Scientific Case for a Transcendent God
So what do I mean by transcendent? Wouldn't a transcendent God be an absentee and uncaring God? That is what radical French deism in reality material atheism would have us believe - that is not classical deism. For the modern atheist science has become a huge liability - empirical science never supported their position to begin with.
Just as modern science has discredited the atheistic French deism of Voltaire modern science also brings into question atheistic materialism in total.
Nobody today doubts what we called the Big Bang: that the material universe started somewhere and was never infinite in time. An unknown force created the universe dominated by time and matter.
The entire foundation of material atheism is the belief that nothing beyond our senses can exist. Without presenting absolutely any proof materialistic atheism claims our entire existence can be readily explained by random molecular associations that for unknown and unproven reasons self-organized into us. Science much to the grief of atheist dogma has now called this and question.
It's called dark matter and dark energy. It's called "dark" because it can't be seen, felt, or measured even with modern scientific instrumentation. Some at NASA now claim that as much is 90% or more of the physical universe in fact cannot be seen or measured by the senses. Dark matter/energy transcends our senses and physical science.
Though dark matter and dark energy transcend the physical laws and our senses it's still according to scientists acts upon our physical universe. Its power is such that it can move the orbits of entire galaxies. All the sudden atheist materialism and its insistence on nothing beyond physical matter must be rejected.
If most of the universe is as science claims transcends our physical universe, its certain that something be it a force or something beyond even that would have to exist. This is what I would call the Supreme Being. It would also explain much of what we've been reading in ancient religious texts which I take very seriously and problems in the fossil records.
Classical deism was the effort to reconcile reason, science, and traditional religious faiths. The idea was to sort through these traditions and philosophies to find points in common and to filter out superstitious nonsense. With the discovery of dark matter and dark energy we need to take a serious look at many traditional claims - and a new look at science.
I am not here to revive traditional religions, so I'm going to explain what I see is a transcendent Supreme Being.
My electrical and electronics classes I have taught my students capacitive and inductive reactance. In one of my classical experiments I will connect a non-polarized capacitor to 120 VAC. Power in an electrical circuit is the product of voltage and current. Current in this case is matter being free electrical charges (electrons) within an electrical metal conductor. Voltage is the push or as they say electromotive force that will move the charges through the conductor.
Yet we have this capacitor connected to 120 VAC we can measure the voltage across the capacitor and it is there, and I can measure the current moving through the wire and it shows a current flow - yet there is no power transfer and no work being done. How can this be? That capacitor should technically be getting hot and perhaps explode if high enough capacitance it should be a short circuit.
That is how transcendence works be it dark matter, dark energy, or the Supreme Being that controls and sustains our universe. The electric current and the voltage or out of phase - both are present as proven by the measurements but because of a 90 degree phase displacement they can never interact, at least directly.
Simply put simply they don't exist at the same time - watt meters are designed to compensate for this. But they can interact if I began to shift the phase or time shift of either agent. If I introduce electrical resistance that in some ways acts upon the matter moving through the wire I will definitely get a power transfer to that resistance.
So the transcendent dark matter and dark energy that literally surrounds and engulfs us through an unknown force that can shift the positions of galaxies and control the assembly of atoms not only created our world but sustains it. There must a teleological agent that literally "designed" our world for life.
There is absolutely no empirical scientific proof that life began by random chance or mere chemistry, but there is proof that a non-material force is out there and it does interact with us.
This is not to be mistaken with pantheism a form of atheism that conflates the Creator with matter. The Supreme Being is not and does not inhabit physical matter. Like the electrical reactance experiment they exist together but on a different plane, thus are separate.
Another writer who was an atheist for 40 years had to finally confront the truth that more than pure material processes are behind our existence. I will quote the following from him from an article titled "A Very Short Course On Evolution":
How can we have trustworthy knowledge of reality? Enlightenment based science - Empiricism - is based on the need for objective knowledge in order to eliminate the bias inherent in subjective, personal knowledge, which is referred to as "opinion"...If all reality is physical and has cause/effect relationships which are reliably based in determinism, then it is physically possible to assert a cause and to produce a predictable effect...
Is evolution properly called objective knowledge of a causal phenomenon in physical reality, and is there empirical, experimental, falsifiable, replicable, open data which legitimately grants evolution the title of "objective knowledge"?
Darwin's theory comes down to just two causal forces: gradual variation and selection. A third principle was Common descent, but it is not a causal theory in the sense that variation/selection is. And a fourth principle is gradualism, which is enabling and more catalytic than causal. These points were supported by a huge myriad of stories which he derived from inductive observations. After Darwin, the use of story telling became the main feature of evolutionary theory, and the stories were referred to as "Just So Stories"" by Stephen Jay Gould.
It has been said that Darwin created story telling as a scientific discipline, and it has, in fact become the stock in trade of not only evolutionary theory, but also other non-empirical sciences, which create hypotheses and then claim them as facts without empirical validation. A common claim is that there is a "mountain" of evidence for evolution, and that constitutes two things: fossil record, and genetics. Neither, however, is conclusive objective evidence for evolution.
The fossil record shows that various animals lived at certain times, as is revealed in the strata or layers in which their skeletal remains are found. It is extrapolated inferentially, i.e. without empirical, objective proof, that animals in one layer generated the new species in the next higher layer, and some connected variations are probable, while others are inexplicable. Further, the Darwinian tree of life has become a bush, a grid, a woven fabric, and in the case of the pre-Cambrian Explosion, a lawn.
Evolutionary theorists agreed finally that variation alone was insufficient to allow speciation. After much internal jousting, the theory became variation or mutation with selection. However, after another half-century and the impact of RNA, DNA and protein generation, it became clear once again that the mere random modification of a few pieces of the genome would not produce the complexities required to change from sponge to the varieties of life found in the pre-Cambrian explosion...
There is no empirical evidence provided which demonstrates conclusively and objectively that the creation of new, useful information can occur deterministically. Bacterial "evolution"" is Darwinian micro-evolution, meaning that the variation is happening on information already contained within the genome. However, under the Extended Synthesis both variation and now natural selection have been put under the bus. These theories of 150 years cannot sustain what is known of the fossil record.
(He goes on about the massive level of information required to be stored in DNA, etc. to explain deterministic evolution - it doesn't exist.)
It has been said that an egg is an information packet with sufficient energy to overcome entropy of the temporarily enclosed system. The system goes from closed system to open system just-in-time. The open system organism operates in what Schrodinger calls "negative entropy", under which life and only life grows in complexity and maintains its agent-driven activities on both a micro- and macro- basis, turning energy into complexity.
The length of a DNA molecule is far too long to have been correctly assembled by non-purposeful, random forces. Further, it cannot be said to be deterministic because it cannot be deduced to have happened from minerals and their properties. The purpose of the code, the agents, and the code carrier (DNA, RNA, proteins, etc) is purposeful for life, i.e. it is teleological.
Teleology, having purpose, is not a product of determinism, even randomly accidental. Accidental purpose is logically non-coherent.
The jump in complexity from single cells and sponges to all the phyla (except one) in the 50 million years or so in the fossil record requires an impossibly steep acquisition of new information being added to a "common ancestor". The common ancestor does not exist in the pre-Cambrian fossil record at the present time, despite 150 years of excavations.
Utility as Predictor of Effect based on Causality Principles in the Hypothesis.
Is zero; no predictive ability. All of the theories together give no ability to predict an outcome of any organism in any environment. This prediction of everything and nothing is a specific falsifier for evolution, because there is no causal predictive power such that every possible outcome is called an evolution artifact. Because it cannot be falsified, it is not science, so calling it science is false. Totally false.
Further, the claim that evolutionary theory is the "unifying principle" of biology is completely without empirical or logical basis. If that were true, then all of the issues of life's existence would be resolved. They are not. And noted here are many issues that cannot be resolved by any theory of evolution.
First, the common descent and acquisition of teleological information along with the communication groups necessary for life happened just once, according to common descent, and thus any direct observation is impossible.
Second, any creation of replicators in a laboratory cannot be known to be the same mechanism as the creation of the common ancestor. Contrarily the failure to create replicators does not falsify evolution due to the promise of Scientism.
Third, the laboratory creation of molecular teleological information, communication groups, and the method to activate them is beyond vanishingly small: it is zero; vanished. This realization does, in fact, falsify evolution. However, for Darwinists the adherence to Materialist, determinist Scientistic ideology as a necessary presupposition requires that the vanishingly small characteristic to be held as non-zero, and to be divided by "deep time", thereby giving an acceptable answer. This is falsified by the Cambrian explosion and is assuaged by the elimination of gradualism in the Extended Synthesis.
The Cambrian explosion, itself, is an artifact of the fossil record; it could be falsified by significant amounts of truly contrary findings, but has not been. It is the CAUSAL factors for the Cambrian explosion which cannot be falsified they cannot be falsified by observation and in fact they cannot be known in any certain, objective manner.
Fourth, even if it were possible to create this in a laboratory, it would have been intelligently created, not deterministically created straight from minerals. It would not suffice to falsify an ever changing set of hypotheses.
Fifth, a pre-Cambrian rabbit would be rationalized into some sort of non-linear evolutionary hypothesis, just as is the Cambrian explosion; it would require a new story and would not actually falsify the existing "Just So Stories".
End quote. I've noticed these problems myself studying geology and earth science. There's no possible way all of this could be random chance. What I did read in fact was "stories". I would agree with the writer's conclusion:
"(atheistic) Evolution is not an empirical science, it is an exercise in story telling based on changing fossil records."
With zero proof of materialistic and deterministic evolution and clear proof of transcendent dark matter and dark energy logically there is a transcendent force that has both purpose and in my opinion a moral code - thus The Supreme Being or God as another term is proven by empirical science. God is indeed not only our Creator but sustainer as well. And this is according to Thomas Jefferson.
The atheist masquerading as a deist would indeed have much to fear from this. The closet atheists are conducting an anti-theistic crusade based on feelings of rebellion not reason or empirical science - nearly all of them I know are science illiterate.
Trying to get them even use reason is fruitless as any religious fanatic. Like all crusaders the crusade in itself becomes the goal and without something to attack the crusade ceases to be the focus of their life. Then they are back to being lost, which is their real problem.
- Scientific Case for a Transcendent God
- In Defense of Classical Deism
- Environmentalism is Still a Religion
New for December 2017:
- Geiger Counter Adventures in Bristol
- Climate Change and Volcanoes
- Technology is Why the Jobs are Not Coming Back
- Off-the-Shelf Technology for Space Exploration
- 2017 Website Updates & Deletions
- Web Master Homepage
- Bristol, Southwest Virginia Revealed
- Science & Technology
- Hobby Electronics
- US Constitution
- Christianity 101
- Religious Themes
- Debunking the Jesus-Mithra Connection
- Is it Christianity or Mithraism?
- Saul of Tarsus, Mithraic Cults, and Christ's Blood
» General Subjects
» Archive 1 » Archive 2 » Archive 3
» Archive 4 » Archive 5 » Archive 6
» Archive 7 » Archive 8 » Archive 9