God and the Laws of Nature
Script error: No such module "AfC submission catcheck". Who created the laws of Physics, the Laws of Science, the Laws of Nature, the Universal Laws, etc.?
By Dr. Ashley Pierre, Ph.D., BCBA 12/15/2022
Open your mind and be ready, but know that what you are about to read is based on the following principle:
Today's understanding and explanation of processes and events are more accurate than at any time before. Certainly, tomorrow's understanding and explanation will be more accurate than today’s. Please, keep that in mind as you go through this reading.
A clear example of the aforementioned principle is seen in the changes of our knowledge regarding our universe. What we knew about our universe just one year ago, before launching the ultimate Jebb Web's telescope in December 2021, is less accurate than what we know today, based on all discoveries brought by that ultimate telescope alone.
Let’s go a little further.
In his last days, Stephen Hawking wrote his final understanding of the universe, and, of course, many of his critics simply didn't allow themselves to reflect on his findings because his findings went against their prior understanding of our universe, and/or against their socio-political and, more importantly, economic interest.
Today, we all know that the laws of physics, quantum physics, science, nature, and the universe are fixed and unbreakable, and they always apply anywhere and anytime. They are the only thing we find at the beginning to be the greatest and eternal.
Now, who created these laws? Two answers are in dispute today:
1) God created them. 2) They created themselves.
In fact, I am going to dig into Stephen Hawking’s final answer and build on what he said.
First, let’s review his final theory: “There is no God. No one created the universe, and no one directs our fate. There is no possibility of God existing because time didn’t exist before the Big Bang.”
For how much longer will we be in this dispute? Hawking disappointedly admitted that it will take humanity a very long time to be on the same page.
Why is that though?
If we apply the principle established earlier, which level of understanding is more accurate, the 1st one or the 2nd one?
To some, it is already clear that the 2nd one is more accurate because, in a way, it is a rebuke to the 1st understanding and explanation that precedes it.
I want to focus on the reason why it is not difficult for anyone like me, who accepted the first one (until I started questioning it), to embrace the 2nd one.
Until 45, I grew up as a Seventh-Day Adventist, not doubting the first understanding. I was convinced that one way or the other, there is a God, and there must be a God, a Supreme Being, an Intelligent Designer who created everything in the beginning and who is still in control.
Yes, I was convinced by all the explanations justifying the God-Creator approach. When I started comparing the two explanations, it became obvious the main reason why believers in a God-Creator are not allowed to doubt. The biblical story about Adam and Eve made it clear that Eve first doubted what she was previously told and became curious. Read the story again; if you never thought about it, Eve’s biggest sin/mistake was not eating the fruit but doubting God and believing Satan when he said she would be a god, knowing good and evil.
If you are taught to believe in a God, the first mechanism instilled is eliminating your ability to doubt whether there is even a God.
The second mechanism is to abolish the possibility of embracing scientific findings that support any opposition to your belief. In essence, when you take any scientific approach, you must doubt everything without exception. Philosophical doubt is one of the many assumptions of science.
Lastly, they go as far as to condition your brain to reject what is obvious or evident--they turn you towards delusions, or they enable you to stay in a cognitive dissonance stage. All this is called “Conditioning” -- you are conditioned to think a certain way, to speak a certain way, and to act a certain way, regardless of the amount of overwhelming counterevidence brought to you.
The moment you start to doubt and become curious, everything changes. It's like your eyes open, and now you’re looking through a microscope or you are seeing from a telescope. The more you look, the greater the difference is between what you know and what you see, and your new perspective naturally becomes more convincing. You can see the difference yourself between looking without a microscope and looking with one.
In order to really understand why this dispute is still ongoing, despite the better perspectives, I am going to provide you with a scenario:
Simply ask your primary physician about human health. Ask him/her if the amount of sugar we are ingesting in our body is healthy. Ask about white food, fast food... Also, ask about air fresheners. Are they not toxic? Yet we use them in our houses, offices, cars, etc.
His/her answer will be no, correct? Then ask why is it "legal” and "normal" to produce and sell these harmful things for people to use.
He/she will tell you that no one really cares about its detrimental effects; it is about money, control, and power... It is not about an accurate understanding of the greater good of the people, instead, it is about domination and control In the US, there is, for example, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). This is a federal agency with the mission to protect human health and the environment. But how efficient have they been? Anyone can go to their website and look up the Air Quality guide list they provide. No real actions are being taken to eliminate some of the air fresheners from the market.
Humans were not born loving fast food, white food, etc. Somehow, we became conditioned to enjoy them. A lot is happening here. In the US, there is also the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) in charge of protecting human health by ensuring the safety of the food supply, biological products, etc. According to an Op-eD in 2020, the FDA ignores the law when approving new chemical additives to food. Many other foods with chemical components are not being approved by FDA at all.
The world order is the way it is. Period. Some with good faith are trying to focus on a more accurate understanding to improve the quality of life of the majority, but they are caught in a jungle, where those in power have established themselves a certain way, making it almost impossible to educate the majority.
Some people with good faith align themselves with the first understanding simply because they have not been able to see anything through a microscope. Others have been prevented from even attempting to have a more accurate perspective of anything they think they are looking at, or they have seen.
So, allow me to build on Hawking’s last findings, which can easily enable these folks to have a more accurate understanding.
As I mentioned earlier, all of us understand that the laws of physics, nature, life, and the universe are fixed and unbreakable.
Knowing everything I know today, I still could remain inclined to believe that A God could have created them, but there is one last attribute that the laws are missing: They would need to be “perfect”.
Now, are they perfect?
This attribute has been used to describe these laws in the Bible. If we go to Psalms 19: 7, it is said: “God's laws are perfect. They protect us, make us wise, and give us joy and light. God's laws are pure, eternal, just.” Certainly, the bible scholars’ response will be: The Psalmist was not referring to these types of laws… Either way, if any God created a law, this law must be perfect, because perfection results from designing…
Looking at what we know today, can we affirm that these laws are perfect?
The answer is No. No law is ever perfect or imperfect. It is just the law, the same law that creates/gives life, destroys it too. Humans are comprised of intelligent life and death and there is no perfect life anywhere in the universe that we know of.
In our universe, we also know that many things do exist but are not alive, much less intelligent life. They exist, and they transform, therefore they do not die, since they were never alive.
Now, the rationale behind the God-Creator approach is that these laws are "exact, fixed, unbreakable" not to be confused with perfect. But, yes, unfortunately, we have interchangeably used the word “perfect” to refer to “exactness”.
The fact of the matter is the words we came up with to express our thoughts have always been proportional to our level of understanding--more accurate understanding equals a more accurate use of words, likewise, a less accurate understanding equals a less accurate use of words. Today, we know the difference between exactness and perfection. Intelligent design not only seeks exactness but perfection as well.
And because no greater explanations have been found to justify the fact that these laws are exact laws, but not perfect laws, it is clear today that they couldn't have been designed by a higher and more intelligent being.
We have evolved and become smart, and we are smarter progressively. Once we understand these laws, we can outsmart them, and when we do, we have full control over them, with nothing altering this relationship. We can tell at times with full certainty this happened, this is happening, and this will happen with no room for error and with no help/authorization/control from anyone else. Therefore, we can easily conclude that the thousands of years old God-Creator approach have been debunked, by using a more accurate understanding of the same universe we humans find ourselves living in.
I say this to contribute to enhancing a collective awareness and awakening so that the majority of us can have a better perspective of what we think we see, and as a result, live a better life for the time given by these natural laws, as far as we are able to understand and outsmart them.
Remember, if have gotten to this part of the reading, you may feel comfortable or uncomfortable about what you have read so far.
But if you want to read more, I do have more to say.
Look, I am using words with clear meanings so that you read and understand exactly what I am conveying to you.
The fact is that many people might not care, so this writing may not achieve all its goals. For example, I just said that the God-Creator approach is debunked. Such statement might seem offensive to a reader like you...But do you know the reason why?
You did not invent or come up with this approach, correct? Why do you need to feel uncomfortable? The issue is that you do not own yourself. Yes, someone else owns you. To prove my point, let's go back to the basis of this content: Today, December 2022, human beings in general, but specifically those of us that can access the latest available evidence-based information, have a more accurate understanding of our universe than any time before us.
But wait, if you are among us, why do you keep your prior understanding as the most accurate one? What is your rationale? I’ve heard some say scientific errors of the past. Some also see this controversy as a choice between God and Science. Science is a tool that human brains have developed to help them understand how the universe works more accurately, whereas God is simply a response human brains have given them to understand how the universe works, thousands of years ago.
Today, we can extract air from the environment. In just a cubic meter, there are about 1025 molecules of air. Scientists are still trying to get closer to nothing. With the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the best vacuum lab on earth, inside the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (CERN), we have not been able to go below 10 billion molecules of air per cubic meter. We still have a long way to go, but we are nowhere close to where we were.
Today, we observe particles as they come and disappear. Because we have come to understand the laws of motion (thanks to Newton), we are able to have airplanes taking off, moving forward, and landing, which is becoming safer and safer every day. Miscalculations, and having to experience some failures have resulted in many deadly crashes, likewise in many other areas.
We are conducting studies of elements from Planet Mars, we have the Solar Probe mission ongoing, and we are receiving and studying images never seen before, thanks to Jebb Web Telescope.
We can use Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to identify and measure a brain tumor. Since 2008, we can apply a personalized colon cancer test...
So many things we couldn’t do before we can do today, so we are talking about today, not yesterday.
Today we know that any intelligent design would have created life differently. Life barely exists. We also know today that any intelligent design would have created a better environment for life to exist, not the one we find ourselves in.
Any intelligent design would have given humans eyes to see the air, to see better than through a microscope, and to see farther than the greatest telescope. Even better, any intelligent design would have allowed humans to see with microwaves.
Any intelligent design would allow humans to hear sound from anywhere in the universe, any intelligent design would allow humans to travel at the speed of light. Any intelligent design would have, for sure, created humans to their image. Any Intelligent design would have made human beings “perfect” and much less would have made them so different. Any Intelligent design would have made all humans smart, no matter where they are born, or their skin color, and not just a few of them. Any intelligent design would have made it easy and spared me this effort of trying to explain what is a more accurate understanding of our universe.
No intelligent design would have humans going through an indefinite quest for knowledge and understanding through so many experiences, disappointments, experiments, repetitions, errors, and sufferings...In any case, all humans should have been given the brain to explore, understand, and use knowledge to solve their problems. No Intelligent design would predetermine these laws of nature and physics, and then create animals that just go extinct a few times after, others to live only surviving. And on top of that to create men to live with their fate...facing perils since birth...with a brain but knowing nothing, using only basic instincts of survival... their instincts enabling them to understand the threats to their survival--earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics; their instincts enable them to create alternative ways to live, all on their own (and only the more advanced ones).
Any man talking about a Supreme Being who created the universe, the laws, and life, and who is in control of everything, is simply not living in the 21st century... This man, with all due respect, is using his limited two eyes to see what he thinks he understands about life, the laws, and the universe.
Look, when men couldn’t understand any of these, they came up with an alternative explanation. They decided that everything was created perfectly, and that man is the only one responsible for things becoming imperfect. Man has committed sin; therefore, he must die. Any Christian, Jew, Muslim, and other believers have bought into this perfect life to come soon, where even death will no longer exist. As a result, will the laws of life, the laws of nature, and the laws of physics change? Or will there be new laws? The other life, is it in a different universe? In 2022, based on all the scientific evidence we have, we are confident, it won’t be in the one we find ourselves living in.
It is time to officially find a way to end this circus. It has already caused too much suffering; this lie needs not to be promoted anymore. Anyone afraid, just know, if there is a God for real, He can show himself to all of us humans. We don’t need to debate among us any more about a supposed God-creator who only uses human beings to convince other human beings that He is for real, making them fight each other, destroying themselves, and becoming enemies.
This way, we will help the majority become more proactive in their way to a better and more enjoyable life.
Dr. Ash
References[edit]
This article "God and the Laws of Nature" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:God and the Laws of Nature. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
