The philosophy of God by Il Sociale

Sam Mar

THE PHILOSOPHY THE PHILOSOPHY OF GOD OF GOD

MIND IS RELIGION Sam Mardini

Chapter 1

PROBABILITIES

SECTION 1

Probabilities Why do we categorize questions as being easy, hard or have no answer? It always depends on three things: 1-The number of variables the answer has. 2-The results and consequences of such answer. 3-The availability of information needed to answer the question. ... When we start with such a question as "Does God exist?" we are faced with the highest degree of uncertainty on all the 3 factors. The number of variables is endless. The consequences are life changing. The information available is contradicting and at base level, scarce. We shall, for the sake of scientific method, ignore the 2nd point, and assume no consequences.

If we are to take that into consideration the answer will always be God exists because the slightest chance of heaven and hell trumps all science and logic. The variables we have are endless, the origin of life, morality, philosophical arguments, the origin of the universe itself and much much more. The information we have about non empirical events like the origin of the universe and life ranges from theories (Abiogenesis, Big Bang...etc) to beliefs that maybe no more than fairytales. Since none of us can claim he/she has all the variable, and knows all the non-empirical answers, we are forced to an option against hu2

man nature. That option is against our nature because it defies patterns, and we are pattern seeking individuals. It does not provide the assurance of survival through knowledge or power, and we are survivalistic creatures. That option is... probabilities. We will always be dealing with probabilities, no one has the absolute truth, probabilities are all we have. We take flights because the highest probability is that we will get to our destination unharmed. We get in our car because accidents are the exception not the norm. We go through surgeries because it succeeds most of the time in increasing our chances of survival. If I was to list all the probabilities of answers for these mysterious subjects, we will lose focus. If I wanted to write about how I arrived at each probability, well, it will take me a very very long time! Hence, I decided to list my CURRENT highest probabilities logically supported beliefs, and allow each of them to be

challenged. If you agree with any of the listed beliefs, please provide an intellectual reason. If you disagree, please provide a valid civilized argument.

SECTION 2

Weighing the Probabilities We have theories on how the universe started, theories on how we came to existence, and theories about understanding our surroundings. Often times some Theists attempt to claim that the incomplete understanding of the world, is an evidence for God. On the other hand, many Atheists claim that any understanding of the world with God in the picture deserves to be ridiculed and excluded. We will use a little bit a of a different method than usual to shed some light on the weights of the probabilities. We will reverse the research, and assume each view as factual. This will make it easier to see how its implications

may or may not make sense of reality in the light of the view: A common, moderate logic based Atheistic view: We are spawned into a 13.7 Billion years old universe. Some recent estimates suggests the existence of over 400 Billion galaxies; each containing 200 to 1000 Billion stars. Many of these stars have planets, it sounds perfectly reasonable to have other earth like planets that can support life out there. But even more to the point, who said that planets have to be exactly like earth to support life? What if there was Methane or Argon breathing life somewhere? What if 4

there was Sulfur based life? With that in mind, I find life in other parts of the universe probable. This implies the probability for life on earth to start spontaneously. The earth is estimated o be 4.6 Billion years old. For the first 500 Million years the earth was too hot. As earth started cooling down, more chemical reactions took place. The probability for the first "cell" to emerge spontaneously is low, but we do not know the exact nature of the first cell. The first cell could not have been DNA based, there is no Abiogenesis model to date that claims so. Most suggest it was an RNA based cell. RNA is simpler , more adaptive and more resistant to damage than DNA. ( For some reason, the more resistant, more adaptive RNA only cell no longer exists. Viruses, while many being RNA based, are not capable of self replicating). This is something worth noting but it does not demolish the theory. The RNA cell kept replicating and mutat-

ing and natural selection began. Now 3.5 Billion years later, we are here. There is nothing mystical about it. There is no magic. We are the outcome of random events, We have a moral sense because of the herd instinct developed through evolutionary pressure. There is nothing after death, this life is all we have. Many people resist this view because of its harsh implications. But if it is the truth, so be it. Holding contradicting beliefs within the mind leads to restlessness, unless your mind is wired to practice what the famous writer George Orwell calls double think. The appeal of the Atheistic view is that it does not appear to come across as double think. It seems like the scientific and rational thing to believe. However, that would only be valid if the spiritual view was primitive, unscientific, self contradicting and the pure result of indoctrination. If, however, the spiritual view can ac5

count for the facts we know, then we have a plausible alternative. If it does that and then explain things beyond, the probabilities begin to shift. We are after the truth no matter how inconvenient it is, are we not? If your mind starts firing defense mechanisms, use your conscious to override it and consider all the possibilities. Do not listen to the voice that tells you this is wrong and takes you on a defensive trail of thoughts. While the previous view I gave was a common Atheistic view, in the third part of this chapter, I will introduce a new spiritual view. New at least in some aspects and concepts..

SECTION 3

The Hidden God Throughout history, all the human needs have been collectively fulfilled, except one. Ironically, it is the one need that stems all needs, and the one that all needs lead to. That need is known as survival, or in more poetic and absolute terms, immortality. We eat to survive, we attempt to produce an offspring so our genetic lineage survives, we covet resources to affirm our survival in the group, we seek money to insure better chances of survival...etc. Everything we do is connected to that need, sometimes you can see the direct connection (as in eating) but most of the time it is more complicated. It sounds like an oversimplification, but

I can connect any need that jumps to your mind to survival. We need to be loved for security, those with criminal element do so out of the competition for survival. There is no pure evil, it is that need that from which stems all the evil and much of the good. The closer something to you the more you want it to survive. Once you reach yourself, you want to survive forever. The only way to survive forever is either by deluding your brain away from the idea of death, or for the supernatural to exist. This is why humans sought God. Even those who claim they welcome the nothingness after death. They 7

think of that nothingness as a form of eternal sleep. They seek to be immortals in serenity and peace. Even some of those who kill themselves, kill themselves out of survival pressure or because of missing on a survival need, if we exclude mental malfunctions and drugs causes. Keep in mind, neither this or anything that follows is a proof for God. The immortality need could be no more than an evolutionary impulse for survival merged with consciousness. Yet it could also be what C.S. Lewis meant when he said "If I discover within myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world". Bias is the worm of science, the virus of mind, and the undoing of great thinking. Given the view above, it is easy to see why people would be biased to prove their view of God. The way the brain functions ensures that the bias happens because it resists acting

or believing in contradictions. The brain also has a mechanism to challenge its own views, that mechanism is what I call secondary intelligence. This function is present to a different degree in some people all the time, and in all people some of the time. Problem is, you cannot assert that God exists or not without bias. What is intend to be provided here is a viable view of God, not a proof. To sit bias aside, we have to look at what people regard as evidence, and regard it as a clue. In this part, I will address one question, why does God hide himself from his creation ? Remember, this is the section where we assume God exists then reverse research, so the answer of because God does not exist is negated. Before I start to answer that question, I want to note that my view is based on observations in reality and the biblical God of Christianity. The choice of Christianity as a base was complicated, and we may go over it later. The next two 8

paragraphs will contain heavy Christian references and controversial concepts. If you are an Atheist, please challenge the philosophy, If you are a Theist, please challenge with scripture proof to the opposite. We will go back to science in the coming chapters. It would be a waste of time to argue if God hides himself or not, we do not see God, we do not hear God, our senses cannot tell us about God. God requires faith, but how convenient should God be man made idea that he requires faith. I found the best way to approach this is to ask Why would God require faith ? To answer that I entertained many ideas, including that God has a twisted sense of humor. On a more serious note, God must have a really good reason to require faith. The only good reasons I could come up with were related to the master of this world, the ancient serpent, the prince of darkness...Satan. The answer is related to Satan in two ways: First,

based on reality we know that God must not regret his gifts. If he did, we would be living in agonizing pain every time we "sinned". Once God grants rights, he does not retract them, not until they are unearned. We know of no greater creature than Satan, and to a creature of such stature God must have granted certain rights. Our rights do not override Satan's nor his ours. This is why there is so much evil in the world, God is absolute and cannot act against his nature. If being hidden is one of Satan's rights, or even if this is a battle between the two and God staying hidden is a rule, that would be a viable reason. If God's nature demands him being hidden, whether we like it or not, we have to play by the rules. The second possibility was that perhaps we are not the first of God's created "communities". Perhaps Satan was granted

those rights for serving God and then he turned against him. God no longer wants to grant major rights and missions like he did to Satan, except for those who earn it. If God has something great waiting for us, but he wants to only pick forever faithful, faith would be a good parameter for the choice. For if you stay faithful with no proof, you will stay faithful when you sit on the right of God. The first objection to this point would be that people do not have the same chance at knowing God. This is where I have to refer you to Romans chapter 9. There you will find that the "I love everyone and everything" God does not exist except in the "please come this Sunday" churches. God is absolute, tough (for the lack of a better term), assertive and does NOT love all people the same. He loves some people more than others, actually. Neither the bible nor reality support anything against those traits, but humans tend to create the

God they like. There can be no other way for God to exist, ironically, the bible does support it, its just very inconvenient. The second objection would be why would an all knowing God put a test? Well, what if God does not intervene in certain fates to create an outcome? He is outside time, the result is not a result for him, the entire picture is the result. This was a condensed summary of the idea. In the next part we will talk about some other major viability limitations and address them in the same fresh look.

SECTION 4

Possibilities, limitations and implications In the last part we had to delve into some of God's characteristics to even consider his existence as a personal God. We had to assume the existence of Satan because without which God existence cannot be compatible with reality. Well, except if we believed in Pantheism or the theory of the watchmaker. Could it be that all religions and ways lead to God? Could it be that no way leads to God, since God made the universe and went on with his business? These are the questions that I will discuss in this part. As a reminder, We start with the assumption that God exists and work our way backward. We will go back to the

Atheistic view and take a deeper look at the world in the next chapter. We will first take a look at the comforting (to some) view that God does not care what we do. You see there is no reason to assume God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent. If we are to accept the universe as being designed, then it only proves the genius of the mind of God. The design maybe faulty intestinally for a purpose, yes, and God can still be Omnipotent and all knowing. But it could also be just ...faulty. The work of the genius is not necessarily perfect. Why did I discuss these two possible traits here, you may ask Well, if God is Omni11

present and Omnipotent, he must be personal one way or another. These two require that God has all the data, including every small detail about us (along with the rest of the universe), and if he does, he is personal. You cannot know every detail about someone or something and not have a personal interest with him/her/it. Whether that interest is active or passive does not make it any less personal. i.e. if God knew everything about you but did not intervene, he is still personal by definition. You can then easily conclude that if God is not personal, there is no afterlife. If God is not personal, he is simply irrelevant. You need to not bother much with knowing him better. Favoring this probability bears no implications whatsoever over Atheism, hence, we will ignore it and concentrate on Atheism since an irrelevant God is dead to us, AKA non existent. Now lets take a look at a differ-

ent view. It seems really absurd that there are too many religions out there, claiming exclusivity, and worst yet, insuring retribution upon those who do not obey. This is one big objection many intellectuals hold against God/the God idea. It always puzzled me that many religious people think that the choice is obvious. It maybe obvious to them (ironically the obvious here is your religion of choice) with all their predispositions and social pressure, but it is not so to others. The only obvious thing is that if any of those religions is true, the rest are wrong. Yet we have hundreds of millions who follow each major religion. It would be very comforting to many if all religions were true, and all the roads lead to God. Now if all religions , roads and creeds lead to God, then he is a folk with lots of humor. I find this unlikely, if God exists and is personal, then we 12

are related to him in a way or another, as conscious beings. the feelings we have, the capability of suffering, the existence of consequences everywhere, all do not point to that kind of God. What is the purpose of God if all the roads lead to him ? People commit heinous deeds without religion or because of religion. People believe all kinds of things with religions and without religions. If all the ways lead to God, then there is no standard, no purpose, no point. Would God just judge people at the end? If so, since it is not according to religions, is it according to a moral standard of good an evil? If so, what would that standard be ? If all is creeds are equal, then people are equal in the eyes of God. But then they are not treated equally from what we see, I mean, to be rich and healthy is not equal to sick and poor. You may say that all religions assert the equality between people in the eyes of God, I do not think that's the case at least

in Christianity. In Christianity people are not equal in the eyes of God but are asked to love each others as themselves, which negates the pride, if practiced. In short, I find it hard to fathom that God is personal yet indifferent to your belief while he hid himself for the purpose of faith!! I would rather go with the probability that he does not exist in that case. Does this settles the probabilities? Far from it. If there is only one way that lead to God, yet not all people have the same dispositions and hence chance to find it, then he is either evil, unfair, or ...... has a distinct personality ! God cannot be evil, God is absolute, and absolutely evil God would not let you enjoy your morning coffee except if he will break your teeth in an accident that morning. He will not give you a nice day at the beach without a shark attack. He will not allow you to watch your kids grow except to take them from you. I know all these things happen, but with an 13

evil God they will happen to all. If an evil God exists, at least some parts of our lives are protected from him indeed. You cannot protect against something unless you are equivalent or stronger. Hence, an evil God cannot be The God. If God is unfair, well, then we are screwed, we are all going to hell, may the good lord strike him down...oh wait. Well, you get the point, next ! If God has a distinct personality...then we have to try to take a glimpse at it through our reality. This will be our next subject.

Chapter 2

THE MIND OF GOD

SECTION 1

The Mind of God An abstract of George Hegel's philosophy in his ideal view emphasized that the logical (Metaphysical) is the real (materialistic). Then came Carl Marx and reversed the thought saying that the materialistic is the logical and accepted. I find it interesting that people are extremely polarized when it comes to what they believe regarding these views. I believe people are polarized to this subject because one of our brains properties is antagonism to

some deeply religious people sometimes making up things just to keep believing! You know what is more interesting? Some affirmed Atheists do it too, so no, it is not because these people believe God is on their side. It is simply a biological function. The more you are affirmed, the more you are likely to do it. This is why I would like to look at reality with no assumptions in this part. I will present two alternatives / explanations to some realities. The following will be addressed: Why do we not see well documented miracles that lead to God like the bible claim happened in the past? ( Raising a 4 days dead, creating

dissidence. Dissidence at such basic level of understanding reality is very irritating. Hence, the sympathetic nervous system takes over and asserts one of them. This is why you see 16

eyes...etc). Are all the people who claim to have witnessed miracles liars or deluded ? Why should we even bother with a second look at reality when discounting God gives us a straight answer to these questions? Finally, why do we have to question reality itself in our search for God ?! Why do we not see well documented miracles that lead to God like the bible claim happened in the past? ( Raising a 4 days dead, creating eyes...etc). Are all the people who claim to have witnessed miracles liars or deluded ?

but we have yet to see a man grow a hand on camera. Imagine with no media or ways to verify, miracles rumors can run wild. Answer B: Have you ever noticed that many people until this day still believe in God? Rich and poor, sick and healthy. Now in the last chapter we discussed that if you got the wrong belief then you are basically out of luck. Here is the catch, people from different beliefs experience state experiencing miracles mostly associated when they switch to Christianity. Could they all be liars? Or could it be that God always leaves a very faint trail that leads to him, and to those he wants, he makes it clearer. I noticed something based on many observations. If you are the spiritual type (whether in a good or a bad way) you will experience spiritual phenomena's. If you are NOT the spiritual type , chances are you wont. Those who are deeply committed to God claim experiencing "miracles". Those who practice witchcraft

Answer A: Keep it simple, God does not exist, at least not in a personal form. He never attempted to contact us. It is all man made. Most religious books were not written at the exact time of the alleged miracles anyway. The biological function discussed earlier gives more than enough reason to lie. Even in the age of media we still have rumors of miracles 17

also experience something spiritual, allegedly evil. Before you discard this saying there is no such thing as spiritual, consider the street magic in India, the shamanistic / spiritual connections practices with the spirits in Africa and the middle east. Many of those who claim practicing that are liars I know, but some of what you hear is real. There is no smoke without fire. Now the simple explanation to this would be that those who want to believe it can be deluded into sensing it, or they can simply lie. Could there be another logical alternative ?This brings us to the next question. Why should we even bother with a second look at reality when discounting God gives us a straight answer to these questions? why do we have to question reality itself in our search for God ?! A: There is no God, reality is random.

B: If you are one of those people who never experienced anything spiritual, then you are mostly going to take that answer. If you turn out to be wrong, you will then be very angry with God because had he allowed you to see a real miracle you would of believed. Or would you ? The answer to this lies in.... statistics. If we are to assume the spiritual occurrences are true, how many of these "magicians" end up doing good and serving God? How many of the Israelites who according to the bible saw the fire at night and the smoke in the day and even heard the voice of God ended up on good terms with him ? You see, God always gives you a faint trail, never a straight one. It always has to be faith and acceptance. The miracles may not always equate to a glimpse of logic, the trail is there, the hints are there, the clues are there. Even those who come to God are given only 18

enough to allow doubt. Now consider this, why don't those evil spirits show themselves to us in the west? We considered because they are non existent, but have you considered that maybe it would not be exactly beneficial to the devil kingdom to expose a materialistic to a demon ? Between the deceit of the devil and the faith requirement from God, hell grows stronger. Good job God, you may say. But has it occur to you that God has a personality, and that personality requires faith and even other certain personality trait in a human. How is that fair? Consider this, what if God is absolute he cannot change his personality? He accepts what he accepts, and cannot accept what he can't. If you do consider this then discount God, then you are just rejecting his personality, it is not necessarily the most logical thing to do as some claim. Interestingly enough, the laughed at crucifixion story shows clearly the unalterable personality of

God. It is at this point I dare to say, if Christianity was not an option with the cross to prove this trait of God, then God should never be considered. For if God had a malleable personality, then he would be the worst thing in existence! A final note, I know I did not prove God, and I can never do, if you read the last paragraph you will understand that the proof is at a paradox with God, if he does exist. If he does not, there will be no proof, either way, we have no empirical proof. Convenient for a man made religion? yes. Could it be true? also yes ! And hence I write. For more information on this view please review Chapter One: Part Three: The Hidden God.

SECTION 2

The Book, The God, and The Man "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself[a] purged our[b] sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high," From the Letter to the Hebrews.

first place? Very convenient that we hear about him from other people all the time. This always insure the presence of the probability that this God is made up. Even worst yet, every single religion is bought up by other people. Not only this makes it highly probable that its all made up, but it also gives no advantage to one religion over the other as the way to God. Notice by religion here I mean the mere creed, theocratic controlling religions are no different from any other politics. Now I can present some really laughable things in almost any major religion book.

Right....why does this God keep sending us people instead of talking to us himself in the 20

Every religious book is supposed to be the highest revelation from the highest order in

says that the sun sits in a puddle, and meteors are demons or "jins" who fall from the sky after angels throw fiery stones at them. That God only uses the word love once to say he loves those who fight and kill for him. You can see why this view can be discarded easily unless you were indoctrinated enough. Perhaps even physically/mentally abused upon questioning it that your brain triggers defense mechanisms and shuts down.

existence. How come they all seem to be written by primitive people ? Well, because they were, including the bible. I do see all this, yet I still manage to find the bible interesting. I would like to explain my view of the bible, given that I understand the limitations. If you are scientifically adequate and you open the bible, you will get a few good laughs, from the talking snake that is hanging out between Tigris and the Euphrates, to the global flood that killed everything yet regenerated most of the marsupials exclusively in Australia.

If the bible claimed to be the word of God letter by letter , I would not have to write this part. For the fiction and ancient literature shelf would be the rightful place. As per usual, I will introduce a different challenging view. An alternative that must make sense and cannot be discarded entirely as we did with the Quran, not because of bias, but because of viability.

There are 3 monotheistic religion, one is almost genetically exclusive, if you happen to not have Jewish genes, you can discount it and keep going. Islam is one with a book that claims to be the spoken word of God, letter by letter. Then it 21

So the bible is not the word of God letter by letter, then how do we know what is from God and what is from the primitive individual writing the passage we are reading ? To answer this, we have to first understand how the supposed prophecies work.

And who will declare His generation?  For He was cut off from the land of the living;  For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. 9 And they[a] made His grave with the wicked—

To understand how something works, you have to use it or activate it first.. So we have to take some passages and assume that God had something to do with them, understand the supposed mechanism, then go over the implications. I will use two examples from the bible to demonstrate what I mean.

But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;  He has put Him to grief.  When You make His soul an offering for sin,  He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,  And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand. 11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[b] and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.

From Isaiah 53: He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth;  He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,  And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth.  8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,  22

12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,  Because He poured out His soul unto death,  And He was numbered with the transgressors,

dwellings; Do not spare;  Lengthen your cords,  And strengthen your stakes.  3 For you shall expand to the right and to the left,  And your descendants will inherit the nations,  And make the desolate cities inhabited.

And He bore the sin of many,  And made intercession for the transgressors.  If you go before and after these potentially prophetic few versus, you will hardly find

Sound a lot like a poem of some sort does it not ? This sort of flow, in my opinion, can imply two things:

anything "useful" here is an example from Isaiah 54 that follows:

1- The spirit of the prophet is indeed integrated into what he writes. You can think of prophesizing as a limited ethereal contact with the divine. A glimpse of all knowing, limited by the prophet predispositions. The prophet writes down what he understands, not the literal word of God. Is it all right or does it contain mistakes? It is the message that God wanted. the 2nd point will explain the purpose.

Sing, O barren,  You who have not borne!  Break forth into singing, and cry aloud,  You who have not labored with child!  For more are the children of the desolate  Than the children of the married woman,” says the LORD. 2 “Enlarge the place of your tent,  And let them stretch out the curtains of your 23

2-For someone before Christ reading Isaiah 53, it sounds very perplexing. It does not seem like God is concerned too much with how many people will understand the passage, or how will it be conveyed. He is just concerned with sending a message to certain people of his choice. Again, not the God most people would prefer, but the God people prefer does not exist.

eat, drink, or what days and months to keep. It does contain an idealistic massage of humbleness and chastity yes, coupled with civilized approach to deal with others. There is no theocratic authority, no law, it is a mere message. If you embrace that view, what you take from the bible as a metaphor or actual event becomes irrelevant. If as a simple individual you take the story of Adam and Eve as literal, you learn that the human parted ways with God because of pride, wanting to be like him, and because of an evil in he form of a talking snake. If you are to take it as a metaphor, you also learn that humans parted ways with God because of pride and the spirit known as Satan. It is irrelevant. Being less restrictive in addition to the above analysis are some of the reasons I chose to present Christianity as the Theistic view.

If you understand the above two points, you will realize that the literal text is irrelevant. This is why organized religion is not the way to God. If the bible contain messages, it should be taken by each individual for what it is. Mere Christianity gives what is to Caesar to Caesar. You do not have to interpret every letter, because you are not to run a country or dictate anyone's life with that message. The message contained is yours and yours alone. Mere Christianity does not dictate what you 24

There is no proof that the bible is the word of God, as per usual, what I presented was a viable understanding to give a possibility that it could be, not that it surely is. This approach has been constant throughout my writings, as I mentioned in chapter one, its all about probabilities. You may read my writings and find God highly improbable, I do not find him probable based on logic alone. What I intend to present, is a logic of viable alternative intellectual choice while considering the possibilities to the materialistic view.

SECTION 3

Doubts and Redoubts Delusions are a sign of psychosis and are often used to diagnose schizophrenia and other severe mental illnesses. The standard used to identify delusions is normally based on how foreign are they to the commonly defined reality. I would like to clarify that illusions are related to seeing, delusions, in psychiatry, are related to hearing and believing. My interest in here is in delusions. It is interesting how vast is the difference between what humans think, yet we still have a mutually defined reality that we call those separated from it crazy.

stand human language and see their emotions. To be even more abstractive, this alien form you are about to assume comes from a very simple world. In that world, the alien does not sleep, does not eat, does not befriend, is self sufficient, does not need love, does not understand hate, you can take out anything else you like. We want an alien with no preoccupation, prejudice or bias. Does not have needs so he never needs to trade or exchange neither materials nor feelings. As this alien, you will not see things as we normally do. You will see data, and an accumulative end result. Your observation is quantified, meaning you only see collective reality with

Imagine with me, if you were an alien who had no experience with any earthly matter, but you had advanced intelligent to under26

abstractive details. Let me give you some examples, as this alien, if you see a mid

when they deal with the average man. You will notice those in the business meeting are wired toward pure empathy with potential customers, external factors and results. In the scientific conference (as in Bore, Einstein , Schrรถdinger...) you will notice that people are wired toward knowledge and explanation. In the philosophy session, people will be wired toward metaphysics and its relativity to the physical. In the church, people will be wired toward believing their beliefs !

twenties beautiful woman, you will see her as data, meaning her beauty is not observable to you. What it imprinted in her personality because of that beauty, whether its is confidence and positive feelings, or manipulative negativity, depending on her predispositions , will be clear to you. I explained this one because it is the easiest to demonstrate the alien abilities. Lets follow the beautiful woman, as an alien, and observe her daily interactions. Then lets go follow an average lower-middle class man, observe his interaction. Lets go to a business sales meeting, a scientific conference, a philosophy session, then to a church. Having observed all the interactions in your abstractive view, you will notice a great errant behavior. You will notice that men deal with the beautiful woman from a different base point than

You have no hope as a partially blind alien in understanding why people act as they do. Now, what is the common denominator between beauty, creating sales empathy, metaphysics and spirits? None is tangible, yet the effect of these intangible effects on humans are profound. This will be the most shocking to you, why do humans act as they do?

Back to delusions, the human brain is feeble and malleable, it is as such to learn and survive. What is accepted is not necessarily true, and what is rejected is not necessarily delusional. With all the things people believe in, it cannot all account for reality, so by definition, most people are delusional. Individualism is rare, social pressure is always there shaping our reality. If you do not delve into the form of that alien once in a while, you will never beat your predispositions, and you will never have a taste of free will.

things ...in short, they can change your feelings and sometimes beliefs.

Many medications work by activating or deactivating receptors in the body. Some drugs work by altering chemical balance, like Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors. Both mechanisms cause certain effects. These effects can be almost anything. They can make you feel euphoric, depressed, happy, nauseated, calm, they can make you hallucinate and hear

Then as humans, the deck is stacked against us already. Having a real thought of our own seems so hopeless. What is real? What is miraculous ? What is just unexplained

If we are to assume the form of the same alien in the last section, we will be even more perplexed. Not only the humans are affected by their genes, biological instincts, environmental factors and other people actions towards them, but also by chemical reactions! "The human brain is more feeble than I ever thought" says the alien. Luckily as the alien we are self sufficient so we will not take advantage of that finding.

yet ? What if all the supernatural rumors were some kind of a mind trick? What if all the materialistic view was an inability to see the dimensions within the obvious? 28

But then I was sitting in my backyard one summer day, and groups of migrating birds started passing by. Each group had a leader, and they assumed a triangle shaped formation. These birds are not conscious outside their limited survival needs. Yet they are superior to us in knowing their direction, following their leader, and knowing the time. As if they had someone watching over them. Now I know the reductionism view of pure biological survival. Yes, I cannot disprove that view. But what is astonishing is how similar we are to them in the eyes of the alien, except we are more susceptible to mind deception. We are similar that we do not need consciousness to make our heart beat, we do not need to learn how to be attracted to accomplish reproduction, we do not need to learn that we must eat to survive, we just get hungry...etc. Even a human with an I.Q. below 70 can perform all these survival functions in the wild. He/She

just wont be socially viable. Why then do we have a brain capable of understanding the secrets of the universe? Our additional vulnerability over other life forms to mind deception, is it excluded from the hidden survival force that programmed us to eat and reproduce? Or does it, even in our thoughts, watch over us (mental malfunctions excluded)? Einstein once said that "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is at all comprehensible". God is by definition the greatest mind in the universe. If we can comprehend what comprise us, then we are either related to God who is watching over us, or we are God. No matter how you reduce the equation, whether by chance or something else, that stands by definition. Unless we come across a more powerful mind(s) in the universe.

SECTION 4

Doubts and Redoubts or Free Will? The following conversation is between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson from "A Study in Scarlet"

and of the composition of the Solar System. That any  civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not  be aware that the earth traveled round the sun appeared to  be to me such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly  realize it.

"His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge.  Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared  to know next to nothing. Upon my quoting Thomas Carlyle,  he inquired in the most naive way who he might be and what he had done. My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory

"You appear to be astonished," he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. "Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it." "To forget it!"

"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to  stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in  all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that  the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that

upon it there comes  a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones." "But the Solar System!" I protested. "What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently;  "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."

he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order.

End of the quoting Now in the 21st century we know so much more about the brain. Do we agree with Mr. Holmes and worry about filling the attic with useless stuff that can hide the useful things? But then knowledge is power, more knowledge is more options in thinking, and more freedom, right?

It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic  walls and can distend to any extent. Depend 31

This is where it gets interesting. The concept of free will has been the subject of debate for hundreds of years. The secret is in the definition. Most of the arguments presented today do not offer a new take on the subject, they are actually recycled old ideas. Ever wonder where do sayings like you are what you eat, you are who you befriend, you are who you, etc. come from? A computer, regardless of its hardware, will work in relation to the entries or the software. Computers do not have freedom, they do not choose what soft wares to run. As humans, depending on the culture, we have a set soft wares to choose from. The more constrictive the society, the less software choices we have. I do not see free will as the freedom to be a gentleman, a nice lady or a psychopath. Sometimes environment and genetics leave little choice. Then again the combination of those in the extreme is what I consider a malfunction. Most of the time, to as-

sume the extreme is the fastest way to see a different angle, not in this case though. The extremes in forming human characteristics are "malfunctions" and a standard deviation have to be considered. We have to take balanced humans as examples, and project the concept of freedom in its truest form. Balanced humans is not a decisive choosing mechanism, merely drop religious hermits and psychopaths from the calculations. Take a look at your choices in the bigger sense, lets say you just finished high school, going forward much has been decided in your personality. Yet you can still choose to learn about philosophy, and have a different take on life. You can choose to learn about science, and possibly contribute to humanity. You can choose to be bitter and dwell on it, to end up miserable. Your choices are not set by your genes and environment. You still have a 32

choice, not a choice to be something you are not, but the choice to alter your reality itself. Your future is never fixed, you past is, it affects your future, but does not dictate it. The present is what affects your future. Evidence? I do not believe in evidence, I believe in clues. The idea is extremely complex but I will try to provide an example:

chest, now your wound becomes part of the past, that is now your fate. The choices that emerged before that, could have altered your present, and your fate, which is your past. The future is ever changing until your past is set. You could have acted and went for the safe as soon as you saw the agitation, but your brain suggested the agitation maybe related to something other than intent in the last second and you stayed in place. Now had you decided to read the news the night before, you would of known that this man is a wanted bank robber. You chose not to, that was in your past, and thus it is now your fate. The choice keep going back to the day of your interview when you chose the bank job over the retail one. Keep going back, your fate started when one of your parents tried drinking wine to sleep in college! But can you say with certainty that if we replayed the entire events you would have ended the same? I will ex-

The example starts: In your past you lived in a house where you had to watch for your parents agitation. Their agitation is normally followed by verbal abuse or actual violence. You are now working at a bank, you notice the agitation on this man in the lobby who seems to reach to his pocket. Your past dictates you notice, it also dictates you act. As the man pulls his gun, there is nothing in your past that will dictate your future in stone. If he pulls his gun and fires at you, nothing decides your future yet. Until the bullets penetrates your 33

plain why I do not believe so in the next paragraph. Even with the immense effect of predispositions, nothing is set

says no two electrons can be in the same quantum state at the same time, but if one replaces the other in that state then it is the same electron. So yes, the "same" electron may end up in different places(fates). Does the electron have a choice? No. Would it have ended on the collector if we launched it to the other direction? No. If the electron could only "choose" its direction, it

The source where I got this idea is actually part of the clue, when I read about the double slit experiment and Schrรถdinger equations for the first time, I noticed something interesting. Just a quick explanation to refresh your information about this, the double slit experiment proved that we can find the probable location of an electron but not its exact location. We do find its exact location only when it collides with the collector. Does the electron then have a set location? Yes, it collides with the collector at one point. Can we decide it before the collision? No. Once the collision happens, that is the fate of the electron. If we lunch the same electron with the same energy does it end in the same location? Probably not. How do we know? Quantum Theory

could then "decide" if it will land at the collector or not. It cannot choose the exact location, but it does have some kind of a choice. The example ends. The direction you choose will decide your doubts and redoubts. You have a choice over your direction, that choice is heavily affected by your predispositions, yes. But do not believe the lie that you have no choice. You have no choice on what ideas pop in your head, but those ideas are affected by your direction 34

of learning. By reading this, you have expanded your choices of directions, do not let your brain defense mechanisms shut your choices down. Let your brain be your ally, not your enemy. The truth may not be as simple as we want it to be. I define Free Will as the integrated cycle between choosing your direction of learning, which in turn gives rise to certain subconsciously generated choices. Your Free Will could, sometimes, be limiting your subconscious choices, or expanding them.

Chapter 3

THE UNFORGIVEN AND THE UNFORGIVING

SECTION 1

The Unforgiven & The Unforgiving One thing that always made me have doubts about the origin of the idea of God, is the affinity of human conscious to guilt. Guilt and judging others seems to have the same origin, we feel guilty as if someone else did what we did they would deserve punishment. These emotions can serve as basis for the idea of God. We need ...a God for our guilt to have an objective meaning, and we need a God for the evil doers to be judged. So could God be just the fulfillment of conscious impulses ? While this could be the easy answer, I find it tricky and broken logic. Beware of this logic as it seems to being tossed around a lot these

days. In the first paragraph I made a logical fallacy assumption. Just because guilt can create the idea of God, and can possibly serve as basis for it, does not necessarily mean it does. Scientific method and logic dictate that the next step in that trail of thought is to decide where does guilt come from, rather than reach a conclusion. "But scientists say..." This is the first instance where you will see me cast doubts on common and mainstream "science". For the majority of people the term "scientist" means something like an authoritative figure on logic. A super intelligent individual or something of the sort. I know you will 37

contend that you do not view scientists this way, but think about it for a second, one way or another chances are, you do. I am not saying let's adopt a conspiracy theory in every aspect of life, but to not take anything for granted based on who said it. While that meaning or view maybe true for a handful of geniuses over the ages, it means very little to me when I investigate a matter that can affect my life. Psychology was the first field where I disagreed with mainstream science, but to disagree with something you must first understand it. I will present two major opinions on the origins of guilt, I do not necessarily disagree with them, I do, however, doubt them. The first theory on the origin of guilt is a more recent and simpler theory, the evolutionary model of guilt. It simply states that guilt is an evolutionary impulse that emerged to benefit the group and can be the source of altruism. As per usual, evolution gives as an obser-

vational take on things, but never really explains the basic mechanism. Of course guilt is good for group survival, but where did it come from? Natural selection for groups. So basically in some homo-sapien groups some members developed the feeling of guilt, and thus these groups became more viable. I will leave this theory alone for now and present the second view before proceeding with my take on them. The second theory I will present is an older model by Sigmund Freud. To explain this one we have to first understand Freud model of the human mind. The ID (The It) The Ego (The I) and the Super Ego (The I Above). In this model, the idealistic Super Ego or the I above (conscious) inflicts guilt and struggles with the Ego or the I. The Super Ego is the product of parental influence and social pressure, according to Freud. You could see here that we can consoli38

date the two theories in one, as the second theory is the mechanism of the emergence of guilt, while the first is the mechanism of its biological retention. The unified theory could be true, my doubt comes in three parts : 1-If its the only logical alternative we have. 2-If the materialistic view presented is all there is, there is nothing else into it. 3- Its implications. In this section I will address the implications. If guilt and conscious are just a psychological impulse to benefit the group, then according to evolution, a brilliant psychopath in our current society is the next step. Controversial? Not really. Evolution has no discriminatory force that dictates survival or the nicest or the better. A Psychopath who can successfully manipulate others while avoiding the law, free of guilt and conscious is a great survival machine. Better yet, the ultimate survival machine would be a group of Psychopaths, or even a society of Psychopaths. With

no regard to other forms of life, no regard to the well being of other humans, and no regard to avoidable or none punishable rules while avoiding dangerous confrontations will insure the survival of their genetic line the longest. Any argument against this after assuming the materialistic view is the product of delusions, as if to say the spirit of man or "righteousness" will not allow it. There is no such thing, remember ? Its a dark lonely universe, its a matter of time before the dagger stabs your back. The implications of the materialistic source of guilt are unpleasant indeed. People try to avoid admitting those implications by either trying to argue them (materialistic), or move away from the materialistic view all together. We are only concerned with the truth, though, if the materialistic view is our only al-

ternative, or even the most logical one, the so be it.

same way I had to rely on materialistic concepts to explain the first view.

Back to the first point, guilt can be the source of the God idea. One thing that increases the probability of this view is that the people of each religion see God as a very unforgiving being when it comes to those who picked up the wrong belief ! Worst yet, he is very forgiving to the uforgiven ones who happen to conform to that belief ! In the materialistic view of Freud , the Super Ego triggers according to parents indoctrination and social pressure. The Super Ego is very unforgiving, it is like a foreman who knows no mercy. I see the similarity between the Super Ego and Religions to be very clear. Unexpectedly, I do not see it related to my view of God. In the next paragraph I will explain the alternative idea, which require me to rely heavily on spiritual concepts. The

If we are to liberate ourselves from the traditional religious view of the unforgiving (except to those who attend the temple and donate) God; then the God idea will be a viable alternative. I wrote in a previous chapter (Chapter Two:Part Three(Section Two) about the power that watches over us and the birds alike (I did not assert its source). What if guilt is something planted by that same invisible power ? Guilt can be destructive, yes, but so can be sexual desire or the need to eat. The absence of guilt can be destructive too, unless you are a genius psychopath in a situation to benefit from its absence. The concept of repentance and redemption coupled with forgiving others as we are forgiven, can do wonders to ones health and inner peace. Like almost everything else, it has to be used in the 40

right context. Whether the source of guilt is the evolutionary super ego or a direct God planted trait is irrelevant to the point. Even if its an evolutionary super ego, its like conscious, and could be the end result and purpose of God.

consciousness like the unalterable one of God, but we have one that can improve. If you connect this view to the rest of the planted functions we have, you will find it as a plausible contender to the materialistic view.

I explained before that I do not believe in the literalism of the bible but that it contains messages. When "The Gods" in genesis say "in our own image" they certainly do not mean to look like them. Is it in Gods exact intelligence and mind then? Of course not, our minds are limited. The answer is having own consciousness, and alterable one! What do I mean by alterable? You see, the spirits have some kind of consciousness, but that consciousness is not neurons and time based. Meaning decisions within that consciousness are unalterable and eternal. This is why angels have no redemption but human do. We do not have a perfect 41

SECTION 2

The Origins Of The Mind Can you recall your very first memory ? Do you know how old you were? How was it like? Can you concentrate and try to remember the state of your consciousness and awareness at the time? What is on the mind of a two years old? If you do remember that far, you will probably understand that we cannot call what was going

Remembering such moment though means that our consciousness was always there, even as just a witness. This background explanation was given to provide basis to understand my upcoming statement: - Everything, in the absence of consciousness (or mind) is the product of pure chance. You may say Duh! but think again, this is a major implication to the absence of a mind origin of the universe. It tends to be overlooked. If there was never a God, then the universe has always been chance based. The humans existence and history altogether is dwarfed by the universe itself, either chance is

through our minds at the time "thoughts" in the trivial sense. Merely processing senses while our consciousness served as a witness to the arising "thoughts", which were sheer actions.

God or there is a chance that God exists. An objection to this line of thinking would be the physical and chemical properties of materials. You could say: Well, the universe is not all random, stars turn Hydrogen into Helium and eventually more elements form. The properties of matter decides the outcome.

realization may have been in the back of my mind all along, but to understand it completely and see it for what it is, clarified to me that: Maybe the reason I had to think tirelessly was to prove or disprove this riddle. At the end, what interests me is the truth, so I shall banish my predicaments aside, is there a possibility that chance is the only God out there ?

Good point, except that this now leads us to a worst dilemma. The properties of matters come from the formation of their molecules, which depends on the formation of the elements atom, the atom properties depend on the atomic particles components. Here comes this realization I arrived at: If I was to deduct God completely, assume any origin of choice for the universe, would it not be CHANCE that will dictate the properties of sub atomic particles? This made me a bit uneasy, I do not wish for chance to be God, but with the absence of God, you have no other option. This

To answer the question at the end of the last paragraph, I had to ask two questions: How is our consciousness relevant to the universe ? Is consciousness at odds with chance? To answer the first question, I find it timely to explain a statement I made earlier: If we can understand something then it is logical, if we cannot understand it its outside our logicwhether it exists or not. If we understand something and it does not exist, it is logical. If

something exists but we do not understand it (comprehend it, realize it) it is not logical.

would I even consider that possibility. I will give you a hint: Go back and read about the alien in a previous part. This question is pivotal enough to be addressed in the next part.

This statement is based on my understanding of the works of several scientists and philosophers, but tying every part of it to each of them is beyond the scope of this page. Back to explaining the statement: A rhetorical question: Is reality reality ? The question, in the light of the previous statement, is not exactly rhetorical. Is reality our perception of it, or is it just there whether we perceive it or not ? What makes you believe that reality is the way it is, if you have no venues to explore other perceptions of it ? Within this we can start to see the relationship between the universe and the mind. This relationship is enforced and sustained whether we are materialists, spiritualists or fill in the blank. In the light of that realization, is consciousness at odds with chance? You may ask why 44

SECTION 3

Consciousness Vs Chance: The Timeless battle In Chapter Two: Part Three I discussed how intangible things can have tangible effects on humans. In this chapter I will make an even more dramatic argument which has to do with a probable cause of the universe:

bles affect humans, and it is evident that chance rules the physical world: The wind direction will have greater effect on the coin landing head or tail than your wish for it to land in a certain way. Your wish will have greater effect on your friend decision to call you than the wind direction. Once consciousness existed, chance was altered. Or was chance created once a consciousness brought variables to existence ?

"Chance governs the tangibles, while consciousness governs the intangibles., and time is the catalyst for their interactions" Understanding the origins of the universe maybe more complicated than science and religion. There are signs that point to a relationship between the human consciousness and the very existence of the universe. It did not take me much effort to show how the intangi-

Could it be that reality is weaved from the strings of consciousness and chance ? But why even suggest consciousness when chance can suffice? What is wrong with consciousness 45

only rising through timeless chance manipulation of the physical reality? What are the signs that point to the relationship between the human consciousness and the origin of the universe? We can easily see that the physical world alters the consciousness, and the brain vehicle itself is physical. Yet there is this lost string...this compelling thought lost somewhere in my mind that keeps telling me there has to be a relation between the origins of the universe and consciousness. I wondered about the source of that thought. Is it the fact that our consciousness can retain some forms of "reality" as in our imagination? Or is it the fact that our minds can alter our perception of reality? But what do these two facts have to do with a relation between the origin or the universe and consciousness? That will be the subject of the next part.

SECTION 4

The Case for Chance (only), The case for Consciousness This will be the wrap up for this subject, if you are only reading this part you will find it too vague or even think it is full of silly assumptions. This subject has been addressed almost since the begining across many chapters and if you do read all of them you will have a better understanding.

into "space" at the right speed and acceleration. Once that happened stars were bound to form given the atomic properties, making Helium from Hydrogen. Details of how other elements formed eventually can be attributed to chance. Life happened, through Abiogenesis and eventually humans came to existence. Our minds connect to reality because our biological functions

The case for chance (only): While we cannot account for the origins of physical existence, in a chance-only governed

in general have been refined through evolution to adapt as such. The complexity of life can be attributed to sheer chance since earth existed for 5 billion years. We live for 70 or 80 years and can only imagine what chance can

universe the big bang happened. Maybe once, maybe trillions of times until it launched atomic particles/neutrons

accomplish in five BILLION years. With that assumption, our brains were not designed, hence all the superstition in our recent history (last 5 thousand years) can be attributed to a malfunction or even more so...to civilization. Hegel defines world history as "progress of the consciousness of freedom".

or king. Now if only the leader was really perfect and wanted the best for his people...oh and had unlimited powers, resources and abilities. That was the entry point for religion. Humans yearned for progress and ascension. Overall nothing really changed in the essence of the humans, we still hate, kill and always will.

To elaborate, if you read about the acts of earlier humans in documented history you cannot help but notice that humans acted worst than animals.

The case for consciousness: I will first re-post this brief explanation of what I believe is the primary human need: Throughout history, all the human needs have been fulfilled, except one. Ironically, it is the one need that stems all needs, and the one that all needs lead to. That need is known as survival, or in more poetic and absolute terms, immortality. We eat to survive, we attempt to produce an offspring so our genetic lineage survives, we covet resources to affirm our survival in the group, we seek money to insure better chances of

I know that some humans still act like animals or worst but let us not digress from the idea. What was accepted as a norm back in time is no longer a norm now. Now imagine how the more sensitive and progressed-mind humans back in those days started thinking or dreaming of a better world where humans helped each others. God kings were common back then, nations worshipped the emperor, chief 48

survival...etc. Everything we do is connected to that need, sometimes you can see the direct connection (as in eating) but most of the time it is more complicated. It sounds like an oversimplification, but I can connect any need that jumps to your mind to survival. We need to be loved for security, those with criminal element do so out of the competition for survival. There is no pure evil, it is that need that from which stems all the evil and much of the good. The closer something to you the more you want it to survive. Once you reach yourself, you want to survive forever. Even those who claim they welcome the nothingness after death. They think of that nothingness as a form of eternal sleep. They seek to be immortals in serenity and peace. So we are born with this burning need from the womb to death. The default position of the human depends on what kind of a person he is.

Given everything said above, and bringing back the two facts from last part, that our minds can retain or alter reality (our perception of it), I see a possible relation between our consciousness and the origins of the universe. You plant things and wait on them to grow, you have kids and raise them, you do things today to reap the benefits tomorrow. You plan, and see through your plans. You bring the reality from your mind to existence. "Created after his own image" comes to mind, and image here cannot be anything but consciousness. Did things happen to be this way or are they as such to give us a clue? Could it be that God planned humanity from the big bang up until they started seeking him for immortality and peace? Is it just chance that the ultimate human need and the only unfulfilled one is in line with goodness? To elaborate on the last one, if Immortality existed 49

then the society of immortals would not want wicked ones among them. Nowadays when you use your advanced gadgets, do you ever wonder how much planning it took to make? You do realize its made from sand, petrol and some metals. It is indeed a wonder that humanity arrived to this level of planning. A level of planning only surpassed (to our knowledge) by the planning of the universe itself. The way we plan, what we seek and what we get make it plausible that we are the off springs of the greatest conscious being.â&#x20AC;¨

THE SUPREME COURT OF REASON The most powerful mind in human history, also known as The Mind, walked into the Supreme Court of Reason. Supreme Court of Reason is the highest court in the universe. He/she had filed a lawsuit against the creator, also known as God, for denying him/her access to eternal life based on his/her decision during biological life to not believe in his existence.

known to be the most deceitful being in the universe. Plaintiff opening argument, addressed to the high judge of the court: "Your honor, I lived my life based on reason, I was well versed in all aspects of science and I understood all the theories. I found no solid evidence for the existence of such being as God. If universe particles were eternal, the big bang may have happened trillions of times until the universe came to existence. Once the universe came to existence, the rest was history to me. Nuclear fusions in super novas eventually created elements and from elements life rose through chance and physical properties of matters. Given the universe age of almost 14 billion years, anything was possible. No scientific evi-

Plaintiff, The Mind, is suing for damages, including loss of eternal life and is asking for access to the pearly gates; in addition to a waterfront house on the massive river of life. Both plaintiff and defendant chose to represent themselves. Although Plaintiff asked to bring a witness, an ancient entity known as Lucifer, the court rejected his testimony for he was 51

dence of the so called God existence was ever found."

what so ever to his existence and now denying my soul (which I did not know I had) access to eternal life based on "not believing in him" is simply an unfair, cruel and unusual punishment. He could of left one evidence, or even a clue!"

"Your honor," continued The Mind, "I then took a philosophical side, the only way for God to exist, is that he literally hides himself from creation. No recorded miracle was ever above the doubt, and none withstood the tests of historical accuracy beyond doubt. I lived in the so called end of days, and, saw none. He frequently did not answer prayers or delayed answering them, giving excuses that people lacked faith or that some celestial evil entities are blocking the work of his angels. Human morals and attitude towards each other were in many cases worst than animals. For thousands of years humans existed before religion, scattered, weak, fell preys to wild beasts and killed each other."

Supreme court then turned their faces to the defendant, God, who was still hidden to this moment in thundering clouds. From between the clouds he spoke: "I gave humans senses to make survival decisions, what they sensed they needed not to believe or disbelieve for they sensed it. To believe is to rise above your senses, to the senses of your soul. To sense an evidence is not to believe but to sense. Yes, I left no hard evidence, but I left many, many clues. I gave humans a heart that beats from before they were born, they needed not to tell it to keep beating. They went to eat because they

The Mind continued to argue "For this God to hide himself so well, leave no evidence 52

felt hungry. They were given urges to reproduce. They were given consciousness to choose to help each other. I watched over them in all these aspects and more, they needed not to ask for it. Yes there was suffering, but the clues to that were all over the universe. Stars and galaxies were born and destroyed. The peace and serenity in some recesses of space, massive fire and destruction in others. The perceived randomness in this symphony is a clue. I also made the universe so vast, it was so hard for humans to reach the closest star and impossible to reach the ends of the universe.

On a side note, last time I made an intelligent being and required no process to choose who gets to live with me, things did not turn out so well, his name is Lucifer, he is here to testify against me"... The Mind, looked at the empty witness seat and smiled...

I left it for the human to wonder... is it not too convenient for a randomly evolved being to be so beautiful... to enjoy music... to wonder... miracles were all around them. Everyday was a miracle. Everyday was a choice.

A SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 3 SECTIONS 3&4 THE SCIENTIFIC SOURCES FOR THE IDEA DISCUSSED IN THESE SECTIONS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REALITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS The following definitions are from Wikipedia: "Local realism

paradox but subsequently proven by Bell's inequalities.[4] Any theory, such as quantum mechanics, that violates Bell's inequalities must abandon either local realism or counterfactual definiteness; but some physicists dispute that experiments have demonstrated Bell's violations, on the grounds that the subclass of inhomogeneous Bell inequalities has not been tested or due to experimental limitations in the tests. Different

Local realism is the combination of the principle of locality with the "realistic" assumption that all objects must objectively have a preexisting value for any possible measurement before the measurement is made. Local realism is a significant feature of classical mechanics, of general relativity, and of electrodynamics; but quantum mechanics largely rejects this principle due to the theory of distant quantum entanglements, an interpretation rejected by Einstein in the EPR

interpretations of quantum mechanics violate different parts of local realism and/or counterfactual definiteness.[5] liv

[edit] Realism

ments with particular values with ascertainable probability.[7] Such an ontology would be metaphysically realistic, without being realistic in the physicist's sense of "local realism" (which would require that a single value be produced with certainty).

Realism in the sense used by physicists does not equate to realism in metaphysics.[6] The latter is the claim that the world is in some sense mind-independent: that even if the results of a possible measurement do not preexist the act of measurement, that does not require that they are the creation of the observer (contrary to the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation of quantum mechanics). Furthermore, a mind-independent property does not have to be the value of some physical variable such as position or momentum. A property can be dispositional (or potential), i.e. it can be a tendency: in the way that glass objects tend to break, or are disposed to break, even if they do not actually break. Likewise, the mind-independent properties of quantum systems could consist of a tendency to respond to particular measure-

A closely related term is counterfactual definiteness (CFD), used to refer to the claim that one can meaningfully speak of the definiteness of results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured). "Consciousness causes collapse" In his 1932 book The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann argued that the mathematics of quantum mechanics allows for the collapse of the wave function to be placed at any position in lv

the causal chain from the measurement device to the "subjective perception" of the human observer â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the notion of such a chain, more specifically a chain of interacting systems in which the values of one system is correlated with that of the immediately following system, has since become known as the von Neumann chain. In 1939, F. London and E. Bauer argued for the latter boundary (consciousness).[30] In the 1960s, Eugene Wigner reformulated the "SchrĂśdinger's cat" thought experiment as "Wigner's friend" and proposed that the consciousness of an observer is the demarcation line which precipitates collapse of the wave function, independent of any realist interpretation. See Consciousness and measurement. Very technically, Wigner identified the non-linear probabilistic projection transformation which occurs during measurement with the selection of a definite state by a mind from the differ-

ent possibilities which it could have in a quantum mechanical superposition. Thus, the non-physical mind is postulated to be the only true measurement apparatus.[16] This interpretation has been summarized thus: The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which perform measurements on the brain causing wave function collapse.[16]

lvi

Chapter 4

OF RELIGIONS AND DEITIES

SECTION 1

Of Religions and Deities We tend to be logical in most of our logistic decisions, for example, we typically make our shopping list based on our budges and needs. That is not the case when it comes to love and...religion.

Have you ever wondered why most people don't "shop" for religion? We are not talking about the typical "I investigated all religions, thoroughly, and found mine to be the only true one" No! Why not REALLY shop for the right deity ? The scary answer might be that most people live their lives without ever seriously considering that they are wrong because they are UNABLE to think that way. If we were to exclude all religious explanations of the God that chooses some and leaves or even leads astray others, the logical explanation would be the intrinsic bias of the human mind.

Since most religions claim to fulfill the same "needs" we ignore the need factor. People in general do not invest much in religion so budget is rarely an issue. What do people base their religion choice on? It is not a secret that religion is primarily determined by parents, society or other outside factors. Then people tend to rationalize their religion to themselves to the degree of their satisfaction. 58

If that is the case, then that leaves us with one of 4 explanations to the nature of God, among others: 1-He does not exist. 2-He does not interfere with humans. 3-He picks people based on a hidden formula we do not understand so there is one religion that is right. 4-Maybe religion is not the way to God...if there is a way. Which explanation of the 4 appears to be the most probable to you ? Did that make you rethink ?

SECTION 2

Of Deities and Miracles The miracles we intend to discuss here are not the ones when something improbable happens, but rather impossible according to our standards. We specifically want to have a look at whether miracles ever happen, and if they do, do natural laws get bent or suspended?

tial mechanism of miracles not the evidence to them happening. Why then even consider the possibility that miracles ever happen? Personally, I would have preferred that the world made perfect sense through science alone, yet there is always this missing piece in the picture. There is "something else" out there connected to the human consciousness, as George Orwell puts it through Winston Smith the main character in "1984":

Most of the famous miracles reach us through the "word of mouth". Most holy books claim great miracles performance by their mighty deities. Unfortunately such claims have no face value to a skeptic and no holy book can be used as an evidence to miracles. Discussing such claims can only lead to useless debates. This is why the main point will be the poten-

"Winston Smith: I know you'll fail. Something in this world... some spirit you will never overcome... O'Brien: What is it, this principle? 60

Winston Smith: I don't know. The spirit of man. " G. Orwell's 1984

sons why I find this mechanism unlikely but I find this one sufficient.

To summarize, the reason to investigate miracles is not based on evidence but rather on clues. See previous chapters for more on this logic.

The second mechanism for miracles would be utilizing the laws of nature themselves, but then why call it a miracle? The answer is complicated but I will try to summarize it as simply as possible. Consider the fact that in our universe, it is not allowed to travel faster than the speed of light (Einstein's relativity). Yet in quantom mechanics, entanglemnt shows that information between entangled particles can actually travel instantly, that is, faster than the speed of light. While that is not a miracle, it clearly shows that utilizing the poperties of atomic particles changes everyday "rules". Atomic particles have no real location, rather a probabiliy. They have mass because of Higgs Boson not because of an intrinsic value, hence there may come a day when mass can be altered and mass is related to

If Miracles happen, there would be 2 proposed mechanisms, the first one would be the traditional definition that the laws of nature are anullled or suspended. If this was the only proposed mechanism of miracles happening I would probably dismiss them happening altogether, and here is why: The earth is very irrelevant compared to the rest of the universe, and the entire univrse follows the laws of nature including super novas, up to one trillion stars galaxies, black holes...etc. It seems to me that it would be unwise for God to create such order then suspend it for any reason. There are more rea61

both gravity and energy. Time itself is subject to certain rules and in theory can be reversed or changed. So mass, location, gravity, energy and time can all be altered without even bending the laws of nature. In short, if you were God, you can do almost anything by manipulating the laws of nature at atomic particles level. Our universe is more flexible than it appears to us in everyday life. But then, what does that tell us?If God only way to intervene would be to manipulate proablities...then God does play dice.... or he does not?â&#x20AC;¨

SECTION 3

The Evidence of No evidence While no one can tell us for sure why we are here or if there was even a reason to be, religions volunteered to reduce us into a fulfillment to God plans. Such plans that come across as needs though he claims to have none.

of the greatest question of all time: Why are we here? I found better refuge in other ideas, starting with Occam Razor - defined in the Wikipedia as: "The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced." I came across multiple answers, none of them is deci-

To date there has been no evidence to show that any religion is related to the creator of the estimated 400 billion galaxies. The claim that his plan for us was following certain scriptures appeared less and less likely to me as I learned more about reality. After careful consideration, I have come to the realization that no religion is the answer 63

sive though as we stated in chapter one probabilities are all we have.

others. Thus, Spinozism teaches a form of determinism and ecology and supports this as a basis for morality."

The following are some of the closest explanations to reality at this point of time:

2- The watch maker: This is kinda the God of Voltaire, and I mention Voltaire because he is, in my opinion, the other one of the greatest minds of all time I was referring to.

1- The God of Spinoza: This is what Einstein believed. Not that I care who believed what but there are two minds in history I consider to be among the greatest and Einstein is one of them. This is the God that he referred to when he said "God doesn't play dice". The following is a glimpse of that concept from Wikipedia:

This concept has different understandings including God being the first cause and never interfering in the universe again. 3- The eternity of energy(matter) wether in the classical view of the Big Bang happening again and again - which is unlikely since the universe expansion is accelerating- or the newer theories. An example would be the works of Lawrence Krause that states the total energy of the universe equals 0 and all what we see is the difference caused by quantum fluctuations.

"In Spinozism, the concept of a personal relationship with God comes from the position that one is a part of an infinite interdependent "organism." Spinoza argued that everything is a derivative of God, interconnected with all of existence. Although humans only experience thought and extension, what happens to one aspect of existence will still affect 64

4- A Power that has a purpose, if such thing exists, all the evidence points out that the purpose is not personal. 96%++ of all living creatures are already extent. The universe is such a random place with certain rules. If such power exists we can predict the purpose being something collective as of all the life not depending in individuals. 5- Unexplained relationship between consciousness and reality. I discussed my view in a previous chapter. These are some of current my favorite explanations but they are far from being exclusive.

ÂŠ Sam Mar 2013

ÂŠ The Sam rightMardini of Sam Mar2013 to be identified as the author of this work has been asTheserted right of Samwith Mardini to be identified as1988. the author of this work has been in accordance the Copyright, Design and Patents Act as- serted in accordance with the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988. 65