Tag Archives: God

Quantum Conciousness

Roger Penrose, one of the most accomplished physicists of our century and his partner Stuart Hameroff are proving a theory of quantum consciousness. This is part of a growing field of quantum biology which is changing our understanding of how certain aspects of our known universe functions. In this post I am going to talk about how this discovery threatens the beliefs of everyone.

First, consciousness. We have gained a lot of knowledge on the brain in terms of mechanics but something that has always eluded scientists was how consciousness functions. How scientists discovered what parts of the brain did what was while doctors were doing surgery. A patient with their brain exposed would have certain parts of their brain stimulated with electricity and as expected their body would do certain things like raise their arm or in some cases the person would hear music etc.. The doctor would then ask a question like, “why did you do that?” and universally the patient would reply, “I didn’t do that, you did.” It didn’t matter where doctors did this in the brain, this would happen. This was perplexing because how could we possibly know after all the brain has no physical sensors to speak of.

The OR Theory asserts that consciousness is a quantum process and predictions are being proven and it is also being supported circumstantially by other advances in quantum biology, we now know the process of photosynthesis uses quantum coherence.

What can this challenge?

Untouchable Spirituality
Discovery is always the first step to interaction. The thought that spirituality could never be touched or accessed by humans via technology could be a thought of the past. What spiritualists held as a guarded elite experience could potentially be open to everyone.

“Impossible” Experiences
It is a common story that a loved one can know when another loved one either dies, lives, or is suffering. With classical science, this kind of experience would be impossible. Quantum Biology not only makes this plausible but makes all other non-local phenomenon of similar type also plausible such as remote viewing, and near death experiences. Caution: This theory doesn’t make these things real, just plausible. It also will not stop people from scamming you out of money using this new theory as a basis to their extra-sensory scams.

Classical Evolutionary Process
Quantum biology can fundamentally challenge the classical process of evolution that asserts that evolution occurred through “random” mutations. In Quantum biology, it is possible that no mutation was random and instead changes could of been executed purposefully and non-locally.

Artificial Intelligence
No matter how intelligent a system appears, without a quantum component it will not have awareness. This can alleviate some pressure on us as we build more sophisticated simulations of the human mind; we are not locking a consciousness in a box because consciousness is non-local.

Some might say that this actually helps religion and it might appear that way at first, but it really doesn’t. It creates as many issues for a religion’s spirituality concepts as the theory of evolution did for literal creation. While scientists will be forced to be faced with the reality that goes with quantum consciousness, the religious will have to face with a different sort of issue. Their “soul” is more sophisticated than simply another force locked in a biological box. Instead their “soul” is part of an ultimate dimension that is persistent.

There are many things that science is working on that could fundamentally change the human condition and this in my opinion could be one of the largest. This is the first scientific discovery that could dig into the issue of human existentialism in serious a way, so we should all definitely pay attention.

Atheism’s Core Problem

The Atheistic belief revolves around certain philosophical arguments to justify its stance. Logically it is based on an impossibility, you cannot prove a negative. Since proving that something does not exist is an impossibility, the default is to use absurdity. Arguments such as, “Could God make a rock so heavy, that he could not lift it?” or “God is as real as a flying spaghetti monster.” All of the logical absurdity arguments are always rooted in some form of physical realm, they have to be, because it is only in the physical realm one can create a logical absurdity. If an extra dimensional entity exists it cannot be proven or disproved using basic physics. Even though as a race our understanding of the extra dimensions is increasing, the atheistic belief cannot form logical absurdities using our newly discovered knowledge because physically rooted absurdities do not hold up under our new knowledge.

One of the first monotheistic religions to exist was Judaism and it put forward the idea that God had no physical attributes what so ever. This in itself was a complex subject matter that humans in the physical realm have a hard time grasping. It is only when God appears (real or not) to manifest physically that the God concept can be attacked. These physical forms are many with not the least of which of course being religion.

However, if one is to believe in an extra dimensional entity that is present in all things then one must also accept that God is also present in Atheism and uses it as a tool for its ultimate purpose. What is presented in Atheism instead is a standing opposing character reference. Despite their unwavering need to define a godless reality, they never the less proceed to apply universal physical traits to God in order to make the concept vulnerable, in their belief, to attack. The most important universal characteristic they apply is that of God being good. This question usually takes the form of, “If God is good why does God allow this certain bad event to occur.” The logical route isn’t that God is bad, instead they force a different choice, “God is either good or does not exist.” This of course is because regardless of actual existence, the definition of God we all know and Atheism reviles and fights against anything that seems to counter our internal definition of God. Atheism leads the fight against those who use God to their own selfish gratification.

Objectively we know that suffering is good. Suffering drives us and without suffering we would not have choice. Objectivity does not seem to work with atheism when it comes to proving God. We want God to be personally self serving, if God cannot satisfy our most selfish of desires, God does not exist. However, this is important because it drives selfishness into a corner. It makes us question our very essence which is that of selfishness and selfishness seems completely incompatible with God.

Which bring us to the crux, if any application of selfishness makes God absurd or incomprehensible to us, why is that? Its because God cannot be understood in any selfish definition because an ultimate extra dimensional entity is the antithesis of selfishness. The paradox serves a specific purpose, to help us define something that is our opposite.

War on the Universe


When the big bang theory first emerged there was a lot of push back; the idea that the entire universe came from a single point seemed to elude to the concept of creation. Absolutely everything coming from a single point, that is absurd! As time passed the idea that this could be proof of a creator slowly vanished. Instead, the mere fact that we were smart enough to figure out a mechanic became a substitute for purpose.

Scientists quickly ran into problems with the theory and needed to come up with an explanation for things like the horizon problem which is why they invented inflation; a mathematical equation to justify the entire out come of the universe.

There is a fundamental problem with this and that is even if you can formulate an equation that has a proper result, it doesn’t actually mean the equation or numbers are correct. With algebra one of the first things you learn is that you can’t solve an equation with two unknowns such as X+Y=2. The result doesn’t change but X and Y can literally be anything.

As science figures out more and more they are constantly running into X+Y=2. This is why theories like the universe is a hologram are starting to emerge. This is a declaration that we are starting to hit a wall. Some will broadly prescribe a the gap God theory without starting to acknowledge some fundamental issues that are starting to emerge that are not only theoretical but also most probably improvable and without proof science is as accurate as religion.

Who will pick up the pieces as more people start to discover the difference between mechanics and purpose? The worst case scenario is religion because this would just make everything worse for everyone. We must instead focus on each other because it will only be with true collective intelligence that we can move past our limits.

The Modern Problem

modern-society-affects-our-sharing-habits-2In the Bible there is not a single reference to the rejection of slavery. At that time in history slavery was just a normal part of life. As our civilization matured we realized that slavery lead to all kinds of abuses of humanity and that we could rise above it. The modern problem is the fact that religions are increasingly having less answers on not just the universe but also on moral issues. Usually what happens is that the truth becomes so blindingly obvious that the various religions will either adapt or die off.

A good example is cloning, the various issues regarding it are not discussed anywhere in religious texts. Our relationship with how industry should relate to nature is also not discussed in religion. When talking about the modern problem an example I like to use is leprosy. During the time of Jesus leprosy was a pretty big issue, and Jesus could apparently heal it. Today, we can cure leprosy without any type of divine intervention. What we once would of considered a miracle is just business as usual today. Another major issue religion might face in the next 200 years is the end of aging; something else that will have deep philosophical and moral implications.

Standard religious views have changed with time such as the idea that the earth is the center of the universe. The fact that we were not the center of the universe had deep philosophical implications because it would seem to imply that when we were “created” God didn’t give us any preferential treatment, a staple belief of the selfish human. Today of course, the issue is rarely discussed.

One of the last standing vestiges of religious “theory”  is of course creation. Despite the tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence for evolution, the fact that macro evolution cannot be produced in the lab yet is the last string of hope for people who require a creation myth story. If we can produce macro evolution in the lab and or show the creation of some more complex proteins in the primordial soup, smarter and younger generations will not buy into any creation myths. Of course religions will adapt, the creation myth will become a metaphorical story instead of a literal one and people requiring religion will use a combination of tactics including pseudo logic to justify their beliefs.

“You would not get angry at a record player for not being able to play a CD.”

Unlike many critics however, I see religion as a catalyst for scientific progression. This might sound completely absurd, but let me explain. Religion in many ways has forced science to go above and beyond to prove points. Without religion there would be very little value in aggressively trying to show macro evolution in the lab. Further, I believe religion had a very small part in pushing scientists to find other means of acquiring stem cells for research.

For many religious adherents, there is a point of no return. It is a point when there beliefs are so integrated into their personalities that no amount of data will change their minds short of methods we have yet to realize as a society. A good metaphor would be a record player trying to play a CD, at a certain point new data becomes incompatible with previous modes of thought. This isn’t a characteristic restricted only to religion, it happens in science as well. Keep in mind, that we don’t necessarily want a record player to play a CD because the record player acts as a historical reference.

As Architects of order we do not limit ourselves because of change, however, this cannot be reasonably extended to the rest of the human population. Only so much effort should be exerted in an attempt to gain compatibility of thought because ultimately characters with archaic forms of perception will die. There  is a separate issue of perception transference from parents to children, but the modern problem will resolve the majority of that issue. It might be easy to get angry at these people who do not seem to grasp certain modern concepts but anger and hate is not only frivolous, it is irrational. You would not get angry at a record player for not being able to play a CD. In the same way an architect should not get angry at a religious adherent for being incapable of accepting certain lines of modern thought.

Jesus: Architect of Rational Morality

jesus&harlotWhether you believe Jesus was a prophet, messiah, or a myth he remains one of the most influential characters to date in the human race. As a brand Jesus has influenced every form of media. Jesus is one of the most obvious architects I could think of but I had difficulty actually figuring out what his primary characteristic was. Each religion has a fundamentally different view of Jesus and this made it difficult to evaluate, but after deep though I discovered that the trait that made Jesus, Jesus was his direct opposition to existing norms by means of supporting rational morality.

In Christian theology Jesus is the messiah who opposed what is called the old covenant or the 613 mitzvah (rules). In Islam, Jesus was a prophet who foresaw that the future messiah was not Jewish. In both these cases Jesus was a messenger who opposed current existing religious thought. His opposition to stagnation and non progressive thoughts, as a side effect, made Jesus a marketing genius. Unfortunately the very essence of what Jesus stood for is all but forgotten by every modern Jesus based religion. Jesus’s common sense approach to morality has been traded in by all modern religions for rule of text. During Jesus’s time being holy consisted of how you groomed yourself, what you ate, and even what you wore. Jesus justified the only true basic tenet of all morality, loving your neighbor, and this made him incredibly popular.

This very simple truth apparently was not enough because almost all the religions that were based on him engaged in bloody warfare at some point. Christianty vs Islam, Catholic vs Protestant; it would almost be comedic if it wasn’t horrifyingly sad. If Jesus was real, and was a prophet, when he said “forgive them for they know not what they do” he was surely talking about us in the future. He despised what we would consider Bible thumpers today, following rules for rule’s sake instead of being rational. Nothing was more evident of this when he stopped the stoning of the harlot by saying, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

All religious theology and miracles aside, the core concept of Jesus I agree with. We must oppose anything that is not rational and that hinders the progress of the human race. Following rules simply because we think they justify some divine entity does not benefit us. Human progress should come first and above any text that any human claims to be a divine rule book that we must follow.

Conversation with an Atheist

1319049368159_ORIGINALHe sat across from me, a little confused, “You’re telling me you believe in God?” I nodded and I knew where this conversation was headed, “So you believe all that stuff in the bible, you think it is all true?” I shook my head, “No I do not.” I could tell the common line of arguments were already lining up, the common atheist rhetoric that is used mostly to target those with a belief forged by the necessity of human capacity. I began to speak, “I don’t have a common belief in God I…” as if to try and catch me off guard he quickly interjected, “easter bunny.” I sighed and he continued, “God is no more real then the Easter Bunny or a flying spaghetti monster.”
“You forgot Santa Clause.”
“Exactly! how can you believe something that could of so easily been made up?”
“To assert that God is as real as a flying spaghetti monster is to assert that if God were real that God would be tangible. Theoretically if the flying spaghetti monster were real I would be able to reach out and touch it, this does not apply to God in my opinion. You could compare an intangible concept such as God is as real as karma, or love, or anger. However using fictional physical tangible entities to disprove an intangible one is a little silly.”
“This still does not prove that God is not fictional.”
“True, but my belief system does not have the necessity of God actually existing. While it would be nice, it by no means is a requirement for me.”
This was clearly not what he was expecting but none the less, defiant, he continued, “Well if God is so great why does he let suffering happen?” I laughed a little, “Why should he stop it?”
“Because God can.”
“So you assume that if God existed he has to be good or conform to some human trait that you have defined. You clearly admit that you don’t believe in God yet you seem to have a clear understanding of what its personality should be if God did exist.”
“It doesn’t make any sense though, why would God create something to let it suffer?”
“Well first, you’re making the mistake that I believe that God created us as a completed entity, which I don’t. Even if God did create us in the current state we are in right now, truly that cannot be a final state, but let me get back to your original question. Suffering is freedom. If we were incapable of making bad choices we would be no different then anything else, we would be complete automatons without any freedom whatsoever.”
“So you believe God created evil,” he said frustrated.
“No, we created evil as a way of defining things that make us less progressive as a race. Even if there was some kind of supernatural forces in play, it would be the same thing, a force stopping us from progressing as a race.”
“But there is zero proof of God! We are figuring out everything! We used to think we were the center of the universe. Surely you don’t think evolution is false?”
“Where I believe we came from does not factor at all into any belief I may have about God. While there may not be proof that God exists, we have circumstantial proof in the form of microcosms. Everything we don’t think God could be possible of, we’re doing. We’re creating artificial universes and intelligence. Despite the fact that we are a combination of multiple independent personalities, we are capable of working as a group to create a cohesive universe. If we were to create a universe with life, how would they fathom us?”
“So you believe God could just be some hyper intelligent entity or race that created us?” he said with a laugh.
“That is possible but, honestly, impossible to know. There is something more important then that though. It is how we relate to God that is important. You see everything we are trying to accomplish is represented in God as an epitome. Science is a way of gaining knowledge, God is all knowing. Art is the discovery of the meta physical, God is perfect meta. Philanthropy is represented in God as love.” his demeanor suddenly changed, he became curious, “do you think there is a correct religion? Do you think everyone is worshiping the same God?”
“This is where I disagree with Oprah. Every religion is not worshiping the same God, they are worshiping aspects. Further each religion we have today is characterized by primary traits. Christianity is love, Islam is majesty, and other religions are tradition. Each of these characteristics when combined make a singular personality. Of course they don’t see it that way, each system believes they can exist without the others. That would be like a warrior incapable of disciple or compassion. So what we get is war.”
“I still don’t believe in God, but you have done a better job convincing me then anyone I have met, but I just don’t feel it is reasonable.”
“That is understandable, what is reasonable is affected by time. If I could time travel 5000 years into the past it would be fairly unreasonable to ask those people to build me an airplane. What is truly unreasonable is that many atheists are completely aware that it is a logical impossibility to prove a negative yet they will write entire books on how something doesn’t exist. At the end of the day if God doesn’t exist that doesn’t bother me because it means we have something we can build.”

The Human Condition

With the recent Bill Nye Video on creationism, I thought I would take the time to write about science and the human condition. The primary friction when it comes to the theory of evolution for the religious is that it would prove that God did not create us in a complete form but also that the religious text of genesis would be wrong. Scientists need to produce not only in lab results for macro evolution (not micro) but also for how amino acids could form proteins in the primordial soup. These are two things scientists will need to do to get the populous at large to believe in evolution, simply providing circumstantial evidence in the form of fossils is not enough. This will ultimately happen even if the timeline is unknown.

If people stop aging and getting sick, religious beliefs will be the least of our problems.

However, this whole debate is a little misplaced because in the grand scheme of things evolution will be the smallest thing that will affect mainstream religions. If we push the evolution debate to one side and then we push the belief in God to the other side below the surface we will see something else brewing. The things that are happening right now are mind boggling. First, we are on are way to curing cancer by modifying a patient’s own white blood cells. We are even regrowing organs and this is without using fetus stem cells. What used to be science fiction is becoming science fact. We are very well on our way to curing aging and even death by sickness.

Curing aging will fundamentally change society and not just for the religious. Death underlies a lot of successful businesses and dictates a lot of government policy. If people stop aging and getting sick, religious beliefs will be the least of our problems. We will have to deal with social programs, over population, and more. The implications of living a thousand years could mean you could literally do everything there is to do on this world, we have never had this issue before. People may become shut-ins minimizing any exterior physical risk to themselves so that there will never be any risk of dying. A lot of our willingness to take physical risks now is the fact that at some point we are going to die but what if that becomes no longer the case?

When these changes come and bubble to the surface a lot of people who were very sure of their beliefs may begin to question them. The things science is discovering right now will fundamentally change the way we think, act, and feel. Whether this is for the better or for the worse is yet to be seen but either way these changes are happening.