Law of Physics or God

Rather than imagining God as that bearded guy up in the clouds that performs miracles sometimes, perhaps a more realistic portrayal is a universal force causing certain perceivable circumstantial scenarios to occur in order for the world to have a chance of existing.

Consider the simple fact that anything even exists, that not only all the particles and necessary elements of the universe, but all the laws of physics and nature that we know of (and don’t) were either created or existed at the beginning of time. Based on the fact that this multitude of elements and laws of nature exist in the coincidental, vast, and complex combination that they are, the likeliness of the scenario which allows anything relevant whatsoever to occur doesn’t seem too great. Out of any possible combination (theoretically infinite) of elements and physical laws, the probability might be therefore 1 in infinite

As possibly the main participle of the universe, the stars require the specific combination of elements necessary to form, and continually combust in a cycle for an amazingly long period of time, as well as the reaction of particles within all. If the existence of the universe is simply pure chance, with no specific reasoning or intended cause, then chances would be that any elements which exist, would not react with one another in a specific way. By rational estimate of probability, the effective element quantities would not happen to be present, in order to cause the perfect setting of scenario for the universe to continuously expand and cycle through its planetary, solar, and galaxal networked ecosystem -let alone offer the more specific necessary circumstances for intricate life ecosystems within.

Not only does the massive multitude of potential combinations of elements have to react in a certain way for the basic structure of the universe to continuously exist, but there also must be the certain applicable laws of physics to intermingle and manipulate all of the elements. The basic laws might be gravity -in order for any particles to be grouped at all, rather floating pointlessly- and dark energy (or whatever its technical term) which allows everything within the universe to expand outwards, rather than just clumping back together. Black holes would be another basic main participle of the universe, as from what I know they manipulate and effect galaxies as a whole. The specific laws of nature and reaction of particles within a black hole is so diversely complex, humans have still barely even begun to understand the concept. All those necessary elements and laws required to exist in the very specific combination that they do, are only for the very basic structure of the universe. The distinguished depth, detail, and diversity of specific elements and laws required is basically inconceivable when it comes to the fact that you exist and are capable of reading this right now.

As a basic principle of logic, there is a reason that anything happens, there is always a perceivable understandable analysis of why something occurred and what caused it.  Wouldn’t it seem plausible that there would be an over reigning force which is what allows all aspects of the universe to pertain? Perhaps God is more of a property of occurance which we have yet to grasp. Maybe an influencing effect of circumstance, which causes relevant circumstantial equations to occur within physics.  

Methods of Miraculous Manipulation

Does science prove that there is no God?

Or prove the potential method of manipulation of God?

It seems plausible to me that God can follow all the laws of science and yet still make anything happen.

If there is a God, then God was the one that created the laws of science. Isn’t it likely that he would still always follow his own laws? When you’re a kid and see a magician perform magic tricks, from your perspective the magician is performing magic and breaking the laws of science. But of course in reality it is just a certain set of circumstances that the magician makes happen in order to do something that seems impossible to anyone who doesn’t know those exact circumstances. Perhaps it is a very same principle with god.

Maybe god has performed all miracles with a certain set of circumstances only known to him, but all the while always following his own laws of science. Take some of the most extreme miracles Jesus performed for example. For God to make Jesus able to walk on water -while following his laws of science- he could have caused that specific part of the water to be extremely dense with salt (or water potential formula) in that specific part of the water necessary to allow something to float very easily. Also, god could have caused Jesus to be extremely buoyant by whatever scientific means necessary. Another example could be, Jesus brings someone back to life after being dead for 4 days. God could have easily done this scientifically. There is many ways a person can appear to be dead (even being capable of misleading detection by modern day methods), and be in a very near dead state, and still survive for 4 days undetected.

God following the laws of science would also be a very good explanation for setting the proper circumstances for life to exist as it does today. People always think its either evolution or God. If evolution did happen, then isn’t it more likely that God caused it to happen? It seems most likely God caused the specific circumstances to play out exactly as they did involving evolution. God would cause the dust circling the perfect size of star to form into the perfect size of planet using gravity at a perfect distance from the sun, then cause an appropriate amount of water to end up on that planet –whether by asteroids, or the proper elements floating in the right area- then after the perfect amount of time after the planet settling, cause the spark of life to begin by whatever very specific circumstances necessary and allow it the potential environment to prosper.

As Gods method of manipulation for miracles, why has the laws of physics been so ill considered?

Deity Deduced

I think it is the contrary. I think science proves that god does exist. Proof that God exists is that anything exists.

To understand whether a variable is present or not, you need to understand the effect of the variable, and decipher if such effects seem to be present. To understand the effect of any variable, you need to compare the scenario in which the variable is present, to the scenario where it is not.

So, to determine if god exists, you need to understand the effect of God, and decipher whether those effects seem to be present. To understand the effect of God, you should therefore compare the scenario of an existent God to the scenario of no God. The difference is that if there is a God, then certain things are meant to happen for a purpose as God causes them happen. This, compared to no God, whereas everything is allowed to happen by total fluke. If everything was chance on whether it occurs, then there would plausibly have been a good chance that life was never created, (assuming the big bang and evolution was the method) and never existed. In this case, there would be a chance that this universe would be completely lifeless, with basically only stars, planets, and space dust. It would be blank, dead, and seemingly totally pointless for this universe to be working and expanding and even existing with no life in it.

As the laws of science state there is a cause for every effect and all energy is passed on from somewhere else. Science seems to prove that nothing would exist if nothing caused it initially. Something had to cause the big bang to begin. It would not have started without a reason to start or exist. Everything in the universe is made up of all the elements, but the elements would not have been created or exist unless there was a reason to exist or be created. Perhaps that reason is what God is. In this case, God is the meaning of life. Life was meant to exist and it was caused to happen by certain things happening in the history of this universe right back to the big bang itself. Being alive and life itself existing IS the meaning of life and the whole purpose of this universe. That is what God is and what made it possible for anything and everything on Earth to exist today.

There has to be a force that caused things to happen specifically as they did for life to exist including making all the elements exist in the 1^st place at the beginning of the big bang. If God forced certain things to happen in order for life to exist, then God would continue to make certain things happen after life was created. Life could have easily gone extinct and died out from many causes over the hundreds of millions of years life has existed on Earth and has been evolving. God would have to ensure life continued and make certain things happen.

If the point of life is to experience life, then the force that made events happen so that life would exist might continue to force certain things to happen in the lives of humans so life can be experienced as it’s meant to, and to ensure life continues. But having free will is what life is, and would be pointless otherwise. Therefore God cannot affect your free will. But limits of manipulation in relation to free will are perhaps a sub-topic.
By my interpretation of deductive reasoning, a deity is not only plausible, but probable.

Conception of Perception

Perception can be a significantly relevant concept to understand. Not only your perception of the world and interaction within –which virtually steers the direction, overall outcome, and perceived personal experiential gain in life-, but also as a specific part of that, the perception others have of you. Based on personal experience as well as personal attempted comprehension and understanding, I believe how you regard the perception of others in your life, can influence almost every action you make.

What is the relevance of others perception of yourself throughout life? I think there is a strong relation between an individuals’ personal regard of this concept and the concept of legitimacy and genuinity. If you hold legitimacy and genuinity to low value in your life, then you may likely hold little value to the accurate (and respectfully genuine) perception others have of yourself. If you hold little value to the accuracy of others perception, then you very well might get caught up in creating and manufacturing an image of yourself which you see as idealistic. You may hold more value to others perceiving you as what is your idea of the best -rather than what is true- and therefore put effort into creating the image of that best personage for others to view. As is the general manor of ingenuiness and untruthfulness, with inaccurate aspects, comes inaccurate results. In simpler terms; whether straight-forward lying or inconspicuous deceiving of how others see you, something inaccurate will be perceived by the other and therein, an action will ultimately occur in contradiction to the accurate reality.

Therefore, to receive accurate and genuinely applicable results in life, it is necessary to act genuine. To act genuine, you simply have to be yourself -without additional action with the intent to alter the perception others have-. The basic element of ingenuinity and inaccuracy of the perception of others (which you have effect and concern over) is simply that; implementing effort to alter others perception. So in order to lack inaccuracy others perceive, you just have to lack an attempt to alter that perception. If a lack of action is required, then it seems a lack of concern is quite plausible.

In my personal experience, I believe I have often held the perception of others to much too high of a value. It has mostly been subconsciously, as perhaps a psychological or mental disorder causing high anxiety in my life, where -as far as I can remember- when I would take any situation regarding others perception of myself into consideration, I would be fairly well aware of the rationality of the lack of relevance of an others perception of myself. But as a subconscious (when un-attented) constant effect throughout my life, I would be drastically affected in my actions by holding too high a regarded value to –and being overly concerned with- others perception.

Being concerned with the perception others have of you, is not only unnecessary, but potentially counterproductive. With the concern or worry of how others view you, comes the natural instinct to then attempt to alter their view, to be of something better. As deduced, that inaccurate view is unbeneficial in reality, as the intended view is fundamentally inaccurate as a result of the action –with concern- taken to alter the perception.

Of course the perception of others can be relevant and effecting in your life, but the most beneficial –from all sides- perception is the accurate one. To receive the most accurate perception, a lack of effort is necessary, and to make a lack of effort the least effortful, a lack of concern is necessary. It sounds complicated and is often counter-instinctual, but as far as tasks go; a lack of effort and a lack of concern doesn’t sound too difficult to me!

Negatron

Negative, Positive, what’s the ultimate outcome? Is this world a happy joyful heaven or depressing scary hell? I’d guess the obvious answer is neither, distinctly. As with the modern day resolution, there is many more colors and qualities than black and white.

For better understanding, I’ll attempt to derive and analyze what elements of the question I can. Whether the world is a positive or negative place, should be viewed from a rational, non-biased perspective firstly, to see the basic unopinionated factors. To be fully (or relevantly, at least…) aware of all the general factors on this Earth, is to be aware of all the negative, but also all the positive. Which factors are negative or positive could be potentially opinionated, and perhaps an-entire-nother topic to be derived, but for the sake of this more generalized topic, I’ll assume: negative = choices/actions by humans which result in a greater loss of physical/mental health to the individual or others, than is gained. Positive = the counter, being more gained than lost.
So from the best plausible general estimate based on the available factors, I’d say there is near a similar portion of negative as positive throughout the entire planet. Now, to be simplified rational, a portion of negative plus the equivalent portion of positive cancels each other out, remaining neutral. But, mathematically any quantity is infinite times more than zero. So even though the end result equates 0, in the process and substance of the calculation, there is a quantity. To apply this to life and bring this back down to Earth..:), overall our existence and capability of choice/action in this world is infinite times better than lack thereof.

There’s also the factor of degree of awareness and comprehension of anything and everything in the first place. Perhaps lack of awareness would be more preferable to avoid the negative that exists in this world? Maybe ignorance is bliss? Ignorance may be bliss but also pointless. The eg of extreme ignorance, would be any dumb animal. They could be considered blissful, but their existence is also pretty much pointless, without comprehension of existence and therein, the bliss as well (-if not for providing for the only non-"ignorant" or comprehensive beings: humans).

With full(er) consciousness, awareness, and choice that humans are gifted with, also comes the advantage to choose to live on the positive side of this world. The potential to diverge yourself in surrounding positive elements, and the opportunity to really comprehend the positive aspects of life. With the effective positive perspective and mentality, it can be taken further to make a relevant substantial contribution to the positive side of the world, incidentally reducing the negative.

When you happen to see some potential negative in this world, remember the counter-quantity of positive. Consider that in comparison to the alternate scenario of no existence or comprehension whatsoever, and with the option to dwell in the positive, this world is pretty fricking awesome! 

Components of Contribution

          Is making a seemingly futile contribution pointless, or potentially praising? Individual, minimal-effecting contribution on a grand scale, seems useless, considering 1 single portion out of a massive multitude is quite most often insignificant and inconsequential. Mathematically, if 1 portion is 1 out of 99, there’s a 1% chance any individual portion will have a deciding effect (under the circumstance where the outcome ends up being 50 – 49), or more extremely, 1 of 1 million has a 0.0001% chance. Just as alternatively, 1 portion of 3 has a 33% influence or chance of having a deciding effect. So from that perspective, it seems reasonable that a minimal contribution is irrelevant. 

But, -with further analysis- in the massively complex extents of this world, that minimal contribution almost certainly also has some percentage chance of accomplishing something beneficial, in a multitude of alternate ways. So, mathematically considering the additional variable chances, granted- likely to be all small percentages, would likely significantly increase the overall accumulated percentage probability of that 1 portion having an influence or deciding effect. This is perhaps difficult to understand in such generic, theoretical, calculative terms (but in my mind almost anything can be understood by bringing it back to its more generally, vastly applicable form and viewed as a theoretically estimated equation), so an example in reality might make it more plausibly understandable. A practical example could be; an individual making a $10 donation, to a charity with a goal to raise $100 000. Mathematically, dealing with the direct distinct variables, it seems there’s a 0.01% influence that 10 has on 100 000. So, why bother right?

If the grand scale perspective is taken into consideration, there is a vast extent of alternative variables (virtually indistinguishable) with potential additional benefit. In this example, a hypothetical, alternate positive outcome could be perhaps someone else being influenced and inspired by your donation, and in turn making their own donation (this on its own, virtually doubling the percentage influence), with the additional even greater positive outcome possibility, of that donation influencing another, and so on, with a potential massive positive outcome, even if minimally probable. That is one example off the top of my head, but there will typically be numerous plausible ways the action in consideration gives an advantageous percentage probability to a positive outcome.

Ultimately, mathematically any decision comes down to potential positive effect weighed against potential negative effect. In estimation, these potentials for considerable positive outcomes accumulate, and when mathematically combined and averaged out to a percentage, outweigh the potential for negative outcomes. Additionally, in reference to the example, the $10 is mathematically less than 0.01% influential on your life (assuming you will be in possession of more than $100 000 over the course of your life) as a negative, so the positive still outweighs the negative. Though, this specific point takes into perspective the weight ratio of importance and priority of you compared to others, and an assumption of equality estimation (which is a whole other topic to be analysed :)  

Contribution in life can come in a massive variety of forms and situations and will almost always be virtually impossible to weigh the percentage chances of all aspects accurately, so rough estimation is likely necessary to make the best decision. These different varieties of options of contribution will likely come up in nearly every element of life, requiring an option to choose, and if you’re consciously aware of the possibilities, a decision to make. The potential for contribution may present itself in any circumstances from; the distinct option of choosing to vote for the person you believe is most worthy, rather than whom everyone else is voting for, to; the vaguer, discrete possibility of choosing to recycle a bottle, rather than throwing it the garbage. Whichever happens to be your current circumstance, keep in mind that mathematically (besides generally, morally), if you want to play the better odds, make your contribution.