Disproves God...

Written by Terry Dashner

Disproves God…

Terry Dashner………………Faith Fellowship Church PO Box 1586 Broken Arrow, OK 74013

Can scientific discovery disprove God? If that question seems awkward, let me state it like this: Does science prove God’s existence? If science can, then scientific discovery is higher, superior to God. Or inrepparttar words ofrepparttar 105808 19th century philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, “God is dead…” and since He is dead, live like it. Everything goes.

Before I get carried away in thought, let me make this thesis statement. The purpose of scientific discovery is not to prove or disprove God, but to expand knowledge. St Thomas Aquinas,repparttar 105809 most brilliant man to live betweenrepparttar 105810 time of Aristotle and Descartes, talked about reason and faith. One does not contradictrepparttar 105811 other because both are from God. Not only is Christrepparttar 105812 beginning andrepparttar 105813 end of our faith, butrepparttar 105814 Bible declares that “every good and perfect gift” comes from God. Knowledge is good; therefore it comes from God. Human reason can lead us far in this life, and well it should. Then again, faith can take us above all earthly knowledge intorepparttar 105815 courtyards of God. When my understanding breaks down, I can always advance forward by my faith in God.

Are you hearing me? One of my favorite authors, and I have many, is Peter Kreeft. He is an intelligent philosopher who teaches philosophy at Boston College, I believe. He writes wonderful books about philosophy and faith and I buy everyone of them. (Some of them I read often.) Peter, in his book entitled, Your Questions God’s Answers, writesrepparttar 105816 following words of interest. “But do not let yourself be intimidated by atheists who claim that science disproves God. That is like claiming that studying Shakespeare’s plays disproves Shakespeare. If there were no God, there would be no science, because there would be no world for science to know.

Silicon Awakes

Written by Charles Douglas Wehner

I have taught many things to idiots. I showed them how to calculate sines and cosines (http;//wehner.org/fpoint ), how to make animate pictures (http://www.wehner.org/tools/animate ) and 3D (http://wehner.org/tools/anna ).

The idiots were made of STONE.

Yes - they were silicon chips. They were "Central Processing Units" (CPUs). They were so dumb that they gave me no help. They just sat there waiting for me to tell them what to do - and I had to understandrepparttar procedures down torepparttar 105807 finest detail in order to teach them.

If I told them wrong, they would obediently followrepparttar 105808 wrong instruction. Thenrepparttar 105809 computer would "hang", or do crazy things.

So I learned patience.

Given enough understanding, there is virtually nothing you cannot do with silicon. Inrepparttar 105810 future there may be other semiconductors - possibly boron trinitride - but for now, silicon is king.

The methods used on one kind of semiconductor, however, will be valid for all time. It is notrepparttar 105811 details ofrepparttar 105812 program on a specific chip that are important, butrepparttar 105813 ideas behind them.

Inevitably, we analyse our own minds as we work. We have to learn to distinguish belief from knowledge. Belief is a "feeling" in what Freud calledrepparttar 105814 "Preconscious" (Vorbewußtsein). Knowledge isrepparttar 105815 set of solid ideas that have been tested and proven over and over again.

One cannot program a "conscious mind" into a silicon chip, when one only has a "feeling" of what a conscious mind is.

Mohammed ibn Musa abu Jafar al Khwarismi wrote a book. He said that numbers are made of parts, and can be divided into their parts... and so he went on. It was an excruciatingly slow process of reasoning - designed to avoid errors or omissions. It became a style known as "Al-Kwarisms".

According to Professor Donald E. Knuth, European professors with their European accents were teaching inrepparttar 105816 States. The students thought they were saying "ALGORITHM" - and a new technical term was born in 1956.

You need an "algorithm" when you want silicon to come to life. You need to think like a Greek philosopher - to questionrepparttar 105817 nature of "me". You need to distillrepparttar 105818 very essence of awareness from your knowledge ofrepparttar 105819 world. Unless you find it - and unlessrepparttar 105820 finding is TRUE - you will never reachrepparttar 105821 point of rousingrepparttar 105822 silicon imbecile.

I spent my life conjecturing aboutrepparttar 105823 nature of conscious life. The new revolution of data theory helped me. Computers became abundant, and information technology was going into realms likerepparttar 105824 neural net. As we learned about silicon, we also learned about ourselves.

I considered that we have just one-and-a-half kilogrammes (about three pounds) of brain. Allrepparttar 105825 data of our lives is stored inside it. There must be data compression.

My studies showed that there are mechanisms that refinerepparttar 105826 data fromrepparttar 105827 eyes (http://wehner.org/3d ) and fromrepparttar 105828 ears (http://wehner.org/honk ). There are mechanical things likerepparttar 105829 basilar membrane, and neurological things likerepparttar 105830 auditory and visual cortices. That means thatrepparttar 105831 brain is being fed with refined data.

Withrepparttar 105832 help of Martin Wilsher, I had also updated Aristotle's five senses. There are, in fact SEVEN senses - as told onrepparttar 105833 page aboutrepparttar 105834 honky-tonk piano (last page mentioned above).

What goes on BEYONDrepparttar 105835 data-refinement? What happens when data - generically - is being analysed?

I found a new variant on DIFFERENTIATION. It is not a mathematical process. It is a LOGICAL process. It isrepparttar 105836 logical parallel ofrepparttar 105837 calculus. I call itrepparttar 105838 new calculus of sets.

This process - DIFFERATION - seeks out anything NEW. New data cannot be compressed. It is passed on unchanged.

Old data can be defined by a coding system which states that it has been seen before. Inrepparttar 105839 BINARY calculus of sets, if TWO old sets of data repeat, they become ONE new set. Sorepparttar 105840 amount of data shrinks whilstrepparttar 105841 data is flowing in.

Ifrepparttar 105842 two sets are ofrepparttar 105843 same size, sixty-four items may become thirty-two, which become sixteen, then eight, then four, then two, then one.

Cont'd on page 2 ==>
ImproveHomeLife.com © 2005
Terms of Use