Letter 8 - 1.859: Let's Tackle A Few Theories First

Ah, wait... I am getting ahead of myself

I ended the last letter by saying that I wanted to move on in this letter to a piece of the puzzle that would bring my Matrix analogy out of the movies and into reality. However, that is going to have to wait. I’m getting ahead of myself.

 

I revealed an incidence in the last letter about when I questioned God regarding his making of the Earth. He told me that he purposely made it in such a manner that there would be viable evidence on both sides of the debate so as to allow for faith to be tested (one choice is no choice). What I want to do now is analyze the major theories of Science with respect to the origin of the Universe and Nature against this concept and my Matrix analogy. The theories I will analyze are, The Theory of Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, and the theories that come from Quantum Mechanics (I can’t find that these theories have been given proper names yet). I will address these theories one at a time.

 

To set the stage, let me review a bit. Adding what I learned from God into my Matrix analogy, I end up applying 4 assumptions to it. For reference, they are:

 

(1) There is a God; (2) He has children and he wants them to learn faith via hands-on experience; (3) In order to create a situation where faith could be learned, he purposely created all things in a way such that there would be viable evidence for both theories (God existing & God not existing " Creation/Evolution); and (4) He created the world and universe in a virtual way, using light and conscious energy (like the Matrix) which he then plugs his children into systematically so they each get their respective chance to learn.

 

Also, though I have covered this several time before, I will note once again before initiating my analysis that a logical Catch 22 exists on the question “Is there God who created all things?” This is because the possibility that the answer is yes eliminates the possibility of ever proving that the answer is no. It does not eliminate the possibility that the answer is no, but it does eliminate the possibility of proving such because if there is a God, then it is possible that he created things (just like he told me) in a manner that renders all evidence meaningless. Thus only rationale remains available for us to work with so, without further delay, let’s get started with the first theory.

 

The Theory of Evolution (as well as the other theories of Science) make the assumption that there is no creator of the Universe, but rather that it is a naturally occurring thing, like a cloud floating through the sky that formed on its own as a result of the laws of nature. When looking at the scientific evidence at hand, there is certainly a good deal of finding that does at first glance seem to support the theory. However, aside from the possibility that God could exist and consequently render all such evidence meaningless, I find nothing in traditional Science that suitably explains how life came to be.

 

The incredible complexity of nature and its amazing balance make the concept that it all just sprung up out of nowhere by chance unbelievable. In fact, believing such would be about a million times further of a stretch for me to believe than if you tried to convince me that my new iPhone 4S with Siri (including everything that makes it work, electricity, the internet, the apps, and the accessories) suddenly sprang into existence out of the dust and atmosphere without any intelligent assistance... It’s not believable. However, this is not what Science has discovered. According to Science, Evolution is based upon a process that began a very long time ago with the simplest form of life - single cell organisms. Once this very simple form of life existed, it began slowly evolving into higher and more complex forms of life that also began interacting with and working together with increasing complexity. Thus, Science believes that since that time, nature evolved from this very simple beginning to where it currently stands. 

 

The full details of Evolution make it much more believable, but I still get held up on the same point. The problem that Science has is that it keeps learning on all fronts and from what we now know, even the most simple forms of life (single cell organisms) aren’t all that simple. Consider if you will what it would take to replicate one of these tiny creatures. At the end of the day, even they are more complicated than my fully functional iPhone 4S, and the proof is in the pudding. Science made the iPhone, yet to date, despite their best efforts, they have been unsuccessful in attempts to make simple forms of life. Another interesting comparison is Nanobots. Nanobots are tiny machines that are the size of single cell organisms. They are complex enough little machines that only recently has Science possessed the knowledge, technology and skill to create them (in fact the technology is still in R&D). So then, what is the obvious question that screams out from these facts? How about, “How in the world does the concept of life starting with single celled organisms make the Theory of Evolution any more believable?” If the combined intelligence of the whole world to this day can’t reproduce these little creatures, then how is it rational to believable that they just popped into existence by chance without the design and/or creative assistance of any form of intelligence. It just doesn’t add up.

 

However, when looking at Evolution, you do certainly have to account for the supporting evidence, and there is a mountain of it. However, if God purposely created all things so as to validate the opposing theory, then wouldn’t he, being all-knowing and all-powerful, do a good job of that. All he has to do is write the program so that the Earth looks like it has been around for billions of years evolving and then program all of the life forms to actually have the ability to evolve. Walahh, the Matrix Theory easily explains this, and yes, I purposely just called it The Matrix Theory… for I have just decided to officially label it.

 

In the next letter I will move on to The Big Bang Theory and the Theories of Quantum Mechanics.

 

Until then…

 

Joshua

Reviews

[bOhEmIa (mahim)]

Some philosopher you are Joshua.

[Little Birdie]

Great read.

[Amila Jay]

Great write:-)

[Parashar]

i m a econmcs mjor , but still i enjoyed it .......

[-musicfunk-]

gret thing you come up to this one!!!

[eatmills]

Mathmatically the theorists were able to create a Matrix-type Salamander. They were able to make it hunt, the could not however replicate the basic needs, eating, sleeping, mating. They could replicate the actions of course. The couldn't create the instinct of the Salamander. They could however randomize it. Are our needs random? If they could create the cyber instinct we will be in trouble. Oh wait they've already started.

Great delivery, enjoy the good read for thought.

[SoulSinger]

The Matrix Theory,I like it! Sorry I am just getting to these it's been hectic. I have never been able to believe that everything just popped outta no where. It's impossible.

[The old me]

very interesting.

[RainQueen]

"The Theory of Evolution (as well as the other theories of Science) make the assumption that there is no creator of the Universe"

Be cautious making statements like these. Darwin did not examine the existence or nonexistence of a creator. All he did was use the data we have to trace progress. It seems like a small sticking point, but it really isn't. Educated Christians would argue that all the theory of Evolution does is describe natural processes flowing from the ultimate "rule-maker."
Nice Write!

[Team_Jaward_Gale]

well written nicely done they're really coming along