"Great Photos are never shot on a Tripod". - Aishwarya Kumar
Friday, June 25, 2010
Mathematical Proof that God Exists
(No math higher than pre-algebra required.)
Silver Stock Report
by Jason Hommel, June 24th, 2010
I first began to take the Bible seriously after a personal 6 month study of the topic of creation vs. evolution. I did this in the year 1998, about 2 years after I graduated from college. I started the study because I was feeling guilty about the way I was living my life, because of what I knew from the Bible. I felt I could cast off the guilt if the Bible were not true, and if man evolved. I actually wanted God to not be there. But after looking to see if he was there or not, I found Him.
After independent study, after going to a college that emphasized critical thinking skills, and with an adult brain, and actually looking into the matter, I could not deny the mathematical truth that God created the universe and man, and that man did not evolve as they taught in college. Basically, it boils down to two choices, not an infinite array; either the Creator made us, or not. The "not" category is the only one with an infinite array of wild choices, such as "we were made by evolution," or even an infinite stack of turtles, or some other fantasy. The other choice is "the creator", also known as "intelligent design", or God exists.
I got A's in Astronomy I and Astronomy II, in fact, I got the highest grade in my class on the final in Astronomy II, blowing the curve -- yes I'm that guy, sorry. And I got the grade because I didn't realize the final was open book, and I forgot to bring my book, so I studied "too hard". Oops! Typical book geek smart. I mention this to quiet down the fools out there, who think I'm just a fool, or that I have not studied the issues or who falsely assume I'm merely a "believer" because I had the accident to be born in the USA, most of whom also believe in God. Note, the Astronomy I learned teaches evolution, the big bang theory and that God does not exist. This was not a Bible collage I went to, it was the University of Colorado at Boulder. But I later learned the discernment to think for myself, to determine if what the facts of what they had taught me was true, or not, and I was given the skills in philosophy classes to think logically about things. The final exam just was a test to see if I had memorized enough of the basic doctrine of what they taught. And yes, I got it. The highest grade. So I got all they taught, and then, I learned more, so now I know more than my former teachers in college do, about the implications of the basic information that they teach. I hope that does not sound too arrogant, but yes, that's how it works, that's how all knowledge of all mankind advances, and I hope to God that I'm advancing it.
So that leads me to be able to share with you, THE proof that ultimately convinced me, which is probably only one of the many irrefutable mathematical proofs that God created life, and that it was no accident of evolution.
Probabilities are rather easy to calculate, it's simple math. If you need to roll nothing but 6 sixes on one roll of the dice, it's 1/6th chance times 1/6th chance times, etc., 6 times, or 1/6th to the 6th power. That's .0000214 of a chance, or, taking the inverse, you will roll it, on average, once in 46,656 attempts. It's undeniable math.
Let's say you have two chances to roll the dice? Well, then you have two chances in 46,656 on average that you will need, and to express that more simply, you simply divide the odds, which reduces it to 1 in 23,328. Note, to knock one digit off the odds, you need at least ten chances, which reduces the odds to one in 4,666 attempts, when the numbers are rounded off.
To get a cell of life to spontaneously form from a sea of amino acids, was, at one time, say, about 150 years ago, a matter of faith. Darwin put his faith into the idea that single cells were extraordinarily simple, and he said that if they were not, then his entire theory was wrong. Fools have believed this wrong idea, on faith, ever since.
Modern microscopes show that Darwin was wrong. Even modern evolutionists believe Darwin was wrong, since, in the mid 1990's, they taught "punctuated equilibrium", which is something like "fast evolutionary steps" rather than Darwin's gradual processes, but that's besides the point.
More and more, modern science shows how complex single cells are.
Do You Know How Complex a Single Cell Is?
For a cell to spontaneously fit together from random pairings of all the amino acids in a "soup" would require them to be in a certain order, and would require some, but not all, amino acids joining together.
Now, here's the kicker. All the possible combinations are larger than the time necessary to even contemplate them all on the fastest supercomputers. But the necessary exclusions are even larger, and give us a way to calculate the many possible combinations required for life.
Even the fastest supercomputers cannot compute all the possible chess moves in a single simple game of chess!
Given the number of amino acids required, and excluded, for even the most simple living cell, various math scholars have estimated the "chances" of life forming, at up to 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. I remember finding the book that says that, in the library at the University of Colorado, in the days before there was an internet widely available.
Today, some say the chances are much, much higher.
Probability of Single Cell Evolution
http://www.literalgenesis.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=3:biology&id=47:probability-of-single-cell-evolution-&Itemid=3
According to a Hoyle, it's 1 in 10 to the 57,000th power, and that's only for a theoretical cell much simpler than any that exist.
According to another author, the chance that a single cell could evolve by chance is 1 in 10 to the 340 millionth power.
Mathematical Probability Shows Evolution is Ridiculous
But what I have not seen anyone calculate is how many chances the Universe gives us to see if that can happen. I've done that, to help put it into perspective.
Most people don't understand big numbers. I do. In this silver stock report letter, I talk about big numbers all the time, but even these numbers are tiny compared to contemplating single cells, and the entire universe.
Astronomy teaches big numbers. Remember please, I got the top grade in the class, and I used to tutor people all the time in school, so please bear with me, I think I can explain this so anyone can understand it a bit more.
Evolution is based on the idea that with enough time, evolution can happen. But, that's not true, as the numbers show. Here's why it's not true.
A single cell forming would be an event. Nobody can argue with that.
Every event requires both a time and a place. Nobody can argue with that. I once forgot the time of a final exam, and missed the event, but that's besides the point.
The smallest event, at the least, requires the smallest length of measurable time, and at least two particles to create an interaction.
According to the science of Astronomy, we can calculate the rough time of the Universe.
According to the science of Astronomy, we can also calculate all the atoms in the Universe, giving us a maximum number of possible events that have ever happened, given all atoms, and given all time.
The total possible number of events gives us a maximum number of "lottery tickets," so to speak, to see if enough time and enough galaxies could make the very low probability event of a single cell forming, possible, or not.
So, we simply need to determine the total number of atoms, times the total number of the smallest measurable unit of time.
And actually, since a single cell forming, would be a complex mix of many atoms, and many molecules and many amino acids, this would require many many simultaneous events to take place, so the chances are much smaller than my rough estimate, as follows.
And actually, most atoms in the universe are not capable of representing a chance at evolution, since the vast majority of the atoms of the universe are burning in the heart of stars, where evolution cannot happen, but let's assume each atom is a chance anyway, just to humor the opposition.
There are about 10 to the 80th power number of atoms in the entire universe.
Ah, you don't need to rely on my education. The web confirms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Matter_content
Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be a minimum of 10 to the 80th power.
The reason they can nail it down so precisely is that there is a problem of "dark matter", which, if counted, would only add 1 to the exponent, so it would be 10 to the 81st power, but they might have already done that. When I was in college, the number I remember was about one in 10 to the 79th, power, but there are multiple confirming ways to get about that number.
Let each particle then, stand for a place.
To have an event take place, such as a cell being created from amino acids, you need both a place and time, and, again, both are limited.
From the same Astronomy class, there are only a certain number of seconds since the universe was created, from 15 to 20 billion years ago, and only a certain number of parts you can divide a second into, to create a maximum number of times.
The current best evolutionary based theory is that the maximum age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years, so let's go with that. (I actually believe the Universe could have been, and was more likely formed, in 6 literal 24 hour days, about 6000 years ago, but that's also besides the point, and not required to get into for the purposes of our discussion here.)
Age of the universe
Wikipedia also tells us how many seconds per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year
In the Unified Code for Units of Measure, the symbol a (without subscript) always refers to the Julian year aj of exactly 31,557,600 seconds.
The smallest fraction of time is actually determined by the smallest wavelength vibration, by which particles can be measured, which is a fraction of a second.
Quantised time
Planck time (~ 5.4 × 10 to the -44 seconds power) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. Current established physical theories are believed to fail at this time scale, and many physicists expect that the Planck time might be the smallest unit of time that could ever be measured, even in principle.
So, now we simply multiply:
13.7 billion years = 13,700,000,000 years.
31,557,600 seconds per year
x Planck time.
In scientific notion:
Years = 1.37 x 10 to the 10th power
Seconds = 3.1 x 10 to the 7th power
Planck time = 5.4 x 10 to the 44th power number of parts of a second.
To multiply, you simply multiply the first numbers, and add the exponents.
1.37 x 3.1 x 5.4 = 22.9
10 + 7 + 44 = 61
So, we get 22.9 x 10 to the 61st power number of times in the entire age of the universe, or:
2.3 x 10 to the 62nd power number of times in the age of the universe.
Now, we multiply that, by the total number of atoms, which is 10 to the 80th power.
Simple, add the exponents: 62 plus 80 = 142. Nobody can argue with that.
Surely, nobody can have difficulty following such simple math, so I assume everyone is with me then?
2.3 x 10 to the 142nd power represents the maximum number of "atom level" events that can take place in the entire universe, over 13.7 billion years.
An event that would require hundreds of thousands of molecules made up of atoms and thousands of amino acids made up of molecules would mean that you would have thousands and thousands of times fewer chances, of course, so the number of chances for life forming from molecular amino acids would be far less, perhaps a million times less, or perhaps only by 10 to the 7th or 9th power, but we can work with the higher figure.
Again, a low minimum number of chances needed for life forming at random are about 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.
And a high maximum number of chances in the universe is only 1 in 10 to the 142nd power.
To get the actual odds then, we merely subtract the exponents.
40,000 minus 142 = 39,858.
In other words, the total number of chances available in the entire universe didn't help increase the possibility of evolution in the slightest bit!
We actually need to use standard scientific notation rounding standards to take that number and round it right back up to 40,000 again, because the original number, 40,000 is accurate to only one digit, so the final number must be rounded back to one digit.
See "significant figures".
And if we use the larger figure of the chances needed for a cell forming of 1 in 10 to the 340,000,000th power, and subtract 142, we can really see how ridiculous it is, as:
340,000,000 - 142 = 339,999,858.
In other words, there is no discernible difference, no increase to the chances that life happened by chance, given all the billions of years and all the billions of galaxies available, particularly since a billion is not some hugely unimaginable figure, but rather, is a simple and small and unintimidating number described as only 10 to the 9th power.
Here is another way to express all of this math.
Anyone who doubts that God made the simplest form of life, the simplest virus or bacterium like cell, by design, requires 10 to the 40,000th power or 10 to the 340 millionth power more blind faith and gullibility than the Christian who believes that "God created life".
Now, there are fools out there who will say, "Well life didn't have to evolve on earth, it could have evolved elsewhere, and then those other life forms created life on earth". And that is the popular lore of the "Star Trek" fantasy. Well, as we know, fools don't pay attention. See, according to the calculations, the other forms of life could not be organically based, because I already included all other places in the universe.
So, according to the calculations, those other life forms who created life could not be organic based; they would have to exist in another dimension, or be entirely spiritually based, and we would have to use other words to describe them, such as "4th or 5th dimensional imps," "angels," "demons," "fairies," or "God".
Let me translate that again, and discuss.
Modern science and basic math has improved to the point that we can prove that other dimensional, or spiritual, and intelligent beings created life on earth! For a while, I thought that was just too vague to make conclusions about, but bear with me some more.
The one who created life, by definition, is called "the creator". That helps a bit. This creator would have to have the ability to pre exist, outside our current 3D universe or space time continuum, and furthermore, he would have to have the ability to interact and "reach into" our current 3D world to change and manipulate matter on the atomic and molecular level, with either His hands, mind, thoughts, or words, just to put things together in the right order to create life. This means that the creator would have to have miraculous powers to totally suspend the laws of physics to do and effect absolutely anything he wants to in our dimension, therefore every miracle in the Bible is easily seen as possible. Furthermore, if the creator can violate the laws of physics, he might have also created the laws of physics, which hints at the creator actually sustaining the laws of physics, and also sustaining the existence of all atoms and even all wavelengths of light and energy that were also created.
The creator clearly was, and is, intelligent, and He created willfully, purposefully.
Astronomy was looking for a "unified field theory" that explains everything. I see nothing wrong with using the words "The creator", or "God" since "The Creator" is what God is called in the Bible. I see nothing wrong with using those words to describe the process of life, and the existence of the Universe, to explain as the answer, since that's what those words mean, and we are supposed to use the right words to describe the right concepts if we are to understand, and be understood by others.
Said another way, "God exists". Wait, there's more.
I think that God is going to grow a bit more upset as time goes on at the fools who refuse to believe that he created us. If I were God, I would be a bit more angry at the fools who say "God does not exist", given that humanity now has enough knowledge to prove, by simple math, that God created life.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Permanent Assets
Many men come here and by their talents, earn huge amounts of money,
but it remains here, and he goes alone with his works only to accept another different kind of body, forgetting everything behind. But if he acquires some spiritual assets it goes with him, and even if it is not perfect in this life, it begins again from that point in next life.
- Correspondence,
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Divine Art shows the way...
A beautiful architecture at Kedarnath Mandir, Bhubaneshwar. This series of beautifully carved structures on the wall fascinated me as they stood as the paradigm of art and architecture which was used for the glorification of the Lord and his devotees.
Become less “controlling”
“Controlling” refers to unhealthy attempts to manipulate the behavior of others, having the need to control your environment, and becoming defensive or anxious when other people don’t behave to your specifications – the way you think they should be.
To be controlling means you are preoccupied with the actions of others and how those actions affect you.
“Controlling” is highly stressful – both to the controller and to those who are being controlled. A person who is controlling carries with him a great deal of stress because; occasionally we can influence another person, but can’t force him to be a certain way. To someone who is controlling, this is highly frustrating.
What hurts the controlling person is what goes on inside ---- his feelings and emotions. The key element seems to be a lack of willingness to allow other people to fully be themselves, to give them space to be who they are, and to respect – really respect – the fact that people think differently. Deep down, a controlling person doesn’t want other people to be themselves, but rather the image of who they want them to be. But people aren’t an image of who we want them to be – they are who they are.
The only way to become less controlling is to see the advantages of doing so. When you can make allowances in your mind for the fact that other people see life differently than you do, you’ll experience far less internal struggle.
In addition, as you become less controlling, you’ll be a lot easier to be around. You can probably guess that most people don’t like to be controlled. It’s turnoff. It creates resentment and adversarial relationships. As you let go of your need to be so controlling, people will be more inclined to help you; they will want to see you succeed. When people feel accepted for who they are rather than judged for who you think they should be, they will admire and respect you like never before.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Best is to Chant Hare Krishna
Hatha yoga received in the Bhagavad-gita is very difficult in this age.
Yoga system is approved, but nobody can follow the rules and regulations strictly,
neither there is suitable place for executing it,
and everyone is always full of anxiety, so how they can concentrate?
So best thing is to chant Hare Krishna which is forced meditation.
The topmost yogi is he who surrenders to Krishna,
and worships Krishna with all thoughts, activities, and intelligence.
- Srila Prabhupada in a Correspondence, Los Angeles
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Lord Relishes
Chopped vegetables ready to be dropped in oil to prepare delicious bhoga for Sri Anant Vasudev, Bhubaneshwar.
Sri Garuda at ISKCON, Bhubaneshwar
This is one among the first photos I shot as my photography carrier. Hope you will all like it.Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Presence of God
Nature's law means God's law. Nature is not independent. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gita. Mayadhyaksena prakrtih suyate sa-caracaram [Bg. 9.10]. Nature is a machine. So do you think a machine works without an operator? Do you think? Is there any evidence? Now, this is a machine, photography, a wonderful machine. It is taking the picture, and it will move. But there is an operator. Where is the machine which is working without operator? Can you give any example, "Here is a machine which is working without operator"? So how do you think that the nature machine is working without the supreme operator, God's instruction. How do you think it? This is not very reasonable. We have to judge. There are different evidences. One of the evidence is hypothesis. That hypothesis is that "Because we see that no machine works without operator, therefore we should conclude it, even though we do not know what is God, what is the nature, we must conclude it that the nature is working under some supreme operator. That is God." It is not necessary to see the operator, but we can guess that there must be operator. So human life is meant for finding out who is there to operate. That is human life.
- Srila Prabhupada in a lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.3 -- Melbourne, May 22, 1975
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)