Friday, February 27, 2009
There must be, embedded somewhere deep within the mind, something that allows us to communicate with God--to perceive Him. There must be some piece of us, like a wrapper class in a computer program, that encapsulates a knowledge and communication with God as well as right and wrong. Ideally, this black box would take input from the spirit and pass it to the brain as a chemical reaction. Of course, there may be a problem with this hypothesis. Are not chemical reactions three dimensional and sometimes two dimensional? How could such a complex thing as spiritual matters possibly be successfully be converted into a three dimensional or two dimensional world? There must be some explanation.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
When discussing God's design of man, we must reach a very important conclusion: was the universe and all its subsequent laws constructed around the design of man, or was man constructed around the laws of the universe. The answer is quite obvious: if the universe were made around man, then the universe would be hospitable to him. We find that this is not the case at all, however. Rather, it appears that God designed man around the laws of the universe. Therefore, when we speak of supposed “blind spots” of vision or places where God “could do it better” we must remember that the task God performed was to construct man in a universe that likely reflected His nature—a universe of order and absolutes, majesty and mystery, and power and enormity. For man to fit into such a place, considering how humbly he is in the grand scheme of things, is an incredibly impressive feat.
Friday, February 20, 2009
It appears to me that there are two types of complexity. There is apparent complexity—the sort of thing whereby one says “It is difficult to drive a car” or, as a child says, “This walking is difficult business.” Then there is absolute complexity—the sort of complexity that does not fade even when we understand the entire process. God is the ultimate absolute complexity, and naturally laws and creation mimic Him. Mathematics is complex even after we understand it. The origins of such distinctions in complexity are still baffling. It seems to be that it is a sort of overwhelming sensation of numerics that defines apparent complexity. By this I mean that man attatches an emotional parasite on the situation. To him it is complex because his emotions tell him it is complex. Then there is the sort of man, and, of course, God, who recognizes a situation for what it is and still appreciates the beauty in the engineering of the whole experience. In a way, there is a sort of emotional attatchment to such beauty as well, but it is an emotional experience guided by a principled response to a stimulating situation. A programmer, when he has completed software to make a rocket ship launch into space, understands full well how every little bit of his software operates. Nevertheless, it is his understanding of the situation that concludes him to a sense of natural complexity. The whole situation of actual complexity is quite similar, if not somehow connected, to the situation of design. The emotional man perceives the design of God when he does not understand how something works. The man with the blessing of a scientific and psychological understanding of an event, however, denotes design because of his understanding. Of course, we are still in the infancy of our understanding of such phenomena, but perhaps to someone one day it will prove useful.