The God of Physics
Synopsis
The God of Physics is a Christian/Science/Pseudoscience and apologetic book that covers themes like, religious science, faith and love of Jesus viewed from philosophical eyes.
What makes this piece stand out is that it looks at the nature of God from eccentric angles, using scientific tools like Einstein's theories of relativity and vibrations to prove and describe God (with the Bible being the ultimate guide). This work guided carefully by the Bible stumbles on an unusual answers to the question: "Why were we created?"
CHAPTER ONE
I STUMBLED UPON OMNIPOTENCE
I would have loved to begin this long piece from my youthful years of imagination by telling you about myself. But I discovered like Albert Einstein would agree, it seems it is not necessarily you or me at the center of the universe. Anthropocentric views often lead us toward religion rather than towards God. And soon as we are led away into religion and more religion, we veer into superstitions and lose the truth which was our original aim.
Like Pythagoras, the Bible agrees that God is this truth. Organized religion has too often led us away from God (the truth), rather than towards God which was the aim.
Science and religion are not separate things as you have often heard. Science and religion are part of the same truth. Science is necessary to unearth and unravel the mysteries etched in poetic and figurative language left behind by the ancients on pages of Holy Books. Albert Einstein once said “science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind”.
I agree that both religion and science are part of the same truth. I agree that the scientific community and organized religion have been seeking the same truth throughout history.
But what is science? Is it not a study of the universe man has embarked on armed with his five senses? The Bible says “In Him (God) we live and move. The fact is that we live and move in the universe. Is the Bible calling the universe “God”? Is science a study of God?
A Christian once told me that the Bible verse I quoted above was referring to us being in the presence of God. I agree. The Bible explains that God is omnipresent (everywhere). Everywhere implies the universe and any dimension beyond it (immanence and transcendence). The universe is technically everywhere. The Bible is “technically” pantheistic in my view.
Before we run on the idea that the Bible is pantheistic, Romans 1:20 gives us a clearer picture. It suggests that the universe is a description of God. The universe is not God, the universe rather is a description of God, hence the Bible saying we move and live in Him is accurate. If you are dealing with an artwork like an image that describes Apollo, you can loosely say “look at Apollo” albeit it being not literally Apollo but rather a description of Apollo. The perfect description of God is the world at the era of Eden.
If the universe is a description of God, it can be said that studying the universe is studying a description of God. Science is basically a probe and study of the universe, hence science is the study of God. Indeed science and religion are a part of the same truth and compliment each other. The truth they both seek is God but they fail to understand that they need to work hand in hand to arrive at this truth.
If the universe is the description of God, I guess we can understand better why it is infinite. I once had a man ask me why other planets exist, why many other parts of the earth inhospitable to human life exist and why majority of the water on the planet is not good for human consumption? He asked me all these questions all the while implying that God did not make the universe specially for us. I realized that the planets interact with us gravitationally and our existence would be impossible without them because they help keep the earth in its orbit around the sun. I realize that the inhospitable parts of the planet and the water bodies we cannot consume host many other lifeforms which are important for the food chain to be complete and for nature to have a balance. I mean, there are many poisonous plants that grow in places crawling with herbivores. The poison of the poisonous plant may make it seem useless in the eyes of a myopic herbivore but in reality, the plant is preserved for other purposes like fighting hazards like global warming. The myopic herbivore would not be aware that the very poisonous plant is the reason it isn’t slain by global warming. The herbivore owes it’s life to the existence of the poisonous plant. This myopic herbivore is basically every human being citing the fact that most of the universe is inhospitable to them as a reason the Bible’s idea of man being the focus of God is wrong.
For the Bible writers all that happen is God. When thunder strikes it is a proof of how terrible God can be, the rain is a blessing from God, and so is the sun. They ascribed everything to God because they understood that the universe is a description of God.
Pythagoras thought of God’s physical form as light and God’s soul as truth. If God is truth like Pythagoras and the Bible say He is, then organized religion and science in their war against each other have often led us away from God (truth) as seen in the trial of Galileo. But then what is the problem? Why does it seem in this world that science and religion are different things entirely? This book addresses this question and much more.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD: Throughout history, dozens of pantheons, each containing dozens of gods have emerged from culture to culture. We have heard of the god of thunder, of romance, of beauty, of war, of fertility, etcetera. What if I told you that there is only one God, and He is the God of everything? He is the one I call The God of Physics.
I am a Christian, and I prefer to call myself the student of geophysics who fell in love with astrophysics and creative writing, mostly poetry. It is true that I am in love with very distant fields of study, but that’s not as strange as the fact that I have been in polyamorous relationships with fictional characters I create in my head. Trust me, I am not crazy, I just have a mind that would not stop wandering.
I often get a couple of people who would call me a case of cognitive dissonance because some people think it is impossible to be both Christian and geophysicist and be sane. These people seem to think science contradicts the Christian’s worldview. But I know these people are simply guilty of haste.
Now there are a lot of Christians who are notable scientists in contemporary times and throughout history. How come we have faith in God and are also students of science, applying the scientific method? The answer is in two parts. Firstly, science does not contradict God. Secondly we do not apply the scientific method all the time, in every situation. I would not advice anyone to apply the scientific method all the time because it is basically not feasible or useful to use the scientific method in some cases.
Although procedures relating to the scientific method vary from one field of inquiry to another, they are frequently the same from one to another. The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those [Peirce, Charles Sanders (1908). "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" . Hibbert Journal. 7: 90–112 – via Wikisource. with added notes. Reprinted with previously unpublished part, Collected Papers v. 6, paragraphs 452–85, The Essential Peirce v. 2, pp. 434–50, and elsewhere].
Clearly, the scientific method is a very important tool, but it does have its limitations. These limitations are based on the very things that make science great, the fact that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable and the fact that experiments and observations be repeatable. This places certain topics beyond the reach of the scientific method.
For instance, the scientific method is incapable of making value judgments and other forms of measurement that require subjective perception like a teacher asked to point out the most sociable student in his class, a dozen teachers might present a dozen different students from the same class and the scientific method would be unable to remedy this.
The point is that the scientific method and science itself is limited, as limited as the human mind which created it. So when an atheist calls me a case of cognitive dissonance because I believe in God, a subject that remains a debate with mainstream scientists and philosophers, I wonder because there are a lot of things believed in by the atheist, things like “what the atheist believes is moral or immoral” which have not and may never be solved or tested by the scientific method. The scientific method is thus limited and is not an absolute judge because science is subject to changing through the years as knowledge and ideas increase (or decrease). The bottom line is that every human is guilty of not applying the scientific method at one point or another.
Though like every human being out there Christians do not use the scientific method in every aspect of their lives, Christians understand that when doing science they are looking at the natural mechanisms God put in place to ensure that the effects we see in nature arise. For instance, though we know that God created our faces and bodies, we also know that God set up natural mechanisms like genetics to ensure our bodies take the shape we see them own. In other words, though God is responsible for the effects we see in nature, He uses natural mechanisms like genetics. There’s hardly any need for cognitive dissonance here.
In my worldview God exists and I have evidence of God through my personal experiences and encounters in life which of course are not proven or disproven by the scientific method. I also have a good dose of clear scientific evidences of the existence of God.
As I would show in this book subsequently, the idea of an infinite God is pro science.
THE SUPERNATURAL
I think the question about the “existence of God” and evidence for God and “the Supernatural” can be better solved if we have a better understanding of what God is and what “the Supernatural” is.
I think most skeptics refuse the idea of God and “the Supernatural” because they cannot relate or decode with deep thoughts and gazes the dictionary or popular definition of these terms, thus they see no evidence of that entity (God) and that realm (The Supernatural).
There are a lot of prizes available for anyone who can prove the Supernatural exists using the scientific method at free thought and secularist organizations. I think the conditions set out for claiming these prizes are cracked because they limit proof to a certain method which is clearly limited.
Setting boundaries for morality is one of the reasons the human race has survived, yet the scientific method cannot help us set such a code that describes what is moral or immoral. The scientific method cannot be applied to solve every given problem. Why do these secularist organizations limit testing for the evidence of God to the scientific method like the scientific method is some absolute judge? The scientific method is clearly inadequate in some respects. I am not saying the scientific method cannot be used to prove the supernatural. I am saying limiting the proof of the supernatural to the scientific method is a faulty premise because the scientific method is limited and we would only be limiting our chances of stumbling upon God to the limitations of a limited tool.
People often expect someone spooky when they imagine the supernatural. But personally, I do not expect spooky beings alone. I think of the Supernatural as certain things that violate physics or logic. I cannot say that everything that violates physics or logic is supernatural. But for something to be considered supernatural, it should in a way or two violate the logic of the natural.
Atheists in avoiding the burden of proof like to define atheism as simply unbelief. But it is funny because theists can avoid the burden of proof by defining theism as unbelief too. Theism can be defined as unbelief in a self created universe (natural things obey natural laws like causes and effects). Natural things like energy cannot exist eternally, thus implying that it exists because it exists because that breaks the natural law relative to causes and effects. The First Cause has to be supernatural hence able to break the laws pertaining to causes and effects. The atheistic worldview which supposes that energy exists because it exists is a tautology. It is thus anti language, anti science, anti logic, anti history, etcetera.
While theists can dodge the burden of proof using the definition above, this book would rather bear the burden of proof and prove the existence of God. Theism is belief in God, and I can prove God exists as this book would.
There’s evidence of a sovereign force in the universe, there are evidences of God’s infinite attributes like omniscience in the universe. I think the closer we get to observing the Omni-max attributes in nature, the closer to observing God we get. Hang on, this book promises to explore the Omni-max attributes of God using scientific facts while leading us gently towards understanding what God truly is better.
If we know what the force of nature called God truly is, we would not be looking too far for evidence of Him. But if we always imagine God as a white bearded, spooky man on the sky, then we would always ask for evidence because we have a very wrong preconceived notion about what God should look like.
The word supernatural is a relativistic term. Somethings may be supernatural from human point of view, but relative to God the term supernatural cannot exist unless God is not the Supreme omniscient One. What I am getting at is that we must be very careful with labelling things supernatural. It is true the supernatural is a mystery to us, it often upsets our logic and science but note that the fact we do not understand a thing or the logic behind it does not automatically make it supernatural. Personally I think the supernatural and the natural technically overlap each other.
EVIDENCE OF THE SUPERNATURAL?: Well these prizes available for a proof of God by secular organizations and skeptics are not the first time God has been asked to show Himself or prove Himself. In an episode in the Bible, “Some Pharisees and Sadducees were on Him (Jesus) again, pressing Him to prove Himself to them. He told them, ‘You have a saying that goes, Red sky at night, sailor's delight; red sky at morning, sailors take warning. You find it easy enough to forecast the weather - why can't you read the signs of the times? An evil and wanton generation is always wanting signs and wonders. The only sign you'll get is the Jonah sign.’ Then he turned on his heel and walked away – Matthew 16:1-4”.
When I see these prizes lay unclaimed, I am not totally surprised. Jesus wouldn’t necessarily show a sign because of your money or because of your ability to mock Him or because you would claim He is inept. The Bible episode in Matthew 16:1-4 attests to this. Countless people throughout history since the first century have confessed encountering Jesus. Jesus didn’t give these persons like me a sign because they wanted to test Him but because He willed it. Jesus did countless signs and wonders in the Bible but to the Pharisees in that episode He gave no sign but simply mentions the fact that they are unworthy of the fresh sign they sought after.
Having said all that, I must tell you that there is actually evidence of the supernatural.
People often report having near death experiences and they speak of things like having outside body experiences where they see themselves laying motionless as doctors and nurses labor to keep them alive. They speak of encountering various other worldly places and persons. These experiences are explained by skeptics as the brain playing games on the victim because of limited oxygen supply (hypoxia), in other words these experiences are called hallucinations or dream-like by skeptics.
But there are certain near death experiences that debunk the suggestions that near death experiences are mere hallucinations. This is the case where people blind from birth undergo near death experiences.
See, people blind from birth dream. Dreams can only be cooked from memories already stored in the brain. For a person blind from birth who has never experienced a visual signal and thus has no visual memory, he cannot experience visual dreams. People blind from birth dream but their brains cook these dreams using all other four senses; that is touch, taste, smell and sound.
The shocker is that a good number of blind from birth individuals who undergo near death experiences report experiencing vision for the first time in their lives.
A study of blind from birth near death experience victims led by Kenneth Ring at the University of Connecticut in the 1990s found that fifteen out of twenty one blind participants reported some kind of sight during their near death experience, three were not sure if they had visual perception, and the remaining three did not see anything. Half of those who were blind from birth said they saw something.[Ring, K., & Cooper, S. (1999). “Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind”.]
The uncertainty of some may have had to do with the unfamiliar nature of vision for those who have never experienced it, combined with other unusual qualities of NDEs. Even NDEers who are not blind sometimes have trouble explaining the experience, which seems to transcend ordinary life in many ways.[Ring, K., & Cooper, S. (1999). “Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind”.]
One man, blind from birth, told Dr. Ring that he found himself in a library with “thousands and millions and billions of books, as far as you could see.” Asked if he saw them visually he said, “Oh, yes!” Did he see them clearly? “No problem.” Was he surprised at being able to see thus? Not in the least.[Ring, K., & Cooper, S. (1999). “Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind”.]
Vicki Umipeg, whom Ring interviewed and who has also spoken of her experience in various media interviews, had an overall pleasant NDE, but did describe being suddenly able to see as “frightening.”[Kate Broome, Julia Simmons (Producers), &Kate Broome (Director). (2002). The Day I died (Documentary Movie). United Kingdom: British Broadcasting Corporation]
She was twenty two years old, working as a singer at a nightclub in Seattle. She couldn’t get a cab after work one night, so she accepted a ride from some intoxicated patrons. The car crashed while she was in it. She suffered serious injuries, including a fractured skull.[Kate Broome, Julia Simmons (Producers), &Kate Broome (Director). (2002). The Day I died (Documentary Movie). United Kingdom: British Broadcasting Corporation]
She felt that she had left her body and floated up toward the ceiling in Harborview Hospital. She heard a doctor talking about the possibility that damage to her eardrum could make her deaf as well. She could see a doctor leaning over what she realized must be her body below. She had never seen her own body.[Kate Broome, Julia Simmons (Producers), &Kate Broome (Director). (2002). The Day I died (Documentary Movie). United Kingdom: British Broadcasting Corporation]
Pulled through a tunnel, she emerged in a place with grass and people of light, she said. In an interview for the BBC Documentary “The Day I Died,” Umipeg said, “I felt overwhelmed by that experience, because I couldn’t really imagine what light was like.”[Kate Broome, Julia Simmons (Producers), &Kate Broome (Director). (2002). The Day I died (Documentary Movie). United Kingdom: British Broadcasting Corporation]
Umipeg was born prematurely and became blind as a result of too much oxygen in the incubator. She said that, during her NDE, “It was wonderful to be out there and be free, to not worry about bumping into anything.” If she wanted to know something, the knowledge would come to her. When she returned to her body, she said, “It was excruciatingly painful and very heavy.”[Kate Broome, Julia Simmons (Producers), &Kate Broome (Director). (2002). The Day I died (Documentary Movie). United Kingdom: British Broadcasting Corporation]
In response to sharing this case of blind from birth individuals experiencing vision in near death experiences, skeptics like Dr. Ring himself who conducted this research or study like to say these individuals were likely not experiencing vision but were assuming it is vision they were experiencing. But as far as I am concerned, this unproven and controversial claim that it was not vision is just the last defensive set up of a skeptical mind with inertia for a change in worldview because change in worldviews have colossal effects on the life of any individual. [Ring, K., & Cooper, S. (1999). “Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind”.]
A blind from birth individual doesn’t know what color is, he doesn’t know if what he experiences is black or not. I could understand if these individuals can through imagination create shapes like circles and squares. The details in stories blind from birth individuals tell are far too detailed and complex for a brain that has never experienced visual signals before to cook.
The near death experiences of blind from birth individuals suggest that sight is not limited to the eyes on our faces. There is transcendent vision. Transcendent is a synonym of Supernatural. There is an example of a Supernatural vision and the Supernatural.
QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT: Aside “blind from birth” individuals having Near Death Experiences (NDE’s), Quantum Entanglement also buries the ideas of materialism in a mighty way. Materialism is the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
The idea of materialism which most atheists and the mainstream scientific community clings to is the very idea that there is nothing supernatural or immaterial. But all this is ironic when scientifically observed phenomena in the world of quantum mechanics like Quantum Entanglement point at the idea that the universe is more than matter and it’s modifications or movements.
Entangled objects in quantum physics are often two spinning objects that are linked together by “nothing”. When I say “linked together”, I mean they behave perfectly identically. I say they are linked by nothing because if we separate them by the distance of the entire universe they are still linked (behave perfectly identically). Even through black holes and supernovas. How could this be?
If one is spinning you cannot stop and reverse the spin of the other object. That object will stop at the same time and do exactly as its “entangled” twin. The information is transmitted instantly through the entire universe and there is energy that is not accounted for on the opposite side of the transmission. Funny enough, there are no transmission lines either. It is a signal-less transmission because if it was a transmission that deals with signals, the signals would have to move faster than the speed of light at some point if these two entangled objects must spin and stop spinning at exactly the same instant whether separated by millions of light years or not. According to Einstein’s theories of Relativity, it is impossible to move faster than light. Nothing can move faster than light. The information transmitted in quantum entanglement is thus information that is transmitted with no physical means in any way!
If the Theories of Relativity which have been proven as facts and have helped in solving problems associated with Maxwell’s equations and the universe hold true, then the connection between these two entangled objects is actually without a transmission line or signal that can be accounted for physically, thus it is an immaterial connection (note the supernatural is often treated as the “immaterial”).
How then can the mainstream scientific community cling to materialism when the quantum world and phenomena like quantum entanglement point at the fact that immaterial elements in nature have effects on material objects?...............To be continued..........
THE SUPERNATURAL
I think the question about the “existence of God” and evidence for God and “the Supernatural” can be better solved if we have a better understanding of what God is and what “the Supernatural” is.I think most skeptics refuse the idea of God and “the Supernatural” because they cannot relate or decode with deep thoughts and gazes the dictionary or popular definition of these terms, thus they see no evidence of that entity (God) and that realm (The Supernatural).
There are a lot of prizes available for anyone who can prove the Supernatural exists using the scientific method at free thought and secularist organizations. I think the conditions set out for claiming these prizes are cracked because they limit proof to a certain method which is clearly limited.
Setting boundaries for morality is one of the reasons the human race has survived, yet the scientific method cannot help us set such a code that describes what is moral or immoral. The scientific method cannot be applied to solve every given problem. Why do these secularist organizations limit testing for the evidence of God to the scientific method like the scientific method is some absolute judge? The scientific method is clearly inadequate in some respects. I am not saying the scientific method cannot be used to prove the supernatural. I am saying limiting the proof of the supernatural to the scientific method is a faulty premise because the scientific method is limited and we would only be limiting our chances of stumbling upon God to the limitations of a limited tool.
People often expect someone spooky when they imagine the supernatural. But personally, I do not expect spooky beings alone. I think of the Supernatural as certain things that violate physics or logic. I cannot say that everything that violates physics or logic is supernatural. But for something to be considered supernatural, it should in a way or two violate the logic of the natural.
Atheists in avoiding the burden of proof like to define atheism as simply unbelief. But it is funny because theists can avoid the burden of proof by defining theism as unbelief too. Theism can be defined as unbelief in a self created universe (natural things obey natural laws like causes and effects). Natural things like energy cannot exist eternally, thus implying that it exists because it exists because that breaks the natural law relative to causes and effects. The First Cause has to be supernatural hence able to break the laws pertaining to causes and effects. The atheistic worldview which supposes that energy exists because it exists is a tautology. It is thus anti language, anti science, anti logic, anti history, etcetera.
While theists can dodge the burden of proof using the definition above, this book would rather bear the burden of proof and prove the existence of God. Theism is belief in God, and I can prove God exists as this book would.
There’s evidence of a sovereign force in the universe, there are evidences of God’s infinite attributes like omniscience in the universe. I think the closer we get to observing the Omni-max attributes in nature, the closer to observing God we get. Hang on, this book promises to explore the Omni-max attributes of God using scientific facts while leading us gently towards understanding what God truly is better.
If we know what the force of nature called God truly is, we would not be looking too far for evidence of Him. But if we always imagine God as a white bearded, spooky man on the sky, then we would always ask for evidence because we have a very wrong preconceived notion about what God should look like.
The word supernatural is a relativistic term. Somethings may be supernatural from human point of view, but relative to God the term supernatural cannot exist unless God is not the Supreme omniscient One. What I am getting at is that we must be very careful with labelling things supernatural. It is true the supernatural is a mystery to us, it often upsets our logic and science but note that the fact we do not understand a thing or the logic behind it does not automatically make it supernatural. Personally I think the supernatural and the natural technically overlap each other.
EVIDENCE OF THE SUPERNATURAL?: Well these prizes available for a proof of God by secular organizations and skeptics are not the first time God has been asked to show Himself or prove Himself. In an episode in the Bible, “Some Pharisees and Sadducees were on Him (Jesus) again, pressing Him to prove Himself to them. He told them, ‘You have a saying that goes, Red sky at night, sailor's delight; red sky at morning, sailors take warning. You find it easy enough to forecast the weather - why can't you read the signs of the times? An evil and wanton generation is always wanting signs and wonders. The only sign you'll get is the Jonah sign.’ Then he turned on his heel and walked away – Matthew 16:1-4”.
When I see these prizes lay unclaimed, I am not totally surprised. Jesus wouldn’t necessarily show a sign because of your money or because of your ability to mock Him or because you would claim He is inept. The Bible episode in Matthew 16:1-4 attests to this. Countless people throughout history since the first century have confessed encountering Jesus. Jesus didn’t give these persons like me a sign because they wanted to test Him but because He willed it. Jesus did countless signs and wonders in the Bible but to the Pharisees in that episode He gave no sign but simply mentions the fact that they are unworthy of the fresh sign they sought after.
Having said all that, I must tell you that there is actually evidence of the supernatural.
People often report having near death experiences and they speak of things like having outside body experiences where they see themselves laying motionless as doctors and nurses labor to keep them alive. They speak of encountering various other worldly places and persons. These experiences are explained by skeptics as the brain playing games on the victim because of limited oxygen supply (hypoxia), in other words these experiences are called hallucinations or dream-like by skeptics.
But there are certain near death experiences that debunk the suggestions that near death experiences are mere hallucinations. This is the case where people blind from birth undergo near death experiences.
See, people blind from birth dream. Dreams can only be cooked from memories already stored in the brain. For a person blind from birth who has never experienced a visual signal and thus has no visual memory, he cannot experience visual dreams. People blind from birth dream but their brains cook these dreams using all other four senses; that is touch, taste, smell and sound.
The shocker is that a good number of blind from birth individuals who undergo near death experiences report experiencing vision for the first time in their lives.
A study of blind from birth near death experience victims led by Kenneth Ring at the University of Connecticut in the 1990s found that fifteen out of twenty one blind participants reported some kind of sight during their near death experience, three were not sure if they had visual perception, and the remaining three did not see anything. Half of those who were blind from birth said they saw something.[Ring, K., & Cooper, S. (1999). “Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind”.]The uncertainty of some may have had to do with the unfamiliar nature of vision for those who have never experienced it, combined with other unusual qualities of NDEs. Even NDEers who are not blind sometimes have trouble explaining the experience, which seems to transcend ordinary life in many ways.[Ring, K., & Cooper, S. (1999). “Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind”.]
One man, blind from birth, told Dr. Ring that he found himself in a library with “thousands and millions and billions of books, as far as you could see.” Asked if he saw them visually he said, “Oh, yes!” Did he see them clearly? “No problem.” Was he surprised at being able to see thus? Not in the least.[Ring, K., & Cooper, S. (1999). “Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind”.]
Vicki Umipeg, whom Ring interviewed and who has also spoken of her experience in various media interviews, had an overall pleasant NDE, but did describe being suddenly able to see as “frightening.”[Kate Broome, Julia Simmons (Producers), &Kate Broome (Director). (2002). The Day I died (Documentary Movie). United Kingdom: British Broadcasting Corporation]
She was twenty two years old, working as a singer at a nightclub in Seattle. She couldn’t get a cab after work one night, so she accepted a ride from some intoxicated patrons. The car crashed while she was in it. She suffered serious injuries, including a fractured skull.[Kate Broome, Julia Simmons (Producers), &Kate Broome (Director). (2002). The Day I died (Documentary Movie). United Kingdom: British Broadcasting Corporation]
She felt that she had left her body and floated up toward the ceiling in Harborview Hospital. She heard a doctor talking about the possibility that damage to her eardrum could make her deaf as well. She could see a doctor leaning over what she realized must be her body below. She had never seen her own body.[Kate Broome, Julia Simmons (Producers), &Kate Broome (Director). (2002). The Day I died (Documentary Movie). United Kingdom: British Broadcasting Corporation]
Pulled through a tunnel, she emerged in a place with grass and people of light, she said. In an interview for the BBC Documentary “The Day I Died,” Umipeg said, “I felt overwhelmed by that experience, because I couldn’t really imagine what light was like.”[Kate Broome, Julia Simmons (Producers), &Kate Broome (Director). (2002). The Day I died (Documentary Movie). United Kingdom: British Broadcasting Corporation]
Umipeg was born prematurely and became blind as a result of too much oxygen in the incubator. She said that, during her NDE, “It was wonderful to be out there and be free, to not worry about bumping into anything.” If she wanted to know something, the knowledge would come to her. When she returned to her body, she said, “It was excruciatingly painful and very heavy.”[Kate Broome, Julia Simmons (Producers), &Kate Broome (Director). (2002). The Day I died (Documentary Movie). United Kingdom: British Broadcasting Corporation]
In response to sharing this case of blind from birth individuals experiencing vision in near death experiences, skeptics like Dr. Ring himself who conducted this research or study like to say these individuals were likely not experiencing vision but were assuming it is vision they were experiencing. But as far as I am concerned, this unproven and controversial claim that it was not vision is just the last defensive set up of a skeptical mind with inertia for a change in worldview because change in worldviews have colossal effects on the life of any individual. [Ring, K., & Cooper, S. (1999). “Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind”.]
A blind from birth individual doesn’t know what color is, he doesn’t know if what he experiences is black or not. I could understand if these individuals can through imagination create shapes like circles and squares. The details in stories blind from birth individuals tell are far too detailed and complex for a brain that has never experienced visual signals before to cook.
The near death experiences of blind from birth individuals suggest that sight is not limited to the eyes on our faces. There is transcendent vision. Transcendent is a synonym of Supernatural. There is an example of a Supernatural vision and the Supernatural.
QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT: Aside “blind from birth” individuals having Near Death Experiences (NDE’s), Quantum Entanglement also buries the ideas of materialism in a mighty way. Materialism is the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
The idea of materialism which most atheists and the mainstream scientific community clings to is the very idea that there is nothing supernatural or immaterial. But all this is ironic when scientifically observed phenomena in the world of quantum mechanics like Quantum Entanglement point at the idea that the universe is more than matter and it’s modifications or movements.
Entangled objects in quantum physics are often two spinning objects that are linked together by “nothing”. When I say “linked together”, I mean they behave perfectly identically. I say they are linked by nothing because if we separate them by the distance of the entire universe they are still linked (behave perfectly identically). Even through black holes and supernovas. How could this be?
If one is spinning you cannot stop and reverse the spin of the other object. That object will stop at the same time and do exactly as its “entangled” twin. The information is transmitted instantly through the entire universe and there is energy that is not accounted for on the opposite side of the transmission. Funny enough, there are no transmission lines either. It is a signal-less transmission because if it was a transmission that deals with signals, the signals would have to move faster than the speed of light at some point if these two entangled objects must spin and stop spinning at exactly the same instant whether separated by millions of light years or not. According to Einstein’s theories of Relativity, it is impossible to move faster than light. Nothing can move faster than light. The information transmitted in quantum entanglement is thus information that is transmitted with no physical means in any way!
If the Theories of Relativity which have been proven as facts and have helped in solving problems associated with Maxwell’s equations and the universe hold true, then the connection between these two entangled objects is actually without a transmission line or signal that can be accounted for physically, thus it is an immaterial connection (note the supernatural is often treated as the “immaterial”).
How then can the mainstream scientific community cling to materialism when the quantum world and phenomena like quantum entanglement point at the fact that immaterial elements in nature have effects on material objects?...............To be continued..........
Comments
Post a Comment
This is a reminder that I am very open to listening to your ideas on how to get this blog better. Constructive criticisms, suggestions, encouragement and the likes are totally welcome.