I know this probably sounds really convoluted, but the point I’m making is that we are presented with information in life that we draw conclusions with. Whether or not information is true or false is vetted by its consistency within our logical framework by which we discern the truth of the world. That is: we have a worldview with which we process reality around us. If someone tells you today that the sky is purple, you know that they’re just off their rocker. But what if the information presented to you is true, but it doesn’t align with your worldview? How would you handle this? Most people, if confronted this way, have what is known as cognitive dissonance, or a resistance to information that challenges their notion of how the world works. I’m no exception, but I have always strived in life to be objective even when it goes against what I’m comfortable or familiar with.
In 2018 I was presented with information that completely challenged my way of perceiving the world. It made it impossible for me to live within the framework that I had prior.
This is that story.
—
A little bit of my background as a person: growing up I was always a
Throughout middle school, high school, and parts of college, I was
During college, I wound up with a group of friends who were big into video games and binge drinking. We would often spend our weekends playing 3+ rounds of Beeriokart, smoking weed intermittently and very infrequently doing other hard drugs. I would often philosophize during these moments about what life’s purpose was, and would sometimes research things like physics or whatever else while my friends would watch or play Fortnite (among other things). During one of my research sessions, I came across the work of Christopher Langan, and I started reading his paper called “The Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe.” This paper had very mixed reception, some people calling it genius, and others calling it incomprehensible hogwash. For me this presented itself like a challenge: “bet I can figure it out,” I thought to myself.
I read the paper, and there were two major conclusions that I drew from it that I thought I’d bring up. The first one was this: “the abstract currency of nature is information.” Or put in more literal terms, everything in life is at a fundamental level built from information. The second observation I realized was that since there exists information that is metastatic (meaning it does not change nor is subject to time or space), it is separate and distinct. The conclusion that can be deduced from this is that there must exist an immaterial, distinctly separate metastatic conglomerate of information that encodes the consistent logical framework from which reality is capable of propagating from. That is sort of a mouthful, but essentially what that means is that life had to be derived from some kind of intellect. The reason for this conclusion comes from the following concept.
Consider the number seven. Seven is something we observe in reality, in that we can count things and conceptually understand it, but seven does not exist in reality. We cannot see “seven”, we cannot touch “seven”, and yet it is real. Essentially, seven only exists within the human mind. Seven also has properties, such as the fact that it is a prime number. The reason why seven is a prime number is built into the laws of logic and mathematics. Some may argue that we created these definitions, but whether or not we understand or have ways of communicating about the idea is irrelevant to the logical truth embedded within the words we speak or use to define it. If you were to try to conceive of a reality in which 7 was not a prime number, the reality you would be trying to conceive of would no longer be self consistent. It is essentially impossible because it would collapse under its own impracticality. It’s the same idea as saying 2+2=5. If that were true, abstractly speaking, the whole nature of numbers and reality itself would not be possible. The same thing can be said about the fine structure constant, or of E and PI. These numbers are what they are by definition and necessity and cannot be changed.
This truth embedded in numbers is the greatest example of a universal constant of nature which is outside of space and time. Reality itself is essentially subject to a logical framework which is timeless, immaterial, and logical self-referential and self-consistent. In realizing this truth, there was a moment in which it sunk in that such an entity is no different from God. In fact, many
“I am that I AM” - He is what always is, the essential truths of reality which are not
“You cannot see me” - His attributes are evident throughout creation in that his order and intellect and love can be seen in the ways things are made, but he himself is not visible.
And the list goes on.
Ultimately. I am a Christian for a lot more reasons than just this little thought exercise. I have seen the way he has revealed himself
If you yourself desire to know this God, the one true creator God, it starts by first understanding that he is the all powerful truth by which all things are sustained by. Next, realize your position before him as someone who has gone his or her own way apart from God. Third, believe that God has told the truth in the Bible that he has atoned for your rebellion through the death of Jesus Christ. Lastly, repent of your sin and choose to honor God and live according to what he has called us to, which is a life wholly submitted unto him.
If you’re serious about this: consider reading 1 John. It takes 15 minutes. If you finish that, read The Gospel of John and then Romans and then the whole new testament. You have likely been told many things about what Christianity says and believes, it’s time for you to find it out for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjnwldgqN8c&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuhA0RPKZFHVcjIMN_-F596
My core beliefs:
I believe in God the Father as
I believe in a literal Genesis account. Mankind's genetics were made perfect at the creations, along
I believe in
Take the Ship of Theseus. For those who do not recognize this thought experiment, it goes like this:
"Suppose you have a ship. You remove one piece of the ship and replace it with another identical part. You do this until you have replaced all of the old parts of the ship. Is the ship still the same ship or is it an entirely different ship?"
Now, this thought is experiment is interesting and all but what does it have to do with "God"? Suppose you replace the Ship of Theseus with anything. You, me, your cat, a building, the Earth, the entire universe, and so on. If parts of you were to be replaced one by one, would you still be you? Personally I believe that the Ship of Theseus is still the same ship because
I believe
Ultimately, my point just boils down to this: "God" is whatever you want it to be. Existent or non-existent. Symbolistic or literal. Your idea of it is the truth. "God" is your personal "Ship of Theseus". This is why you cannot absolve people for their beliefs, as their beliefs are driven by their world view. To absolve people for their beliefs is to absolve "God", which is absurd.
This is why I
I believe that
P.S. I use "God" in quotation marks because I really don't have a name for my idea of the metaphysical entity I'm referring to. I just refer to
And I am not ashamed to say these things publicly.