems from structure itself.

                      The logical mind gathers and integrates knowledge from the environment which it serves. This environment is the environment of structure. Particles are structure, laws are a product of structure and governments are a product of structure required by society and communal living. Cities, built on structure require laws based on structure and all the way to the furthest reaches of the cosmos the logical mind looks for structure. This is the logical mind’s environment which we know of as structure, and it is what the logical mind serves. It cannot grasp infinity and it has little interest in, so called, empty space.

                      What the logical mind is not bringing any awareness to, in this level of intelligent perception, is that energy is not necessarily limited to being a force. This is because logic is applied to structure from the smallest particle to great swirling galaxies, but as long as energy remains a force it can only be applied to objects of mass that are close in proximity. Given that empty space makes up 98% of the universe it would seem that our logical intelligence doesn’t find a great deal of interest in the major proportion of what composes our universe. Perhaps like junk DNA the logical reaction is to tune out what doesn’t form part of its environment, that is to say, the structure it can build on.

                      Perry says that this attitude (junk DNA) is entirely unscientific, and I don’t argue on that score, but until someone sees a way to build on the “junk” and fit it into structure then the logical mind will continue to ignore junk DNA and empty space as having no value. This is a limitation of a linear and logical mind.

                      Our greatest level of intelligence comes from the heart. Through the heart we can know what infinity means to us individually and not simply as a concept. By focusing your awareness in the heart center (slightly below the physical heart and inward) you can travel inward or outward consciously to experience infinity by letting life be, and from there learn to search for your connection to the unified field that connects the universe as a whole.

                      Current research shows that 60 to 65% of heart cells are neural cells, the same as found in the brain. Also these neuron cells connect through neurotransmitters that are the same as found in the brain, and in fact the heart send information to the brain by way of these neurotransmitters, just as it does to every other major organ of the body. The heart cells are the first to form in an embryo and this suggests that the heart is the original source of intelligence that guides the unfolding development of the human form, and I would have to include the decoding of DNA as part of the heart’s intelligence.

                      Chilton Pierce, who has presented research from a number of scientific fields and combined the discoveries into a comprehensive awareness of the “Heart’s” intelligence goes on to outline how the heart creates an electromagnetic field that surrounds our body and he explains that this field is vibrational and holographic and can be tapped into from any location on the body. The research by Pierce suggests that this electromagnetic field is a source of radio transmitted information that informs the brain on how to create our internal experience of the world. (Mike, is this akin to what you are saying about a subjective reality?)

                      When our heart is shut down and our love is blocked then the resulting electromagnetic field feeding the brain will be less at ease and dis-ease becomes the corrupting information the brain uses to perceive the world. Imagine the state of depression when all the world is seen in its worst colours and love is a signal full of noise like… despair. It is not the world that has changed any more than usual, but it is our perception that renders the outlook as happy or sad. It is also our outlook that renders our scientific perceptions based upon the logical mind that has past a judgment on what is real and what is not.

                      The heart is the source of our highest intelligence and it will lead us out of the limitations of a force based science into the realm of attraction based science. Electromagnetic energy will then be seen as an attraction and the 98% of empty space starts to become far more interesting than the 2% of particle reality.

                      There are many advantages of following the heart’s intelligence and not the least will be that the combination of a bio-genetic philosophy with a linear and logical mind forms a deadly combination of terror and destruction based on fear and limitations in perception. This is the projected outcome of biblical prophecy that scares the hell out of all of us. Just the same, those prophecies are avoidable when we begin to express the love that we are, and it will be the heart’s wisdom and intelligence that gives us that capability.

                      God commanded the universe into being through love. That is our legacy. We also command our world through love and the heart will heal the electromagnetic field through which the brain perceives reality and functions within it. In this way we have been created in the image of God. We command our own universe, that bubble of electromagnetic energy our heart creates for us and all of material reality obeys our commands through love. This is the source of our real power and it is the connection and comprehension of infinity. Love is forever, love has no beginning and no end, love obeys love.

                      When I say “Love” I do not refer to mere affection and casual affinity with people, places, or things. I refer to a deeper sense of who we are individually at the heart of our being and discovering the deepest passion for life, for living, and for one another. It is not a warm fuzzy philosophy based on wishful thinking. No, it is the essence of creation itself and the gift our Father has given us which provides a perspective of reality that will literally pick us up and place us on the high road to fulfill our greatest desires, to enrich scientific research, and to unite us as spirit.

                      When I refer to Love’s Command I do not mean control. Commanding is a superior position and it is only when we have turned away from our heart’s true function that we fall from command and grasp at any means of controlling our reality through structure based fears and mortality. As a child of God we are given command of our world through the wisdom and intelligence of love. This is our true birthright and it is our commanding presence that makes all men equal.

                    • perrari says:

                      Interesting post Oldstyle.

                      Scientific research shows that the heart is the seat for the soul and thus consciousness. As blood passes through the heart it becomes charged by the energy of the spirit soul that resides there, and carries that energy through the body.
                      At conception the soul travels to the female’s egg in the male’s sperm and by it’s presence creates the first cell of the new body. As the body grows due to the presence of the soul, the consciousness expands throughout the body from its seat in the region of the heart.

                      Now please explain in more detail your comment on our identity and purpose in life:

                      “who we are individually at the heart of our being and discovering the deepest passion for life, for living, and for one another.”

                      What is your understanding of ‘who we are?’
                      What is your understanding of the reason for living?

                      Respectfully yours

                      Perrari

  14. perrari says:

    Hi Perry,
    Can’t really understand your argument. Please help me out.

    If we accept that DNA is produced from mind, then all we can state for sure is that before DNA on this particular planet, there was mind.

    Why does mind = God?

    There could be many levels of existence higher and more advanced than us, but not absolute.
    Creating DNA may be possible at a level higher than us but still lower than the absolute position reserved for ‘God’
    Are you assuming there is only God and mankind, and nothing in between?
    Maybe there are far more evolved existences and consciousnesses that we are unaware of at present, in our planetary system, but through reincarnation we evolve indefinitely and there is no single person at the top, just an on going evolution and at some level we gain the expertise to manufacture DNA and ‘seed’ new planets.
    Just as humans and animals on this planet cannot reproduce at a young age, but have to wait sometime until they reach maturity at which time they no longer sleep in cots and play in nurseries. So too as a person’s consciousness matures they become able to create DNA and no longer stay on our planet, as it is childish and boring, so we do not see them.
    There may be other explanations for the origin of DNA and information that allow for intelligence and mind but fall short of the personality of God with all His trappings of absolute everything.
    Hence how can you state with certainty that God exists?

    respectfully
    Perrari

    • The inference is simply that DNA was created by *some kind* of mind. In my presentation 3 of the 5 options are: humans / aliens / God. Aliens could be true but isn’t helpful. We could hypothesize some lesser spiritual entity and that’s just as valid as aliens but it’s not helpful for the same reasons.

      I think the best inference to God as opposed to these other explanations comes from Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. See http://www.evo2.org/incompleteness

  15. God Chaser says:

    Hello Perry,

    Thank you for your quick response to my post. However, When the discussion comes up about DNA being a code. This study by Tsonis is brought up by Materialists to dismiss your theory. Is it possible for you to elaborate more on Zipf’s law and this study findings.

    According to The Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 184, Issue 1 – Professors Anastasios A. Tsonis, James B. Elsner, and Panagiotis A. Tsonis have all concluded that:

    “DNA sequences usually involve local construction rules that affect different scales. As such their “dictionary” may not follow Zipf’s law (a power law) which is followed in every natural language. Indeed, analysis of many DNA sequences suggests that no linguistics connections to DNA exist and that even though it has structure DNA in not a language. Computer simulations and a biological approach to this problem further support these results.”

    .

  16. Forrest Charnock says:

    BTW Perry:

    The Catholic Bible makes up for the deletion of the second commandment by splitting the 9th into 2 versus.

    9th Commandment

    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife.

    (The Tenth Commandment is split into two to get back to Ten Commandments.)

    10th Commandment

    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods.

  17. Frikkie Nel says:

    Good day!

    I would like to bring a twist backwards to the equasion.

    The simple fact that grown men spend their time typing endless arguments on a subject that has seemingly no point and obviously no direction, makes me think we should take this back to the reason everything “exists” to us in the first place. In other words, we need to look at our psychology and how we see things before we go to how we were made to see it. Because if we dont understand our own functionality and tendency then how can we make clear and rasional judgements on the case!?

    Why does “God” have the likeness of a human being? How can a human being connect the idea of creating to anything other than what he already knows creates> Humans create things, we always have, and thats why we are here now, on a website stating arguments. We created this network and started these debates.

    The reason we we link a god to the answer to the unexplained is because we want reasons for things, events and phenomenons.

    Now there are 2 types of people that stand out in this world: Those that ascribe God to the creation of everything, and those that keep searching for the answer and find new things andbreak new ground. Furthering our advance as a human race.

    I think wanting to prove there is a god roots from insecurity and ignorence. The idea that there is no perpose to us living this life we live is just not acceptible is it!

    Look at what “god” meant to people since “the begining of time”. It was a means of bringing order, of making for a more civilised people. All theories over time that caused all religions were ways to make a human to be better than he/is and to explain the unexplained. This is fairly narrow but the idea is there.

    Look into the people that created the idea of god before you look into the things that the idea created.

    Scientists aught not to waste their time with fools who mean to defend a faith or the existence of a super being that gives them reason to sit back and just be.

    We aught to explore every new thing there is in our reach before we make the data sour and corrupt it from the inside with an alibi for not participating in the true frontlines of human advancement.

    Where is it going to take you when you “know” that a god exists? It will only comfort you in knowing that there is some good force out there that exists in your favour.

  18. Frikkie Nel says:

    Think about this: Who introduced “God” to us? Who wrote the first book in the bible? It was a man. Not a god that apeared to all man kind and said HEY! IM GOD! So do what I say and be happy and safe or else die. Nono.

    . If you are looking for answers, God isnt going to give it to you. You are going to have to find it yourself. And the fact that we have to reason like a bunch of idiots over IF this God actually exists means that this god isnt quite so apparently real!

    Human kind is so complex that we find ourselves not knowing what we think we know. I state this : God is in us. We are God. We are the reason he exists, and the answer to this “scientific” equasion is somewhere within us waiting to be found.

    Untill we fully understand how we see things and how we work and function we cannot truly determine that there is a god or is not a god.

    People should not disregard the bible as a source of valuable rules and ways to live by. The people that wrote these books had knowledge about life and what the order of things are. This isnt scientific, neither is it religious. This is basic principals of life. We go on about wether there is a god but we dont eve know how to behave ourselves in the best possible human way in day to day life. We dont get along with people, or there are always some screw-ups of some sort yet we never figure out why.

    You need to look into human behaviour and psychology before you look for what the human wants to label as its creater of ideals and everything else for that matter.

    Look at what really matters before you crash out onto the international scene with an idea that will rock everyones boat. Yayy youre famous for defending God.

    Its growing pathetic. And in the end when you are all dead, all this debate and determined figting for what you believe is going to be noise polution and litter stacked up in folders of people trying to make a way. All they did is mess around with the way.

    Realise that you are making yourselves subject to the weakness of mans ignorence. This kind of thing has gone on for thousands of years, and probably will for another thousand years. Each theory dying out in due time as the next theory arises.

    God is a delusion of man. And that is why man still fights for it…. Delusion…

    • perrari says:

      Dear Frikkie Nel,
      Actually, 5,000 years ago God DID appear and say I AM GOD. And basically He did go on to say “do what I say and be happy and safe or else die.”
      If you want to know EXACTLY what He said it is all recorded in the Bhagavad Gita in sanskrit EXACTLY as it was spoken 5,000 year ago.
      If you would rather something a little more up to date, then you can explore the appearance of God 520 years ago in Bengal, when He again gave instructions on how to be happy and safe.
      The Bible should not be taken too seriously or too literally, it is a relatively new book on spiritual topics and while well-meaning, its descriptions and explanations are extremely simple and often vague. It is a compilation from many different authors over a long period of time, and has suffered repeatedly from translations, misrepresentations, misunderstandings and deliberate manipulations.
      Prior to King James 1st there were so many versions that Christianity was so disunited that it presented a political problem to King James, who ordered a staff of clerics, (not self-realized, fully God conscious saints) to come up with a standard version for his country, basically to stabilize it. So they obliged and in all fairness it is not bad as an introduction to spiritual life, but for anyone who is really serious about transcending the mundane and re-establishing his eternal relationship with Godhead in whichever of the 5 primary rasas is his constitutional position, aloof from any tinge of raja guna, tamo guna and even sattva guna tinged with materialism, quite frankly, it is a joke.

  19. Frikkie Nel says:

    Humans have WAY much more power than they give themselves credit for. It is all or atleast partly in belief. If you believe you cam heal, you will heal. If you believe that you will become well from a sickness, you wil become well.

  20. gstgeo says:

    i enjoyed your presntation on DNA and the existance of God. I was impressed with the deductive reasoning sequence . I was however puzzeled by your final commments. I am a practicing Catholic but I fail to see how Christanity enters into this discussion. God is God without any particular personal religious belief.

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *