The Truth Process

Regarding the idea of intelligent design vs spontaneous assembly. The most simple living organism ever found is mycoplasma genitalium. This cell is still so complex that it is millions of times more organized and intricately assembled than the most complex super computer. The only thing more complicated than a super computer is a super computer that had the capacity to evolve into OTHER supercomputers…. (a chair is cool… but what about a chair that can change into a CAR?!) So although it is very popular and a lot of people are really motivated to not believe in God—(perhaps partially because they are only really exposed to the “psycho-God” idea), I think that it is by FAR inferior theory to reasonable ideas presented about the Creator (such as Spinoza presented). I consider the spontaneous assembly of supercomputer that has the ability to transform into other super computers to be an inferior theory to the intelligent design of a super computer that has the ability to evolve into ...

PROOF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST God is a complicated subject and proof is a complicated idea. Disproving God is impossible.  If the universe is a like a fish tank, it may be possible that God is not even in the tank at all. Does the owner of the fish tank not exist because the fish can’t find him inside of the tank? It is possible that God is in the tank, but it is also very possible that God is not in the tank. But this is not any type of evidence of God’s existence anymore than it is evidence for a flying spaghetti monster. Not being able to see God will never and can never be a way of disproving God’s existence, and on the other side, even seeing God is not necessarily “proof” that God exists. Clearly this is a complicated subject. MENTAL ILLNESS I am a psychiatrist and have spent significant amounts of time with plenty of people who have “seen God”... but they have also seen squirrels with cameras spying on them or suffered from similar such delusions or hallucinatio...

Many of you may be familiar with Matthew 25 where Jesus tells the story of the 10 virgins. The Bridegroom represents Jesus in this parable. The Bride represents the Church and the 10 virgins represent those of us who would like to be present at the wedding-- church members so to speak. In the parable, 5 virgins were wise and 5 virgins were foolish. The foolish ones had no oil in their lamps and the wise had oil. Drawing on some aspects of this parable, I would like to talk about The Church of Jesus Christ for a moment in another analogy. A young man meets a young woman. She is intelligent, kind, beautiful and virtually perfect in every way. He is so happy with her. He learns so many things about her that he thinks he knows everything. They are married and he couldn't possibly be any happier. He finds out that there are some people that hate his beautiful bride, but he tells everyone about how perfect she is.  As time passes, the honeymoon period ends. They stop spending a...

Is there evidence for an intelligent designer? PART A: EMPIRICAL LOGICAL EVIDENCE 1. The more intricate and complex something is, the more likely it is to be the product of an intelligent design and the less likely it is to the product of spontaneously assembly. Example: Landing on another planet and finding a rock that looks like a skull would be less likely to be the product of intelligent design than if a spaceship or computer was discovered. 2. Super ridiculously insanely complex stuff exists, therefore it is very reasonably probable that it was the result of intelligent design. Example: just to model the most simple life form requires 128 computers: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/ 3. The idea that life could exist through a series of extremely improbable random events combined with evolution actually increases the argument for intelligent design because if evolution is p...

I hear a lot of people say something to the effect of: "Intelligent design is a less adequate theory for the origin of life because Evolution explains how all of life could spontaneously assemble" Does that statement actually make logical sense? I think this line of thinking needs to be evaluated more thoroughly. This article is written to discuss and analyze the theory of intelligent design in comparison to the theory of spontaneous assembly. Typically intelligent design (not involving evolution) is compared to spontaneously assembly (involving evolution). However, in this article, intelligent design (involving evolution) is compared to spontaneous assembly (involving evolution versus spontaneous assembly without evolution). The main point being argued is that the attribute of something with evolution capacity is SO complex that its existence becomes MORE improbable, and this improbability amplifies the validity of the theory of intelligent design. Life would be...

I think I have identified partially why religion fails for so many people. I will try to get the whole train of thought in. Hopefully by the time I get to the end, it will make sense. The ideal goal of religion is to bring people to awareness of the Creator. Religion is not the equivalent of spiritual truth. Religion is composed of a group of people who engage in certain patterns of behavior and speech. The patterns of religious doctrines and practices are like a path that has the capacity to lead us to the Creator. But it is the Creator who directly teaches us spiritual truth. Spiritual truth can not be received, communicated, or comprehended in any other way, except by the Creator. People may find the social and organizational aspect of religion to be detrimental or beneficial. They may find the words spoken in religion to be beautiful or reprehensible. This dissonance is the result of humans trying to reflect God and spiritual truth through their own humanity. Religion ...

Sometimes I see people comparing “science” to “theology”. As if it is one or the other. I think that this occurs because many theological theistic theories are not consistent with the most likely conclusions drawn from evidences in other fields of study which have been evaluated using the scientific method. Also I think this occurs because frequently the scientific method is not applied to the field of theology. In this way, many have created a dualism between “science” and “theology”. To get the record straight-- speaking for myself alone, I would like to share my perspective on this subject. “Science” encompasses information gathered using the scientific method to collect, analyze and make theories about evidences. These theories have been classified into fields of study including subjects like chemistry, physics, archaeology, medicine, history, psychology, and biology. Among these fields is “theology”. Theology means “the study of the nature of God and religious ...