X-Ftn-To: George Hammond 

George Hammond  wrote:
>  In fact, recently a writer from Croatia named Danijel Turina
>has suggested an interesting analogy to my discovery; as he puts
>it:
>
>               the Human Brain is like a computer,
>               running a program called Science.
>               Any change in the program is called
>               a Law of Science, but any change in
>               the Computer is called an Act of God.

Actually, I never mentioned the brain; I talked about God and the
Universe. Did you watch the movie "Matrix"? Well, they got one part
right and one part wrong. We do live in the matrix, this is not the
actual reality; it is real, in a sense that we can experience it, but
there is a deeper layer of reality beneath it. But, the part where
they got it wrong was the idea that the actual reality is worse than
this one; exactly the opposite: everything that is good in this
"reality" is merely a shadow, a reminiscence of the immense wonders of
God, who creates it all.

And BTW, God didn't create the universe. He creates it right now. We
are within the process of its creation, and we are a part of that
process.

As for your strange interpretation of my analogy, allow me to correct
it.

God can be compared to the computer, running a program called the
Universe. Normal behavior of the program is called natural law, but
any intervention from a deeper layer, that affects the behavior of the
program, is called miracle. So, a miracle is a presence of the higher
reality within the lower reality. Jesus can be compared to the
computer, or the programmer, who manifests within his program. He has
full control of the hardware and the OS, while acting like one of the
characters. When he changes some parameter of the software, everybody
says "wow, a miracle, but we don't believe in those". When they
decided to kill him, why would he object, after all, unlike them he
knows he's not the character, but an aspect of the fundamental
reality. 

And just to mention, the existence of God doesn't imply the
creationist theories. It actually gives more light into the
evolutionist theories, because life is seen as a point of breach,
where a higher reality manifests itself within the lower reality,
gradually forming complex matter from the simpler (the fillings in
your teeth were created by fusion in a star, BTW, it didn't exist in
the beginning of the Universe), and then it opposes the entropy by
creating more complex molecules and order between them and creates
rudimentary life. This point is actually the weakness of the
conventional evolutionist theories, because they can't explain why the
2nd law of thermodynamics suddenly stopped working; by every logical
theory, the complex systems of living organisms should never come to
be, but, if we say that God manifests through the matter, then it is
obvious - the higher reality gradually subordinated the lower reality
and created order within it; and so the lifeforms have become
gradually more and more complex - but not as a result of chaotic
actions of mutation and selection, not exclusively at least, but with
a goal of manifesting the higher aspects of Divinity on the physical
plane - like consciousness, love, and even higher ones that most
people know nothing about because they haven't evolved that far.

The creationist theories that say that God created the Universe by an
act of creation, in a nearby point in time, have several serious
problems. First, the theory is anthropocentric. Second, the
observation doesn't prove it. Third, the creationist theories are
inconsistent with the behavior of the universe - the creationist
theories made sense at a time when people believed that God personally
creates the thunders, but now, when we understand that this is merely
a result of physical principles in action, it is obvious that God's
actions have to be sought in a much more sublime sphere, because God
is not "one of us, only bigger". God is not within the universe, the
universe is within God. 

So, the creationists create an unnecessary burden for themselves, by
trying to disprove the scientific discoveries in order to prove
something that simply doesn't hold water, just because they think it's
in the Bible, and if every letter of the Bible can't be literally
interpreted, their personal world would end. If they studied theology
instead, they would understand that the creationist theory actually
diminishes and reduces God, and that it is therefore more of a
blasphemy, than they think the evolution is. That's my opinion.

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org