When concepts relative to the DNA molecule are modeled by means of information theory, one aspect of the obtained theoretical conclusions seems to defy human comprehension unless a very special postulate is assumed. As Wilder-Smith (1993) states:

We are forced to come back to basics and assume that there must have been in the beginning — at the act of creation — an organ of the kind that makes the human brain tick (but infinitely more powerful, of course) to generate the concepts of biology on a much larger scale than the human brain can ever develop.

Under the further assumption that all life throughout the universe is associated with DNA type molecules and that such natural processes are amenable to human thought, then such a higher intelligence could not be assigned to biological entities within the universe itself. Using the term natural to refer to entities, processes, and the like that are within our universe, under these assumptions, information theory leads to the conclusion that the acceptance of a supernatural higher intelligence would be needed in order to properly comprehend the model. Unfortunately, the assumption that a supernatural higher intelligence exists has been rejected by secular scientists and atheistic philosophers as not being consistent with scientific logic. Indeed, one of the greatest onslaughts against such an assumption and all of the human (religious) experiences that are modeled by using such an assumption began in earnest with the introduction of the philosophy of “rationalism.” This philosophy claims that explanations for religious experiences or perceived phenomena that include supernatural entities external to the natural world are irrational in character. The concept of irrational refers to what is considered to be contrary to certain established human thought patterns. Rationalism implies that if you cannot rationally justify the existence of such a higher intelligence, especially as such an intelligence relates to experiences within the natural world, then it is necessary to replace hypotheses stated in specified supernatural terms with hypotheses stated in natural terms. Feuerbach (1967, p. 110) stated this claim as follows:

. . . there is no way of explaining the thousands and thousands of contradictions, perplexities, difficulties, and inconsistencies in which religious belief involves us, unless we acknowledge that the original God was a being abstracted from nature . . . .

Feuerbach (1967, p. 248) also states: “Moreover, religious ideals have always involved all manner of irrational and even superstitious conceptions.” He even attacks the rationalists as being incomplete rationalists.

. . . the rationalists take great pains to point out the obvious fallacies of religion; but these are secondary, subordinate fallacies; as for the fundamental fallacies, which have all others as consequences, the same rationalists let them stand, for they are sacred and inviolable. Consequently, when a rationalist asks an atheist what atheism is, the proper answer is: Rationalism is a half-baked, incomplete atheism; atheism is a complete and thoroughgoing rationalism. (Feuerbach, 1967, pp. 259-260)

From Feuerbach’s viewpoint, the hypothesis of the nonexistence of a higher intelligence exterior to the natural world, of God, is the ultimately correct hypothesis from which to begin a complete rationalization for all religious experiences and perceived phenomena. Since Feuerbach’s lectures, these ideas have been championed by numerous influential philosophers, scientists and social reformers. Marx (1960, p. 24), using logical terminology, states it by writing: “Christianity, . . ., cannot agree with reason because `worldly’ and `religious’ reason contradict each other.” Santayana (1905, p. 159), utilizing a destructive term taken from the language of logic, writes:

. . . the grand contradiction is the idea that the same God who is the ideal of human aspiration is also the creator of the universe and the only primary substance.

In this age of scientism, influential humanists, scientists, journalists and the like continue to parrot these claims of Feuerbach with the added proviso that the assumption of the existence of a supernatural higher intelligence will contradict absolutely the logical procedures accepted by the scientific community. One quotation will suffice as an example of this world- view. H. J. Eysenck (1973, pp. 89-90) writes:

Thus the first part of my definition of humanism would involve a stress on the use of reason in dealing with inanimate nature and with other human beings . . . . This inevitably involves the rejection of revealed religion . . . . All humanists are agreed that religion is not based on reason . . . . To me, the word reason in this respect implies science. Science is the embodiment of the rational attempts to solve problems posed by nature or human beings . . . . Reason, to me, marks out the method to be used by all humanists.

Individuals who have either had personal religious experiences or argue for the scientific acceptance of such a higher intelligence certainly do not consider their contributions as irrational. As exemplified by the above quotations, many in the philosophic and scientific world do consider as irrational the assumption that such an higher intelligence needs to be supernatural in character and this has inspired their attempts at rationalizing religious experiences, or ignoring creation-science models and evidence for the acceptance of such models.

If it could be demonstrated scientifically that assuming the existence of a supernatural higher intelligence is rational in character, then this would destroy, utterly and completely, the philosophical foundations for the philosophy of rationalism as it is applied to religious experiences and thought. It would eliminate the basic philosophical argument against the existence of a supernatural deity. Atheism would have lost its most profound intellectual foundation. Further, the necessary conclusions of information theory applied to the DNA molecule would be upheld and, indeed, the basic foundation of creation- science could no longer be rejected on scientific grounds. But what would constitute a scientific demonstration that it is rational to postulate the existence of a supernatural higher intelligence?

Timothy Ferris (1979, p. 157) writes:

Scientific theories must be logical. They must be expressible in terms of mathematics, the most rigorous logical system known.

Ferris overstates his conclusion when he writes that this “must” be the case. Actually, the modern scientific approach to theory is rather more vague on the subject of rationality. What can be said is that if a theory can be closely associated with a mathematical structure, then it would follow the most rigorous logical system known.

Human Intelligence

No attempt will be made in this paper to give a nearly complete definition of human intelligence. But one of the crowning achievements of humanity has been the construction of a symbolic language as a substitute for oral expressions. Modern computer technology also allows for visual or audio impressions that are captured by mechanical devices to be translated into a symbolic language that can later reproduce, with great clarity, the original visual or audio content. Thus, for our purposes, human intelligence will include the ability to express thoughts and perceptions in a symbolic language comprehensible by others and, further, to present written arguments that follow patterns that correspond logically to procedures accepted by the majority of humanity.

Throughout this discussion, it will only be assumed that a symbolic language corresponds to a portion of human oral expression, human perception and mental impression. A symbolic language L is constructed intuitively from two or more symbols by juxtaposition and yields geometric configurations called symbol strings (i.e. strings of symbols). For every natural number n, there theoretically exists more than n distinct symbol strings by this process. Similar symbol strings are recognized by human perception to be equivalent.

In 1930, Tarski characterized and abstracted mathematically those general procedures that correspond to the most significant human mental processes that, for finite collects of such symbol strings, yield deductive conclusions. The mathematical operator so obtained is termed a consequence operator. In modern mathematical logic, there are two types of such logic operators. The most basic is the finitary consequence operator of Tarski (1930). However, there is a similar operator that is more general in character and is often termed simply as a consequence operator.

The small amount of set-theoretic language that is employed in this paper is taken from a standard high-school algebra course and, in some cases, is only considered as an abbreviation. Indeed, each abbreviation is specifically defined. No actual mathematics appears in this paper. The formal mathematics can be found in Herrmann (1987, 1991). The symbol used to represent the finitary consequence operator is the symbol  Cn. The more general consequence operator is often denoted simply by  C. Informally, such operators take any subset  A  of  L  (i.e.  A  subset  L) and yield all those members of  :L  that can be deduced from  A  (i.e. Cn(A)). A basic requirement is that the assumed premises can always be deduced logically (i.e.  A  subset  Cn(A)). Once a human being has deduced all of the consequences, then no more consequences can be deduced from the same set of premises (i.e.  Cn(Cn(A)) =Cn(A)). For  C, if one set of premises  B  is a subset of another such set  A  (i.e  B  subset  A  subset  L), then deductions from  B  form a subset of those deductions from  A (i.e.  C(B)  subset  C(A)). For a finitary consequence operator, the human argument of using only finitely many symbol strings from a set of premises  A  to obtain a deduction is modeled by the additional requirement that if  x  is deduced from  A  (i.e.  x  in Cn(A)  or  x  is a member of  Cn(A)), then there is a finite set of premises  F  subset  A  such that  x  can also be deduced from  F. One can show that this last requirement also implies the last property listed for the general consequence operator  C. Consequence operators that correspond to specific deductive processes such as those defined for propositional, predicate, and higher-order formal languages (i.e. those logical processes used in modern scientific discourse) can be further characterized so that each can be differentiated one from another.

What Tarski did was to take a concrete everyday experience and mathematically abstract its most basic properties. From this abstraction, mathematical arguments establish other properties. These other properties may then be interpreted with respect to the original linguistic terms that generate the Tarski abstraction. Thus new insight is gained into what constitutes human thought patterns. As will be discussed later, the same type of formal abstraction is possible for certain dialectic logics.

In 1978 (Herrmann, 1981), Tarski’s consequence operator theory was investigated through application of the new mathematical discipline called Nonstandard Analysis for the specific purpose of finding a nonnumerical model for the concept of subliminal perception. Nonstandard does not mean that different mathematical procedures are employed. This is a technical term relative to abstract model theory. After many years of refinement, the basic properties of nonstandard consequence operators appeared in mathematical journal form (Herrmann, 1987) and book form (Herrmann, 1991). Cosmological interpretations of these results have been reported upon numerously many times within other scientific and philosophic journals as well. However, also of significance is a linguistic interpretation of these fundamental results. Generating the mathematical structure is not extremely difficult. But interpreting it linguistically has been arduous.

A Special Linguistic Interpretation

In order to interpret a formal mathematical structure relative to different disciplines, a correspondence is created between terms in one discipline and the abstract entities of the structure. This actually yields a many-to-one correspondence since numerous disciplines can be correlated to the same mathematical structure. Each time this is done, a mathematical model is constructed. Our interest in this paper is a specific correspondence between some terms relative to intelligence, linguistic, and similar human activities associated with a physical world and the mathematical structure. With respect to nonstandard structures, however, many new objects emerge that are not present within the standard structure. Although these new objects have all of the properties of the original entities and thus the same properties as the nonabstract objects from which they were originally abstracted, they also have many additional properties not shared by any of the original entities. What one does, in this case, is to created new terms that have a similar linguistic-like character as the original linguistic terms and assign these new terms to appropriate unassigned entities within the nonstandard structure. But can you assign a concrete dictionary meaning to these new terms?

A dictionary meaning to these new terms will not carry the appropriate content. One reasonable method to obtain an in-depth comprehension is to have a strong understanding of the workings of the mathematical structure and to reflect upon the relations between these new linguistic-like terms themselves, as well as between the new terms and the standard linguistic expressions. What this means is that you must study the written statements depicting these relationships. The model that this creates forms a portion of the deductive world model or, simply, the D-world model. There is, however, a new method that has been devised that renders these new concepts comprehensible without the necessity of an in-depth study. The method is termed negative comparison.

Negative comparison is a description as to how these new concepts negatively compare with the original standard concepts. Certain aspects of such linguistic type interpretations have been discussed elsewhere (Herrmann, 1991) but not as it directly relates to the concept of a higher intelligence. Further, this present interpretation uses a few special terms not previously introduced. The linguistic-like terms that correspond to new abstract entities that, at least, have similar properties as the original have the prefix “ultra-” attached. It is always to be understood that prior to each statement one should insert an expression such as “It is rational to assume that . . .” where the term “rational” means the logical processes science uses to develop its most cherished theories. To be as simplistic as possible within this section, only one of many distinct logical processes will be compared. What can be said about this one process will hold for all similar processes that can be characterized by the consequence operator. Note that logical processes are also termed mental processes.

The use of the “ultra-” prefix does not remove the term from being only a defined mathematical abstraction. Within a description, additional phrases that correlate such terms to a specific discipline are either inserted or, at least, understood by the reader. Relative to a supernatural higher intelligence, one basic correlating phrase is “entity within the universe.” This signifies any corporeal entity of which the human mind can conceive and which makes its home within the material universe. The insertion of this phrase is the basic change in the interpretation from those previously used. Other obvious correlating terms will appear when relationships between the ultra-objects and the concrete linguistic entities from which the model was generated are discussed.

There exists an ultra-language, denoted by  *P, that at least has all of the properties of the most simplistic of human languages, the propositional language  P. The language  P  is a subset of  *P. A simple informal propositional language  P  can be constructed from but two primitive words such as “house” and “door” and the usual additional symbol strings such as “or” “and” “not” and “implication.” In this case, all of the expressions in  P   are meaningful in the sense that they impress on the human mind various images. Assume that all of the members of  P  are meaningful in this sense. There are many members of the ultra-language  *P  that cannot be used for any purposes by, and have no specific meaning to, any entity within the universe. However, all members of  *P  are ultra-meaningful. The mathematical model would require “ultra-meaningful” to correspond to a statement such as “they ultra-impress on an ultra-mind various ultra-images.” Remember that deep understanding of what these new terms might signify requires an investigation of the relationships between such terms as expressed by hundreds of such statements. Suppose  S  denotes the consequence operator that characterizes the simple human mental process called propositional (sentential) deduction. Then  S  is a finitary consequence operator and all of the consequences  S(B)  that can be deduced from a set of premises  B  subset  P  are obtained by deduction from the finite subsets of  B. Now there exists an ultra-logical process, denoted by  D, defined on subsets of the ultra-language  *P, where  D  has, at least, the same properties as those of the logical process  S  when  D  operators on finite subsets of the humanly comprehensible language  P  (Note 1). What happens when the ultra-mental process  D  is applied to any finite subset  F  of the humanly comprehensible language  P. The set of consequences  D(F)  contains all of these consequences  S(F)  comprehensible by entities within the universe (i.e.  S(F)  subset  D(F)) and many that are not comprehensible by entities within the universe. Using consequence operator terminology, when this occurs, the ultra-mental process being modeled by the consequence  D  is said to be stronger than the mental process modeled by  S. It is this and other, yet to be described, properties that led to the selection of the term “ultra” as a prefix. Further, no entity within the universe can duplicate the ultra-mental process  D, and this process also has numerous properties that are not comprehensible by any entity within the universe (Note 2).

There is a delicate analysis that can reveal the composition for some of the ultra-words in  *P, where w in the ultra-language  *P  is an ultra-world if it is not a member of  P. What this analysis details is often quite startling. For example, there are ultra-hypotheses, a single one of which is denoted by  w, that cannot be comprehended by entities within the universe and that, when the ultra-mental process  D  is applied to  w, yields a consequence that can be comprehended by entities within the universe. These ultra-hypotheses exist in subsets of  *P  that, at least, have the same characterizing properties as sets that describe human behavior, natural laws and the like. For example, if a sentence  x  in  P  describes a certain human behavior trait, then, although there may not appear to be a hypothesis  h  in  P  from which  x  can be deduced by the human mind, there does exist in  *P an ultra-hypothesis  w  such that the ultra-mind process  D  when applied to  w  yields the conclusion  x.

There are other mental processes that seem to correspond to intelligence. One of these is choosing from a list of statements, that is potentially infinite, a specific finite set that is meaningful for a particular application. Embedding this finite choice process into the deductive-world model yields the same type of conclusions as those for the ultra-logic  D. This ultra-mind process cannot be duplicated by any entity within the universe, it is stronger than all such mental processes and has properties that in all cases improve upon the mental process of finite choice (Herrmann, 1991).

Another human reasoning process is the dialectic. Basic characterizing expressions can be listed for many such dialectics (Gagnon, 1980). Such dialectics can be applied to any language  E  constructed from two or more symbols. The basic ingredients are a set of theses  T, a set of antitheses  A, and an operator  Sy, among others, which yields a synthesis  z  for any  t  in  T  and some a in  A. For all the dialectics listed by Gagnon (1980), it is not difficult to show that there exist sets of symbol strings  T  and  A  and operators such as  Sy  that when embedded into the deductive- world model become sets of ultra-theses, ultra-antitheses and, an ultra-mental process, the ultra-synthesis operator  *Sy (Herrmann, 1992). Once again, the same type of conclusions hold for these ultra-dialectics as holds for the ultra-logic  D.

It appears that all forms of such mental-like processes are improved upon, to an extreme degree, by their corresponding ultra-mental processes. When the collection  UM  of ultra-mental processes is compared, as a whole, with the corresponding set  M  of mental processes that are displayed by humanity, then it appears reasonable to characterize the collection  UM  as representing a higher intelligence. The logical existence of  UM  is obtained by use of the most fundamental tool of modern science and establishes that the acceptance of the existence of a supernatural higher intelligence is scientifically rational and verifies the conclusions discussed in the introduction to this paper. Moreover, any properly stated model  MH  that either specifically utilizes such a postulate or logically implies the existence of a supernatural higher intelligence cannot be rejected as somehow or other not being scientific in character. Indeed, if such a model  MH  explains past natural events or human experiences, and predicts other events as they are observed today, then the scientific method explicitly states that such models are to be considered as good as or even better than other models.

Although this discussion could be concluded at this point, one interesting question is suggested. Has such a higher intelligence been previously described using terms and concepts that parallel those for the above ultra-mental processes?

Significance of Results

Although a comparison with the doctrine of all of the major religious belief-systems has not been made, there does exist a strong correlation between these results and statements that appear in the Jewish and Christian Bibles. The Bible, when literally interpreted, often describes God’s attributes in terms of a linguistic or a mental model. This is especially the case when the mind of God is compared to the mind of man. In every single case, the “mind of God” Scriptural statements are modeled by the above special deductive-world interpretations. This is a startling fact since the deductive-world model was not created originally for application to theological concepts.

As examples, every time the Scriptures state that God “speaks” to a prophet, or a Jew or Christian then the above special interpretation is verified. Indeed, all statements that compare God’s wisdom, intelligence and the like with that of humanity are satisfied by this special interpretation as are numerous statements relative to the supernatural means that God employs to communicate with an individual.

Here is a partial list of such statements. Genesis 1:26; Numbers 23:19; Deuteronomy 33:26; 1 Kings 8:23, 27; 2 Chronicles 2:5; Job 9:4, 10, 11:7, 8, 12:13, 15:8, 28:12–13, 20–24, 32:8, 33:12, 14, 37:23, 38:33, 36; Psalm 35:10, 53:2, 77:13, 86:5, 93:5, 94:11, 119:27, 99, 100, 139:2, 6, 17–18, 147:5; Proverbs 2:6: Ecclesiastes 2:26, 3:11, 8:17; Isaiah 55:8–9; Jeremiah 10:10– 13, 17:10, 31:10; Daniel 2:21–22, 46; Matthew 10:20; Mark 13:12, 13; Luke 6:8, 10:21, 22, 21:15, 24:45: John 8:47, 10:16, 27, 12:40, 14:26; Romans 11:33–34; 1 Corinthians 1:10, 19–20; 2:10, 13, 16; 2 Corinthians 10:4; Ephesians 1:17; Colossians 2:3, 4; 2 Timothy 2:7; James 1:5.

Even if not specifically related to doctrinal statements, the logical existence of a supernatural higher intelligence is obviously significant for any supernaturally related belief- system and modern creation-science. It is no long advisable to categorize human religious experiences and scientific models that are associated with a supernatural higher intelligence as being somehow or other irrational in character. Indeed, if such experiences or creation-science models directly correlate to a literal Bible interpretation, then the assumption of irrationality can be scientifically proved to be false. Finally, since application of the basic tool used for modern scientific research has established that it is scientific to assume the existence of a supernatural higher intelligence, a properly constituted creation-science model that relies upon this assumption is not “pseudoscience” as has been claimed. Note once again that if such a model increases our capacity to understand the workings of the natural realm, then the scientific method specifically states that such a model is the preferred model. (RH,CRS)

*** Will Myers

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DKCQUR7YG7W5U

(Abstract) “All humanists agree that religion is not based on reason [1].” This statement, in many different forms, has been popularized for hundreds of years. A major purpose for the modeling procedures I introduced into theology is to establish that all such statements are false. In this article, Jesus is related rationally to the Biblical God via an interpreted mathematical model. (No actual mathematics appears in this article.)
The intuitive notion of “God or Godhead” is not totally describable in any language. This observation is based upon the fact that such an assumption leads to “logical” problems that imply that our languages are inadequate to express completely this concept. Moreover, the mathematical model I use implies this as well. However, God displays His attributes in many different and partially describable ways. These attributes include His intelligence, knowledge, ability-to-act, patients, kindness, trustworthiness, . . .

In 1978, the attributes of God that are comparable with those of His created were mathematically modeled and it is shown that His attributes can be but partially described via any humanly comprehensible language. Many of His attributes are manifested (i.e. displayed) in various ways. He displays His attributes by restricting them to various realities, various environments.

In 1983, I found the following facts about how God is described within the Old Testament.

In order to express the transcendent truth that the one Spirit of God (Al) [Subjector] acts through several channels, yet is the same Spirit of subjection, the plural form, Alueim or Alueim (without the m in Hebrew), takes a singular verb. It may be incorrect grammar, but it is truth that transcends the rules of grammar. [9, p. 15] The Hebrew’s concept denoted here by the term “subject” means “one who is under the authority of an entity, the subjector, and to submit to its control.” “Subjection” means being subjected or the process of subjecting.

Biblically stated and implied attributes can be grouped into two or more categories. Relative to three well known categories, what does it mean to state that Jesus is the Son of God (The Son)? This statement occurs over forty times in the New Testament. The term “son” need neither correspond to a biological son nor an adopted son. If an individual A essentially has the same characteristics as an individual B, then B can refer to A as his “son” and A can refer to B as his “father.” Such a son is entitled to the same trust and respect accorded B. This is how “Son” should be interpreted in these many cases, but in the strongest possible sense.

For thousands of years and relative to a particular environment, objects have been linguistically defined by listing their characteristics, their attributes. Moreover, spatially separated objects are classified as indistinguishable at the same moment in time if each has the same space independent attributes.

The New Testament is written in the common Greek of the times. No alterations in the meanings of any of the Scriptural statements should be allowed nor should there be some sort of hidden meanings that can be known, at a much later date, by a chosen few. Would the Apostles be saved if hidden meanings or future revelations are required? Is Rev. 21:14 incorrect? The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (NIV) Further, Paul implies, in 1 Cor. 15:1-2, that no such information is required. Salvation comes from following the doctrine of the Apostles. Any other doctrine is of no significance if it does not contradict the specific Biblical requirements for salvation. Hence, neither additions to nor deletions from the Bible should be allowed. If one is allowed to make any Scriptural alterations, then the Bible is a worthless document.

Modern translations have altered the meanings or even added words to the oldest extant manuscripts in order to insert into Christian doctrine concepts that God specifically forbids. For those seeking more details as to the findings briefly mentioned here, they are presented in my important web-article reference [****].

A church’s doctrine should have no adverse affect upon salvation if an individual follows the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles as originally presented and church doctrine does not contradict these teachings. In the original manuscripts, the meanings of the terms are as understood during the first-century A.D. These meanings need to be maintained and should not be altered.

The Scriptures state that “Christ is the image of (‘the invisible’ in the Sinaitcus Codex) God,” 1 Cor. 4:4, and He is the image of the invisible God, Col. 3:10. Relative to these two Biblical statements, Vine [3] states, that this image is essentially and absolutely the perfect expression and representation of the Archetype, God the Father, and that Christ is the visible representation and manifestation of God to created beings. Vine has restricted this to “God the Father” attributes.

Let L be the original languages in which the Bible is written. The “Father” is a set of all describable and, hence, “knowable” aspects of God (1 Cor. 8:6) (NIV) as Biblically described by members of L. Classical implications based upon these meanings are also included as members of this set of knowable Father characteristics. Further, without altering the basic meanings of the words or adding to or removing words, John 14:9-10 and 16-18 state that the Father characteristics that God displays within the created universe are attributes of Jesus. Due to the use of the Greek “allos” (another) even John 14:16 implies this relative to the Holy Ghost attributes. [****] When the attributes of God are being considered in what follows, these, obviously, refer to knowable attributes as described via the language L. Certain well defined terms implied by the mathematical model are added to L.

Jesus has two collections of physical attributes. The first collection characterizes the man Jesus. He displays all of the characteristics of a human being and never relinquished these attributes during His physical existence. A second collection of physical attributes are those physically displayed by the glorified Jesus.

It has been establish that we have partial knowledge about God’s attributes. This is often emphasized by Paul.

“. . . not with the words of human wisdom – least the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1 Cor. 1:17. NIV.)

“For now, we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as I am known.” (1 Cor. 13:12. KJV.)

How many individuals actually take Paul’s obvious advise? How many individuals accept Biblical statements without attempting to add to them human wisdom that changes the basic meanings of the terms used? Indeed, various attributes are infinitely greater than comparable human attributes and the strength of these attributes can be partially measured. It in shown in [6a] how this is done. But, recently it has also been shown that we cannot give an ultimate mathematical measure for the strength of God’s attributes [6b]. An ultimate strength for His attributes is mathematically immeasurable. But, via scientific generalization, it is rational to assume that such an ultimate measure exists. Theologically, this is the “faith” step.

These results signify that the notion of “attribute-displays” can only be generally described. What can be known is that God acts through an immaterial medium. Is this medium His Spirit? Is it a part of His Spirit? Is His Spirit part of this medium? It appears that we cannot know the complete answers to these questions using only human intelligence and human languages. Part of the mathematically established result symbolized below by an equation shows that from the viewpoint of God’s higher-intelligence none of His attributes can be separated one from the other.

Prior to ascension, Jesus presents to the physical world a set of God’s attributes and His ability-to-act that can be displayed, manifested, within a physical universe. These manifestations vary with the circumstances. These manifestations yield a complete set of the Father’s restricted and knowable attributes. God does this in such a manner that Jesus displays various Father-attributes to any desired degree or various ones are totally suppressed and not displayed. None of God’s attributes is created and each differs in strength from any others that can exist. One simply states that these attributes exist and they rationally characterize an entity that exists. The Bible specifically details how these manifestations are to be viewed, that is the forms that they take.In Phil 2:7, Paul uses a term that signifies various notions associated with the concept of “to empty.” There have been many variations in the interpretation of this term. Paul’s use of the term often translated as “emptied” has yielded literally libraries of discussion from theologian who seem to believe they are as intelligent as God and can explain its use fully. However, it is the same term used in the above 1 Cor. 1:17 verse.

Consider these interpretations made Himself ‘nothing’ (NIV), of no reputation (KJV); emptied Himself (RSV), stripped Himself (Phillips Modern English), laid aside (Living Bible), gave it all up (Todays English Version). Why these variations? Paul tells us in the every next sentence what he means by this term. From the most ancient Greek manuscripts Taking the form (morphê’) of a slave (servant). The form morphê’ means “characteristics.” It does not indicate any alterations in His non-human characteristics.

It has been rationally argued, via mathematical means that model specific Biblical statements and employing the Biblical notation of a “complete” (perfect) set of attributes, that God’s attributes cannot be separated one from another from God’s rational viewpoint. The mathematics also states that we, in our present form, cannot perform the logical steps that lead to this conclusion. Significantly, this means that if, not from the viewpoint of very partial human comprehension, a single attribute of God is manifested either directly or indirectly within the physical world, then it represents all of God’s attributes. When one considers Jesus’s statements made in Matthew 5:1 – 7:27 and the various miracles He performs there can be no doubt that He displays attributes of the Father under various circumstances as well as those only of a human being. Although these facts may be but slightly comprehended, they definitely need to be accepted.

The Father’s knowable manifestations include His comparable attributes. These are attributes that He shares with humankind such as wisdom, intelligence, just, etc. as mentioned above. Humankind has other attributes that are not shared such as death, our physical construction, being created, etc. At present, all that we can state about God are His attributes and actions. Let a set of describable and pre-ascension physical-universe-restricted Father attributes and ability-to-act (i.e. the ability to perform necessary actions) be denoted by FA. This set contains all of knowable attributes comparable to human beings. Let the collection of Jesus’ describable and restricted attributes and ability-to-act be denoted by RS.

For us, the major attribute is “Saviour.” The Old Testament identifies God as the Saviour in Ps 106:21; Isa 43:11, 45:15, 49:26. The Saviour attribute is displayed, in restricted form, by Jesus via His teachings and His suffering and death on the cross. This attribute is qualified by using the term “great” since the term “savior” need not mean an “ultimate Saviour.” Mathematically, the modeled strengths of the salvation notion leads directly to the ultimate Saviour – Jesus. The word Father is used for God 265 times in the KJV of the New Testament. I think this is vast evidence that viewing God in His personal mode as Father is the correct view for a Christian.

God’s Spirit needs to be differentiated from others. This is done via the “omni” statements. For “omnipotent,” the phrase “all powerful” is used and, for “omniscient,” the word “all knowledgeable” is used. Unfortunately, these terms have no rational meaning unless one comprehends the “logic” required for the word “all” to yield “truth.” (See [6c].)

Properties of the General Grand Unification model (GGU-model) are used with a special term that is qualified by the word “larger (and)” in order to model omnipresent. The method employed mathematically models omnipresent for any physical universe. It follows rationally from the construction of the GGU-model and how the results are discussed from the “meta-world” viewpoint, as Biblically interpreted, that it is a trivial fact the God is not constrained in any manner by physical space and time.

The Scriptures state that there is an important attribute that is not activated prior to Jesus’ ascension. It has been shown that once Jesus is “perfected,” (i.e. completed) then, from the viewpoint of the Third-Heaven, there is no difference between all of Jesus’ comprehensible Third Heaven attributes and a set of comprehensible Third Heaven attributes for the Father, whether displayable or not. (More details can be found in reference [5].)

The man Jesus has human characteristics that are not Father attributes. Jesus always displays human attributes as well as Divine actions. This is not a contradiction since Divine actions employ a non-physical immaterial medium. When Jesus “speaks” or behaves in various ways, one needs to determine whether He is displaying His physical and non-Father human characteristics or actions, or His Father characteristics or actions or, indeed, under certain circumstances, both simultaneously. In all cases, the action of “speaking” is a human action.

I repeat some of the above discussion. When Jesus speaks or acts as a man, various Divine attributes are not displayed. At other times Jesus speaks as God would speak or performs actions that display Divine attributes. As mentioned, this is all relative to the circumstances under which His attributes are displayed. His human attributes are displayed most often during His earthly existence. But, His Deity defining attributes are not altered simply because He displays other attributes. As pointed out by Colin Brown [4], this is consistent with both Phil 2.7 and Isa 53, which, relative to speaking, state only that Jesus does not deceive and, under certain circumstances, He remains silent. Neither the gospels nor Phil 2 present the picture of the abandonment of any divine attributes. However, as shown by the lack of knowledge portion of the mathematical model, complete human comprehension of the exact relation between the human and the divine attributes of Jesus may not be possible while we are in are present fallen state. In certain respects, this counters those individuals who seem to believe they are as intelligent as God.

The most important step is to realize that RS and FA are the same set of attributes and ability-to-act. Or in symbolic form (equation (1) in [5])

RS = FA.

This is how, at this stage, God and Jesus are united. If you do not agree with Vine’s definition, then this does not change the major results obtained since one only needs that members of RS be members of FA. That is, RS is a subset of FA.

Under certain mathematics principles, Jesus’ restricted and displayable Father attributes can be described as potentially infinite in strength. There is a great difference between having been accorded certain attributes and actually displaying them. Various FA attributes are displayed during His physical life-time. Jesus shows that, for an FA attribute or His ability-to-act, He has control over the degree to which the attribute or action is displayed.

As examples, He directly commands and controls physical laws. In Matt. 8:3, He did not state I’ll pray to the Father to heal you. But rather He said, Be clean! and it was so. In John11:41-43 (LB), Jesus displays combined attributes in such a manner that the observers could better understand who He is. The method He chooses is for the benefit of the observers. Notice He then commands and it is done. He displays a different method in Matt. 14:25-29. He does not need to actually “speak” in order to alter physical laws. In Luke 24:31, 36-37, and Acts 1:9, He displays attributes while in His glorified form that He did not display previously. In His glorified form, visible attribute restrictions are removed and He displays physical-like attributes that can not be displayed by any other physical entity.

Throughout the Bible, Jesus’ human attributes are displayed under numerously many circumstances. It is Jesus’ human characteristics that are allowed to suffer physically and die on the cross. This allows His suffering and death to be substitutional in character.

When the RS and FA are coded and embedded into the mathematical structure one obtains *RS = *FA and each of these sets now contains attributes that are infinitely greater in strength than those described by members of RS = FA.

A slightly more complex addition is made to the above description. Through mathematical (i.e. classical) reasoning, a significant property is adjoined to the above attribute collections. In John 14: 15-20, Jesus states explicitly that the indwelled Holy Ghost will display His attributes. . . . he shall give you another Comforter, [Holy Ghost] that he may abide with you for ever; (14:16) I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. (14:18) (KJV) Holy Ghost indwelled individuals interact in special ways with the Father (Acts 2:4). This interaction displays “Spirit” aspects of the Father. These Holy Ghost attributes are clearly attributes of the Father.

As to the concept of “perfection,” in Matt. 5:48, Jesus states that God is perfect (teleios; finished, complete). Heb. 2:10 states that Jesus was made perfect through suffering (NIV) and such a “completion” is restated in Heb. 5:9 once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation (NIV).

In more detail, using mathematical analysis, it is shown using this notion of “perfect” and a basic modeling technique that, from the pure Third Heaven viewpoint, there is no “comprehensible” difference between the risen and transformed (glorified) Jesus attributes and ability-to-act, attributes of the Father and His ability-to-act, and the Holy Ghost’s attributes and ability-to-act (equation (2) in [5]). The mathematics allows us to make this general statement even though we cannot actually perform the step-by-step mode of thought that yields this list of attributes that includes the higher-attributes. This is one of God’s modes of thought that differs in strength from what we can preform.

From the viewpoint of those created beings that have been transformed (glorified), this mode of higher-thought will be fully understood. Indeed, using this same approach and from this supernatural viewpoint when “being perfect ” is included, then the mathematics can be interpreted as stating that no Divine attribute or ability-to-act can be separated from the collection of such attributes and the ability-to-act (equation (3) in [5]). Moreover, the equality of the Saviour attribute holds.

These facts on “comprehension” are significance. Individuals reject God if questions they ask don’t seem reasonably answered. It is also assumed that they should be able to comprehend all aspects of God’s behavior. They continue to place themselves on the same intellectual level as God and try to describe all facets of God’s Biblically described behavior in more detail. They try to explain in more depth in order to justify non-biblical claims. The facts are that we must accept certain statements and behavior for now we only know in part as Paul states in 1 Cor 13:12.

The mathematics employs a consistent interpretation. The interpretation, as is the usual case, uses terms that are “outside” of the formal mathematics itself. In general, individuals do not know the difference between abstract mathematics, with its rules for symbol manipulation, and applied mathematics, where the symbols take on meaningful interpretations. The mathematics I use employs certain specific methods from abstract mathematics and these are applied to languages and rational thought. This applied area is termed “Mathematical Logic.” Such applied mathematics is capable of investigating entities that when interpreted show unusual behavior. This includes the behavior of a higher-intelligence. The reason for employing such mathematics is to insure the rationality of the predictions and to maintain the same logical structure as exhibited through the Scriptures. No higher-intelligence or any aspect of the “supernatural” are used as hypotheses. All of the stated implications are predictions.

I again repeat that Paul notes that we actually do not know very much, but will know more fully when we are glorified and in His presence. We are told to be baptized “in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” One need not ask why. One should simply obey. For the Son, His restricted attributes that led to His sacrifice on the cross, should be emphasized when individuals accept Him as their Saviour. For humankind, nothing could be more significant. But, an in-depth rather than a general understanding as to the logical process that leads to the equivalence of these attributes must wait.

The notion of “pre” “before” and other such ordering notions should mainly be restricted to “physical” creation. Past or future notions only apply to some events. It has been shown that, even for our physical universe, we cannot comprehend certain aspects of the necessary non-physical events due to an “ordering” that is not displayable within the physical world. In general, within the Second and Third Heaven environments some events may be classified via the past or future notion as we comprehended it, while other events are not so related.

As far as the Jesus manifestations of Godhead attributes are concerned and in order to have comprehension, the production of such manifestations is modeled via mental processes. It is Biblically implied that comprehension is aided by assuming that God creates by transforming thoughts into physical and other realities while retaining the original thoughts. The oldest and best Greek manuscripts are the ones I use. The best manuscripts do not have spaces between words or sentences. [7, p. 9] Thus the oldest Greek manuscripts for the Bible can be considered as one extremely long string of symbols. It is significant that sacred Greek has no such term as ‘word.’ The meaning of (λογοσ) logos [unfortunately translated as “word” in most Bibles] is expression, often considered as many ‘words’ [7, p. 9]. LOG’OS; the expression of a thought, not a grammatical but a logical word, referring to a whole account. [8], p. 331].

Thus, for God, the Greek “logos” means a complete logical expression of His thoughts. In this case, the “complete logical Jesus account.” This is the basic expansion of its Greek meaning during the first-century A.D. However, I have recently discovered (Feb. 2013) that the term was first employed to signify “thoughts,” where the consequences of these thoughts yield material entities. This underlying meaning was expressed by Heraclitus at about 500 B. C. The underlying meaning can be directly applied to this expansion. This is a direct Biblical verification for the basic GGU-model methodology and interpretation.

In this special case, the complete logical and personal expression of Himself the complete Jesus mental-like concept – the logos – exists. The Greek should neither be translated by the symbol string “word” nor the Latin “verbun,” that is unless one wishes to hide its original meaning and claim it is a code term. It should be transliterated or a term used that is closer to the actual meaning. Terms such as “expressed plan,” “the expression,” or “account” are more consistent and appropriate.

The logos does not cease to exist, from our comprehension, before, during and after the thoughts are manifested. The account includes the logically expressed entire list of all the attributes both physical and non-physical God intends to display to His created. As was common in John’s time, this full account can take on the name of its main character. For a more in-depth discussion of the logos concept and illustrated Biblical alterations, see reference [****].

The Bible identifies circumstances under which the use of the name “Jesus” is justified.

Jesus is the personal name of the Father when His behavior relates to humanity. The Father exhibits this behavior when His attributes are restricted to circumstances, whether physical or otherwise, that can or do influence human beings in any of their physical or non-physical forms. When any such behavior is perceived by any of His created, then such behavior carries this additional identification. The first Biblical instance of this behavior is His creationary activities in Genesis 1. The last Biblical occurrence of such activity is stated in Revelations 22.

For a further and more in-depth discussion of the relation between the three attributive categories and how these categories are scientifically modeled, see article [5]. How significant is extra-biblical doctrine? If church doctrine neither adversely affects nor contradicts the actual Biblical methods the Apostles teach that lead an individual to salvation, then as Paul states in 1 Cor 15:2, believing anything else (the additional church doctrine) will not lead to anything. (Jerusalem Bible). That is, such church doctrine is not significant, unless, of course, individuals spend their major efforts in attempting to justify the insignificant. It has been said,”It’s not putting forth effort and failing to achieve a significant result, it’s putting forth great effort and achieving an insignificant result that is tragic.”

(*The Grundlegend-Deductive (GD)-world model establishes the results in this article. These results can be related to the mental notion termed as higher-intelligence “adjective reasoning.”)

*** Will Myers

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DKCQUR7YG7W5U

A core goal in climate research today is the determination of climate sensitivity. That is, how sensitive is Earth’s climate to changes in energy inputs and outputs? Is the planet’s equilibrium temperature alarmingly sensitive or relatively insensitive to the additions of greenhouse gases in particular and other warming factors in general? What controls Earth’s climate sensitivity? Might these factors suggest something about the design of the Earth?

****

Several articles in the popular news hit last week in anticipation of the September 27 release of the Fifth Assessment Report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). There’s little doubt that these reports will continue to reinvigorate the discussion about climate change. In that light, this article will discuss scientists’ efforts to determine the global climate’s sensitivity to changes in energy inputs and outputs.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is here defined as the response in global-mean (average) near-surface temperature to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) from preindustrial levels (280 parts per million [ppm] to 560 ppm).¹ Although the average CO₂ level has not yet doubled from preindustrial values, ECS helps scientists estimate expected warming into the future. Some researchers use a similar measure known as transient climate response (TSR) to measure global sensitivity with respect to changes in radiative forcing (in this case, defined as the excess energy received by the Earth’s climate system) caused by greenhouse gases and other factors. TSR may be defined as the climate response after 70 years of 1 percent annual rises in CO₂ concentration.²

Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty

Many factors, both manmade and natural, complicate the measurement of climate sensitivity. An accurate value involves many climate feedbacks, both positive (warming) and negative (cooling). In addition, variations in these factors imply that climate sensitivity itself may not be constant over time.

Global temperature depends on differences between the incoming and outgoing energy balance (known as radiative forcing). Climate sensitivity is a measure of the strength of this dependency.³ However, this relationship is highly complex and not entirely understood. In particular, changes in ocean circulation and accompanying modifications to regional atmospheric circulations complicate climate sensitivity analyses. The uncertainty of various feedback factors—such as regional atmospheric circulation, clouds, water vapor, land cover, and others—probably explains why little change in the range of climate sensitivity with respect to global climate models (GCMs) has occurred since the 1979 Charney Report.⁴ That research established an average of 3°C for the value of climate sensitivity. Scientists who monitor such factors as (1) the climate of the past 1,000 years, (2) climatic response to volcanic eruptions, (3) global temperature change since the ice age, and (4) geological relationships between CO₂ and climate, have attempted to constrain the value of climate sensitivity. Such unresolved internally variable climate feedbacks appear to play a key role in climate sensitivity uncertainty.⁵

The Range of Earth’s Climate Sensitivity

Scientists have estimated that actual global average surface temperatures have risen by 0.8°C during the last 125 years.⁶ Climatologist Michael J. Ring and his research team⁷ attribute most early twentieth century warming and mid-twentieth century cooling to natural variability; but they assign most late twentieth century warming to anthropogenic (manmade) causes. Regardless of the causes of such changes, controversy over the value of climate sensitivity continues to create problems for public planners and policy makers. Natural climate change has significantly affected human civilization throughout recorded history, but the perceived degree of future climate change—whether natural, anthropogenic, or both—greatly impacts the implementation of mitigation and/or adaptation policies.

A number of recent studies have attempted to address the range of Earth’s climate sensitivity. The Fifth IPCC Assessment Report (2013) puts climate sensitivity in the wide range of 1.5C to 4.5°C (in the Fourth Assessment of 2007, the lower bound was 2°C). More recent estimates of climate sensitivity cluster both within the high end and low end of the given IPCC ranges.

• John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth⁸ of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, predict an ECS value near the high end of the IPCC estimate of about 4°C––meaning they believe the globe will warm by four degrees after a doubling of CO₂ starting from the industrial revolution. They based their estimate on computer models with good track records in simulating humidity in the subtropics over a recent 10-year period.
• Climate researcher James Hansen and his colleagues⁹ provided another relatively high estimate suggesting 3°C+/-1°C based on 4 W/m² (four watts per square meter) of CO₂-related radiative forcing (energy imbalance) since the last glacial maximum (compared to the present warm interglacial climate).

However, uncertainties about feedbacks during the last glacial maximum (dust, clouds, etc.) create potentially significant errors for this approach. Hansen has also suggested a 3 to 4°C climate sensitivity based on the Eemian, the last interglacial warm period (which began 130,000 years ago and ended about 115,000 years ago). Another study, based on radiation patterns in climate models, agreed closely with Hansen’s estimates (3.3°C).¹⁰

A Weaker Climate Response?

However, other researchers, such as Michael Schlesinger of the Climate Research Group (University of Illinois), predict a weaker climate response.¹¹ The Schlesinger study (which formed a part of Ring’s report¹²) applied an in-house computer model to analyze historic temperatures changes as a means of narrowing future predictions. This method yielded a 1.5 to 2°C ECS, based on a doubling of CO₂ since preindustrial times. Schlesinger’s conclusions are particularly interesting because only a decade ago he concluded that there was a 70 percent chance that climate sensitivity would exceed the high range of the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report value of 4.5°C.

Several additional researchers have recently concluded that ECS may be less than the Fourth IPCC Assessment’s mean value (3°C):

• Researchers led by Sydney Levitus¹³ suggest an ECS value of 1.5°C for a doubling of CO₂ based on increases in ocean heat content.
• Climatologist Nicholas Lewis’ work¹⁴ produced a value of 1.6°C within a 90 percent confidence interval of 1.2 to 2.2°C.
• Additionally, another study, published in the journal Climate Dynamics,¹⁵ revealed a climate sensitivity of 1.9°C (1.5 to 2.9°C range) based on ocean heat content estimates (using temperatures at depths of 0 to 2,000 meters) and surface temperature observations from 1951–2010.

This last study considered the relationship between ocean heat uptake and long-term climate sensitivity using 32 CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) climate model configurations.

Possible Reduced Sensitivity

Other earlier studies have suggested a reduced climate sensitivity compared to estimates provided by the IPCC. In a 2010 Journal of Climate paper, entitled “Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?,” researchers led by Stephen Schwartz noted that the 0.8°C increase that has been observed since the late nineteenth century is much less than the 2.1 to 2.4°C increase that might have been expected given previously assumed values of climate sensitivity.¹⁶ They concluded that, over the industrial era, the climate has warmed by about 40 percent of the value expected based on estimates from the 2007 IPCC climate assessment.

Schwartz’s group calculated that natural factors explained only 15 percent of this discrepancy and that thermal imbalances in the Earth’s climate system might account for an additional 25 percent of the difference. Inaccurate estimates of climate sensitivity and uncertainties related to aerosols were identified as possible sources of error. As a result of these findings, Schwartz’s team suggested a possible planetary heating imbalance of 0.37 W/m² or about 2°C of warming by the end of twenty-first century (about half of what has been assumed by high-end ESC estimates).¹⁷ Petr Chylek and his associates (2007) seem to broadly agree with these conclusions, saying that the Earth’s climate sensitivity produces a 0.2 to 0.48 W/m² (watts per square meter) heating rate.

What does this mean? Scientists are not yet able to determine with any unanimity how Earth will respond to an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that began with the industrial revolution and may double by the end of the twenty-first century. Research continues, but prudence would dictate neither an overreaction to nor a dismissal of the data surrounding Earth’s climate sensitivity. (RTB)

*** Will Myers

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DKCQUR7YG7W5U

The discovery of numerous exoplanets (planets outside of our solar system) has narrowed the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) to those exoplanets thought likely to support life. Part 1 of this series laid out the parameters and methodology of a recent search for ETI by members of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute, SETI at Berkeley, and several radio astronomers.¹ The team attempted to detect narrow band radio signals from a technological civilization. The search returned a null result—which should not be surprising for two reasons.

First, even if radio-transmitting civilizations inhabited one or more of the target planetary systems, the methods of detection used in the study would encounter severe technological challenges. For example, the orbital and rotational motions of an ETI transmitter would be unknown, thereby severely complicating corrections for Doppler frequency shifts. In addition, solar wind and the interstellar medium² can cause significant spectral broadening on transiting narrow band signals. And, of course, the data analysis must discriminate against copious narrow band signals of terrestrial origins.

Then there is the power required for ETI to transmit a signal detectable by the equipment used in the study. The researchers generally assumed a transmitting power about eight times (or more) than that of the Arecibo Planetary Radar, the most powerful radio transmitter on Earth—but there’s no guarantee that would be the case. Finally, if the transmitter has a typical Earth-like duty cycle (on/off times), the overall probability of being in the radar beam during an observation is approximately 2 x 10^-8. From these considerations, we can appreciate the enormous technological challenges that confronted these SETI investigations.

Second, it is now known that for a planet to host a technological civilization, it along with its moon, star, and planetary system, must meet a long list of prerequisites. This list goes far beyond the simple criteria used in the SETI study. For example, the planet must have finely tuned plate tectonics, the just-right amount of surface water, a unique moon that stabilizes the planet’s rotation, a magnetic field that protects the planet’s atmosphere, a star with the just-right metallicity,³ a planetary system that is stable over billions of years and a history of microbial activity that also spans billions of years. Even then, there is a high likelihood that astronomical or terrestrial catastrophes will wipe out any advanced life on the planet.

In his book Alone in the Universe, physicist John Gribbin spells out the details of why it is extremely unlikely that another technological civilization exists in the Milky Way Galaxy. He concludes:

The reasons why we are here form a chain so improbable that the chance of any other technological civilization existing in the Milky Galaxy at the present time is vanishingly small. We are alone, and we had better get used to the idea.⁴

If we are looking for galactic neighbors, as the SETI researchers are doing, we will increasingly feel alone in the cosmos. In his book Why the Universe is the Way It Is, Hugh Ross writes, “it seems doubly certain that the humanity of Earth is the only intelligent physical species in the observable universe.”⁵ At some point the advocates of SETI will have to acknowledge the realities of the universe that we live in. They are searching for something that recent scientific discoveries give us little reason to believe exists—unless there has been divine intervention.

Conclusions

The search for extraterrestrial intelligence will continue because its adherents believe human civilization is mediocre and unexceptional. They cling to that belief in the face of scientific discoveries that have dramatically diminished the realm of possible habitats for technological life in the Galaxy.

It is a great irony that, if naturalism is true then there is little hope for SETI’s success, no matter the degree of sophistication in detection technology. In the naturalist’s worldview, the universe has no purpose, no meaning, and no direction. Every outcome is the result of a combination of undirected natural laws and stochastic processes. Naturalism cannot explain why we are here, much less why there should also be human-like extraterrestrials. A supernatural Creator is the best explanation for what we observe (or don’t observe) in our galaxy. (OG,RTB)

*** Will Myers

Please “Donate a penny” or any amount to support the ministry’s research and development. Just click the link below:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DKCQUR7YG7W5U

Share this:

In the beginning of creation above diagram depicts states.

Toyspace (collection of qv’s) is created in a manner that when human brains are exposed to its environment learning takes place. The most precious knowledge are the immutable, constants, principles,  and neo-absolutes that may be called precepts of an Absolute God. Toyspace is truly a manifestation of the Kingdom of God.  The Lord’s Prayer states “…let thy Kingdom come…”

Scientist study the world seeking for the immutable, constants, or principles. I collectively call all of above sorties as qua variant (qv) which means that a phenomenon can be observed over and over with only an insignificant varying observation. Christians believe in toyspace in the sense of “Do everything unto the Lord.” This is what genuinely constitutes toyspace.

The set of the collection of qv’s exist in its wholeness as QV. Therefore, qv is part of QV which also means “The way God made things to work.” Since my goal is to relate science to religion showing that science supports religion. Religion and science are from the same Creator.

I can safely say that QV testifies of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; our Lord and Savior. The Spirit of Truth Who God put in the world testifies of the Son Of God, and brings to memory what Jesus taught.

• Romans 1:20
  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
• Colossians 2:9
  For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
• The whole set of immutables can be represented abstractly as the God Equation which also states that God created everything, and nothing created exist that is not created by God:
•           QV(S(1))qv(m) + QV(S(2))qv(n) = QV(S(3))[qv(m) + qv(n)], the vehicle of existence which imposes, binds, and creates all things; can represent any point in existence even in the mind. This is a representive of the stone that God laid in Zion ( the essence of things); the Jesus, Son of God,  stone.

Isaiah 28:16

• *** Will Myers

Please “Donate a penny” or any amount to support the ministry’s research and development. Just click the link below:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DKCQUR7YG7W5U

Share this:

Practicing social skills, building rapport, and then discerning when and how to reveal my identity as a follower of Christ is often a challenge for me. Prevalent stereotypes and preconceptions about Christians, especially Evangelicals, can make this moment of self-revelation difficult. I understand why Christians feel tempted to avoid it in nearly all circumstances. The range of responses is wide and unpredictable, from instant detachment to awkward silence to verbal assault. Having experienced all these and more, including a range of positive responses, I thought you might like to consider how Kathy and I prepare for these encounters.

First, we ask God to lead us to the people He has prepared for us to meet, people who need a nudge toward faith in Him, whether it be a new or renewed faith, and toward trust in the reliability of His word.

Second, we remind each other that our role is to “infuse nutrients” and watch for the response. By this I’m referring to what an ER surgeon once told us about determining whether injured tissues are alive and treatable or dead. He said, “if the tissue responds to infused nutrients, it’s alive and treatable.” This seems to be a wonderful analogy for interacting with people whose spiritual condition is unknown to us. If we infuse spiritual truth into the conversation and the individual responds, we can gently offer more, as much as the person is ready to receive.

Third, we mention some recent or intriguing discoveries we think people might be eager to hear about. We also practice describing our interests in ways that spark curiosity and invite questions.

I’m glad to report that these simple preparations paid off once again during our late summer travels, including the Burgess Shale Adventure you’ve read about in our various publications and e-communications. One encounter in particular stands out, in part because it came unexpectedly and involved many people through various circumstances.

The encounter began with a friend and RTB chapter leader who could not come with our group but was able to visit the Cambrian fossils on his own a few weeks before we arrived. His gracious demeanor and familiarity with life’s history made a favorable impression on the young geologists who guide visitors along the trails of this UNESCO World Heritage Site. Our friend paved the way for their interactions with Fuz and me.

When we arrived, these guides were ready for us—ready to raise questions about how we, as scientists and science enthusiasts, view the data and connect it with our biblically based beliefs. I only wish you could have heard the conversations along the trail between each of them—self-described atheistic naturalists—and various members of our group, not just Fuz and me.

I cannot relay them all in this brief letter, but I’d like to share with you a few of the guides’ comments at day’s end. “We’ve never met people like you,” they said, “except for that friend of yours who came a few weeks ago.” They observed not only our group’s eagerness to learn but also our “enthusiastic and confident faith.” They said Fuz and I gave them perspectives they had never heard, and they were amazed to see how well our biblical model for life’s history, based largely on Genesis 1 and Psalm 104, fits the known data. Their encounter with RTB made them excited to hear more.

You and I have all the more reason to prepare ourselves to share about the joy and hope that is ours, as 1 Peter 3:15–16 tells us. Every day I see the value of each word in these verses, which exhort us to honor Christ above all else in life and to approach nonbelievers with gentleness, respect, and a clear conscience. (HR,TBN)

*** Will Myers

Please “Donate a penny” or any amount to support the ministry’s research and development. Just click the link below:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DKCQUR7YG7W5U

Share this:

 Past searches for ETI have consisted of star surveys using instruments like the Allen Telescope Array and other radio telescopes. With the discovery of almost 1,000 exoplanets, things have begun to change. Now, searches can target specified exoplanets and the 2009 launch of the Kepler satellite has been the biggest boon to enabling these targeted investigations. Prior to Kepler, exoplanet detection technology tended to favor gas giant planets. Thus, it is no surprise that most of the first exoplanets discovered are not suitable hosts for any life, much less sentient beings. However, the transit method used by Kepler is designed to detect Earth-size planets that are in or near the habitable zone of their host star. A recent update of NASA’s Exoplanet Archive listed another 119 Kepler-discovered planets around 59 stars; many are in multiple planet systems. In addition, there are stars termed “Kepler Objects of Interest” (KOI) from which there are over 3,000 detections that have not yet been verified as planets.² These exoplanet “candidates” are also available as possible targets for SETI searches.

Selected Targets Most Amenable for Earth-like Life

Eighty-six Kepler-observed stars (those having confirmed exoplanets and KOIs with detections still classified as candidates) were selected as targets for the SETI survey. These stars were selected because they satisfied one or more of the following criteria:

• Star and planetary system have a cursory similarity to Earth and the solar system
• Star hosted one or more planet candidates that were in or near the traditional habitable zone³
• Star hosted five or more planet candidates total
• Star hosted a “super-Earth”⁴ in an orbit with a period of more than 50 days

The SETI project later found that one of the 86 targets is a false positive; so it was deleted from the list. However, 19 other KOIs were serendipitously located close enough to the beam width of a primary target such that these stars were also observed, giving a total of 104 possible planetary systems under observation for evidence of ETI.

The Unique Earth-based View of Kepler Objects

The SETI team’s strategy was to look for narrow band (<5 Hz) radio emissions from a civilization communicating with other planets in its home system. In the case of human civilization, this would be analogous to radio transmissions to/from spacecraft or occupied stations in orbit around or on the surface of our sister planets. Additionally, Earth-based radar imaging of solar system bodies and radar mapping of debris from artificial Earth satellites would produce narrow band radio frequency transmissions of interest. Similar activities would be expected of extraterrestrial civilizations. Transmissions of this type would be directed in the plane of the planet’s orbit around its host star.⁵

The Kepler satellite’s transit detection method works best when a planet’s orbit is seen nearly edge-on from Earth’s vicinity. Thus, the Kepler objects were ideal for this ETI search strategy. Each of the exoplanets in a system observed by Kepler orbited their host star in nearly the same plane, with Earth currently passing approximately through that plane. So it should be possible, in principle, for an Earth-based receiver to intercept any narrow band communications between exoplanets in one of those systems.

The research team explained why narrow band radio emissions would be a good indicator of ETI:

Radio emission less than 5 Hz in spectral extent is currently known to only arise from artificial sources…Natural astrophysical electromagnetic emissions are inherently spectrally broadened by the random processes underlying natural emission physics…Emission no more than a few Hz in spectral width is, as far as we know, an unmistakable indicator of engineering by an intelligent civilization.⁶

Yet in spite of the leaps in our technology and knowledge of exoplanets, these research efforts have not detected any signs of intelligent life. Finding intelligent life in the cosmos is very optimistic for the near future.

Actually, scientist are looking for civilizations in outer space. The government have captured UFO’s and alien bodies, and is aware that they have been visiting Earth for centuries. Interestingly, the bodies of aliens appear that they could be androids, manufactured by an advance civilization. While being millions of years older than our society, they are living in a higher conscientious supported by these androids possibly. So, we know that they exist somewhere.  We have never been alone in  the cosmos. (OG,RTB)

*** Will Myers

Please “Donate a penny” or any amount to support the ministry’s research and development. Just click the link below:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DKCQUR7YG7W5U

Share this: