"What do scientists look for when they search for dark matter? We cannot see or touch it: its existence is implied."
Yeah, this is a cool subject. What I wish to point out here is that scientists can, at this time, merely imply or infer the existence of this so-called dark matter. It simply has to be there even though it can't be seen.
But while this inference is perfectly acceptable to them on the subject of universal existence it is acceptable to very few (believers excepted) on the "existence of God" subject.
Yet this is possibly the best, and perhaps the only, way to demonstrate the existence of God through logic and reason and inference. You cannot prove the existence of the meta-physical by laboratory methods.
Whether the dark matter is MACHO (massive astrophysical compact halo object) or WIMP (weakly interacting massive particles) is irrelevant to this subject.
If the existence of something can at all be implied then it can be implied for anything for which, without it, there is insufficient ability to explain precisely observable phenomena.
In other words, if without God it is impossible to explain the existence of the universe (or universes) then His existence must be inferred.
So, how do we infer that the Supreme Intelligent Being - God - exists?
One simple way is through logical absolutes. They do exist.
For example : 1+1=2 is true and it is always true and under no circumstances can it not be true.
Numbers, as you see them here above, are mere visible lines of black pixels on a pixeled computer screen background.
Numbers do not exist as physical entities - they are conceptual. Logic is conceptual. It does not exist as matter. It is not an inherent property of matter. Information is not a property of sugars or enzymes. Information is something other than the matter or energy that carries it. For examlpe, the information contained in DNA is not itself DNA.
Therefore the conceptual must imply the meta-physical since it is not physical.
Unless of course you try to prove that thought itself is merely electro-chemical movement in the grey matter. But that position no one seriously believes; as it relegates all reason and human experience to involuntary actions and reactions within the brain to internal and external stimuli.
That, in turn, would mean that there really is no such thing as reason, heart, soul, spirit and that you actually have no free will and you cannot possibly be a moral agent. It would mean that what you perceive as choosing and willing is really no such thing at all, but mere irresistable reactions of your bio-chemical or genetic makeup.
Reason and logic must necessairly be meta-physical. Therefore the meta-physical exists.
Logic and reason are elements or properties of intelligence.
So based upon these simple, and certainly non-exhaustive comments, we can infer the existence of an original Intelligence from which all others were conceived, since we did not create ourselves.
So the possibilty of the existence of God is 100% and the probabilty of His existence, considering the vast amounts of intelligence and evidence for design in the universe is equal to 1 or 100%.
No amount of calculation or logic can infer or imply the non-existence of God.
Therefore God exists.
The existence of the Supreme Mind can be inferred by any number of similar arguments. Like the existence of good and evil as something more than mere human fancy.
Since both good and evil are necessarily both conceptual, but real and related to intentions, motives and free will, there must be an ultimate good and an ultimate evil in the universe. Back to absolutes. If there were no absolute goodness there would be no way possible to measure any goodness or any evil at all.
All definitions of good and evil would not only become purely subjective and without foundation but would also be the concoctions of bio-electrical output within the brain. This would reduce all crime, all rape, murder, incest, deceit, robbery etc. to nothing.
Think it over.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
There are those who say it is itself murder. There are those who say it is the fit punishment for pre-meditated murder.
The clash goes on - the ones note abuses and the death of innocents, the others claim it is the only true deterrant to murder.
The scripture is clear - a life for a life.
The reasons are clear :
- If justice means punishment equal to the crime and to the value of the precept then state inflicted death is the only real justice for murder.
- If it is not possible to forfeit one's right to life by any amount of murdering others then human life is worth very little.
- All true moral law requires sanctions. Law without sanctions is no law but mere advice or suggestion. Sanctions must imperatively be equal to the value of the law. If not then a decisive imbalance occurs leaving the way for abusers to profit from the inequality. If the sanction is greater than the worth of the precept then the state is guilty of cruelty and injustice - ex. cutting off a hand for theft of a loaf of bread. If the sanction is less the the worth of the precept then the citizen of the state may commit a transgression with relative impunity and injustice is done.
- Injustice is always wrong. If sanctions to precepts do not in fact reflect the value of the precepts then this is of itself an abuse and unjust.
- Abuses though certainly wrong and unjust in themselves have no bearing on the value of the precept and it's obligatory sanctions. Abuses can be avoided under the proper rules.
- If the death penalty is ALWAYS wrong then why do all nations have armies? Why do all societies have police forces - most of which are lethaly armed? If capital sanctions are wrong these armed forces must also be wrong since they are mandated with the right to take life when necessary for the protection of other lives.
- No amount of "jail time" can equal the loss of one single human life. Life is irreplaceable.
These things being noted, mercy must ever and always be a prominent consideration where public justice and benevolence allow. Mercy can and should be shown where true, sincere change has been adopted by the guilty party, but even then only when the public good may be served by its exercise. This why kings of old and indeed many rulers of today can be praised for releasing certain condemned prisoners through the legal process of pardon when the overall good of society is deemed to profit from it.
But who does not see that to give a pardon to an hardened and unrepentant killer is itself a crime against society?
Both justice and mercy are attributes of benevolence, good-willing or love.
Feelings must not be a part of this judicial process - we cannot allow sentiment to rule over justice.
Here is an example of capital punishment that most do consider as the death penalty :
Suppose that some enters your home and clearly intends to kill you and/or members of your family.
It is not merely your right to defnd them and yourself - by inflicting fatal wounds, if necessary, upon the intruder but it is your duty. Not to do so would be criminal negligence and even complicity in some cases.
You will have exercised capital punishment on the intruder.
The armed forces which guard your nation will do the same to any national invader. And they must do so or be guilty of the same criminal negligence.
This is clearly the path of reason and good willing of the overall good.