How to look for GOD

G.W. Leibniz, a natural philosopher, mathematician and compatriot of Newton, in his philosophical treatise, ‘the ultimate origin of things‘ says that the reason why anything exist must be sought in metaphysical necessities or in eternal truths, because there is nowhere else it can be found. Although Leibniz insights makes sense, he, unfortunately gave no physical clues to validate his views, hence, renders all purely abstract.

So, where do we go from here?

Even if Godincilogy was not meant to investigate the truth potential of GOD’S factuality it can certainly be used to do so. Our common sense analyzes of observable facts, and hopefully good inference, indicates us, among other things, that there is not only a primordial transition source but that there is also a kind of creation going on.

For all clarity, in Godinci we mean with creation:

“the process of materializing the non-material and let it operate according to certain external predefined goals that are inherent in them and allows for growth.’

This brings us to our main question:

  • How to give substantial weight to the truth potential of GOD’S factuality?

In chapter “does god exist” we have defined what we mean with GOD; even though the term existence is as yet not defined we can till some extent outline you how to investigate the factuality or none factuality of GOD without being absurd.

Let us proceed.

In our material world we normally first discover or observe phenomena and denominate them, afterwards we study their properties and behavior in different conditions and circumstances; when enough information about the distinct attributes and behavior of a phenomenon are collected they’re generalized in some kind of a theory which then in return will often allow us, based on the behavior of other things, to tell something fundamental about what we want to investigate without necessarily seeing it directly!

Let us give you some examples hereof:

  • we can say something about the composition of the Sun by use of spectroscopy
  • the doctor can detect a lung infection without actually seeing the lung
  • Le Verrier pinpointed down Neptune by application of Newton’s mathematical law of gravity to the observed irregularities in Uranus orbit

Investigating GOD is a little bit similar as investigating Nature, the only difference is that GOD, for as far we know, is immaterial, and so, we first have to define the traceable associables of GOD to engage with this task.
I say ‘traceable’ because it has to relate to Nature and be open for scientific investigation, that’s to say, the arguments put forward need to have the potential in them of being falsified (meaning the potential of being shown wrong).
Postulating an untraceable entity is postulating nothing at all, neither is postulating an all-attribute god (oxymoron god) such as all loving, all merciful and all powerful, since all-attribute gods, just as the concept of infinity, are self-contradictory when related to physical reality as a whole and will miserably fail in giving substantial weight to the truth potential of GOD’S Being.

Unfortunately, today hypotheses are only considered as true if:

  1. they can reproduce results in conformity with the observational facts
  2. there is hard empirical evidence out there that can be validated by the scientific method.

Nevertheless, if this is the only way we can give weight to the truth potential of whatever what than many knowable and self-evident things can never be known substantially.

Let us give you an example to make our point clear.

If someone before 1960 (let’s call him Willy) came to the conclusion that his grandfather’s, grand, grand, grand, grand, grandfather (let’s call him Johnny) ever existed than nobody with a good taste of commonsense doubted in the validity of Willy’s claim. Even though we could always come-up with an absurdity to deny his claim, scientist and non scientist alike didn’t doubt in the truthfulness of such claim since we’re in essence the irreproducible produced proof and can all individual, collective and planetary observe that humans come from other humans.

However, may it be clear that from the hard scientific point of view no empirical evidence was given. To demonstrate Willy’s claim by means of the scientific method we had to wait till the DNA structure was discovered and well enough understood.

So, the question boils down to this:

  • Did we really have to wait till the DNA structure was discovered before we could give substantial weight to the truth potential of Willy’s claim?

Of course not!

However, what the discovery of the DNA structure among other things has done is demonstrating us irrevocably that when hypotheses are based on good related commonsense inference of planetary observable facts (be they irreproducible or not) than substantial weight might always be given to the truth potential of its derived conclusions.

The observational facts that have been used to validate Willy’s claim are valid arguments for as long we don’t have to go back to the absolute starting point. If we want to go back to the absolute starting point than other observational facts are required to construct the reasons upon.
The same hold true for given weight to the truth potential of GOD’S factuality; we just have to learn what to look for since GOD has a self-reflecting intent that is manifested in Nature.

Godincilogy is very useful in this regard, and so, Godinci will expand gladly on these things.

This post is also available in: Romanian, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Russian, Spanish