If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists"See this blog post I just wrote, that you’re reading right now?  This blog article is proof of the existence of God. Before you read/watch/listen to “If You Can Read This I Can Prove God Exists,” read THIS first. Thanks. Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy.  But I’m not asking you to believe anything just yet, until you see the evidence for yourself.  All I ask is that you refrain from disbelieving while I show you my proof.  It only takes a minute to convey, but it speaks to one of the most important questions of all time. So how is this message proof of the existence of God? This web page you’re reading contains letters, words and sentences.  It contains a message that means something. As long as you can read English, you can understand what I’m saying. You can do all kinds of things with this message.  You can read it on your computer screen.  You can print it out on your printer.  You can read it out loud to a friend who’s in the same room as you are.  You can call your friend and read it to her over the telephone.  You can save it as a Microsoft WORD document.  You can forward it to someone via email, or you can post it on some other website.

Regardless of how you copy it or where you send it, the information remains the same.  My email contains a message. It contains information in the form of language.  The message is independent of the medium it is sent in.

Messages are not matter, even though they can be carried by matter (like printing this email on a piece of paper). Messages are not energy even though they can be carried by energy (like the sound of my voice.)Messages are immaterial.  Information is itself a unique kind of entity.  It can be stored and transmitted and copied in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same. Messages can be in English, French or Chinese. Or Morse Code.  Or mating calls of birds.  Or the Internet.  Or radio or television.  Or computer programs or architect blueprints or stone carvings.  Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete plan for you. OK, so what does this have to do with God? It’s very simple.  Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind.  A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences.  A mind that expresses both desire and intent. Whether I use the simplest possible explanation, such as the one I’m giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence: “Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind.  No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.”Nature can create fascinating patterns – snowflakes, sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites.  Tornadoes and turbulence and cloud formations.

But non- living things cannot create language. They *cannot* create codes.  Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk.  And they cannot create information. It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose accidentally from the “primordial soup,” the early ocean which produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells. But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to answer the question, ‘Where did the information come from?’DNA is not merely a molecule.  Nor is it simply a “pattern.” Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way that English and Chinese and HTML are languages. DNA has a four- letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs.  With very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them. It is formally and scientifically a code.

All codes we know the origin of are designed. To the person who says that life arose naturally, you need only ask: “Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn’t come from a mind.”As simple as this question is, I’ve personally presented it in public presentations and Internet discussion forums for more than four years.  I’ve addressed more than 1.

God. But to a person, none of them have ever been able to explain where the information came from.  This riddle is “So simple any child can understand; so complex, no atheist can solve.”You can hear or read my full presentation on this topic at//cosmicfingerprints. Watch it on video: //cosmicfingerprints. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.  Everyone can agree on that.  But information has to come from somewhere, too! Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and energy.  And information can only come from a mind.  If books and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all living things inevitably came from a superintelligence. Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read, every packet of information that zings across the Internet, is proof of the existence of God.  Because information and language always originate in a mind.

Before you read/watch/listen to “If You Can Read This I Can Prove God Exists,” read THIS first. (700 words – 2 minutes) – then come back and continue reading. The Complete List of 200 Most Useful Websites for College Students. By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Exclusive) Hagia Sophia, or Ayasofya in Turkish, is officially a museum: Turkey’s most-visited monument, whose formally neutral status.

In the beginning were words and language. In the Beginning was Information.

Last week, we were so happy to report that Kendrick Lamar confirmed his engagement to his high school sweetheart, Whitney Alford. However, it appears that not.

When we consider the mystery of life – where it came from and how this miracle is possible – do we not at the same time ask the question where it is going, and what its purpose is? Respectfully Submitted,Perry Marshall. Full Presentation and Technical Details (please review before posting questions or debates on the blog, almost every question and objection is addressed by these articles): –“If you can read this, I can prove God exists” – listen tomy full presentation or read the Executive Summary here: //cosmicfingerprints. OK, so then who made God?” and other questions about information and origins: //cosmicfingerprints. Why DNA is formally and scientifically a code, and things like sunlight and starlight are not (Please read this before you attempt to debate this on the blog!!!): //cosmicfingerprints. The Atheist’s Riddle: Members of Infidels, the world’s largest atheist discussion board attempt to solve it(for over 4 years now!), without success: –//cosmicfingerprints.

Airline chicken Airline chicken can be several things, depending upon who you talk to. It can be a fancy cut, a special presentation, or a negative appelation. I was reminded of the “memory wars” of the 1990s yesterday when listening to an episode of Marc Maron’s popular WTF podcast. The guest, comedian Tom Arnold. The moral argument for the existence of God refers to the claim that God is needed to provide a coherent ontological foundation for the existence of objective moral.

And the Memory Wars Wage On – Phenomena: Only Human. I was reminded of the “memory wars” of the 1. Marc Maron’s popular WTF podcast. The guest, comedian Tom Arnold, told Maron about his traumatic childhood, which included an alcoholic mother who abandoned him and a neighbor who molested him.

Arnold said he came to terms with the trauma through therapy, which culminated in him confronting the neighbor in person. The man denied it, apparently yelling at Arnold that his memories were wrong. It was a heartbreaking story, and obvious from Arnold’s telling that he deeply believes his memories are not at all wrong. I don’t know any details about Arnold’s case other than what he recounted to Maron.

I want to believe that his memories are sound, and that confronting his molester provided him with some form of relief. Update, 3/6: And, as a commenter pointed out below, Arnold also said on the podcast that he found several other neighborhood boys who said they had been molested by the same man.) But it must be said that this sort of revelation — in which a person uncovers, through therapy or hypnosis, a memory that had been repressed for years or even decades — happened a lot in the early 1. In October 1. 99. Arnold’s wife at the time, Roseanne (Barr) Arnold, was on the cover of People Magazine with the headline: “Roseanne’s Brave Confession: I AM AN INCEST SURVIVOR.” According to the piece, Roseanne had repressed these memories until Tom, then her fiancé, told her what he had uncovered about his own childhood. Immediately after hearing his story, “I began to shake and sweat,” Roseanne told People.

Pictures started to appear before my eyes—surreal and frightening, looming large, then crystallizing into my mother’s face. I remember being abused.” After more sessions with a therapist, Roseanne began to dream about specific abuse memories. Just a few months earlier, former Miss America Marilyn Van Derbur had made similar claims. And it wasn’t just celebrities.

Stories of everyday adults suddenly recovering memories of childhood abuse appeared in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, and Time, among others. Why was this happening? Showtime Full Lotus Eaters Online Free. It was due, at least in part, to several popular books that provided instructions for recovering repressed memories. The books urged therapists to ask their clients about childhood incest,” notes William Saletan in his excellent 2.

Slate series on memory. And they had a huge impact. Women were suing their parents for millions of dollars. Hundreds of accused families sought help.”As these accusations mounted, several high- profile psychology researchers began speaking out against the idea of repressed memories. In a 1. 99. 3 article in American Psychologist, memory researcher Elizabeth Loftus pointed out that little if any scientific evidence supported the idea of repressed memories: Nobody knew how commonly traumatized people repress memories, or how accurate the memories are, or how juries are likely to react to them. And considering the lawsuits waged against alleged abusers, Loftus found this lack of evidence disturbing. When we move from the privacy of the therapy session, in which the client’s reality may be the only reality that is important, into the courtroom, in which there can be but a single reality, then we as citizens in a democratic society are entitled to more solid evidence,” she wrote.

This debate between practicing therapists and research psychologists became known as the memory wars. Over time, scientific criticisms by Loftus and others got more attention in the press, and some accusers recanted their stories. Loftus’s own research helped drive the increased skepticism. As Saletan’s article describes in depth, Loftus’s studies showed just how easily false memories can be implanted by a trusted source. Whatever happened to the memory wars? Do people still believe in the power of repressed memories? Loftus and her colleagues addressed these questions in last month’s issue of Psychological Science.

Their study includes two experiments. In the first, the researchers gave 3.

The surveys asked participants whether they agreed or disagreed with various statements. Some of the statements — such as “Memory is constantly being reconstructed and changed every time we remember something” and “Memory can be unreliable” — are supported by lots of evidence. The respondents seem to have known that, for 9.

Other statements focused on repressed memories, which as I mentioned are not rooted in a whole lot of evidence. But the students felt otherwise: 8.

And 8. 6 percent agreed that if a person has emotional problems and needs therapy, childhood sexual assault is a plausible explanation — even if the person has no memory of any kind of abuse. But who cares about college kids. What about the opinions of mental health professionals? Turns out that many of them also believe in repressed memories, though in somewhat lower numbers than they did in the 9.

The researchers surveyed hundreds of clinical psychologists, experimental psychologists, psychoanalysts, hypnotherapists, primal therapists, neuro- linguistic programming therapists, life coaches, scientologists (!), and family therapists, as well as (via Mechanical Turk) members of the public in the U. S., U. K., and India. Here’s a comparison of how the beliefs of “mainstream Ph. D psychotherapists” have changed over the past decade: Patihis et al, 2.

They have evidently lost some faith in hypnosis, and have gained respect for the idea of implanting false memories. On the question of the objectivity of repressed memories, though, the responses haven’t changed much, with agreements hovering between 1. Perhaps unsurprisingly, experimental psychologists are more skeptical of repressed memories than are psychoanalysts, and psychoanalysts are more skeptical than “alternative therapists.” Concerning the statement, “Traumatic memories are often repressed,” 2. Loftus and her team take these data to mean that there’s still lots to be done in the way of disseminating findings about memory research to mainstream practitioners and the public at large. These findings suggest that the memory wars are not over,” they write. Nevertheless, these battles may now be limited largely to discrete pockets of practicing clinicians, especially those with specific theoretical views regarding the nature of memory.”This may be true, but also glazes over a few academics who are more sympathetic to the idea of repressed memories.

Take Ross Cheit, a professor of public policy and political science at Brown University. Cheit directs the “Recovered Memory Project,” an online archive of cases of repressed memories that have been independently corroborated. Cheit wasn’t happy with this recent Loftus paper, to say the least. The article is so flawed that one scarcely knows where to begin,” he wrote on the Project’s website. He points to several studies showing that trauma can, rarely, be repressed.

Loftus and her colleagues, he adds, “offer a false dichotomy between ‘scientists’ and ‘practitioners,’ ignoring the substantial number of research scientists, like Jennifer Freyd, whose work challenges their beliefs.”To recap: In the 1. Many of these were probably cases in which the abuse was suggested in therapy, but didn’t actually happen in real life. Watch Silent Rage Download. And some of these, some unknown but small number, were probably real cases of abuse. Clearly Tom Arnold believes his case was real, and now many of Marc Maron’s millions of podcast listeners may also believe in the power of repressed memories. For what it’s worth, Arnold’s now ex- wife, Roseanne, has revised her story of abuse. In early 2. 01. 1, Roseanne appeared on the Oprah show and said that she regretted her 1.

I think it’s the worst thing I’ve ever done,” Roseanne told Oprah.