Is True Reality, the Immaterial Influencing the Material?
There are those that believe that there is only one reality, and it can only be obtained through the presupposition of valid human reasoning and the scientific method. This method has been useful and successful in discovering and explaining many things through objective experience, but is unreasonable when proselytized as the only way to explaining the universe.
- Can logic and science explain the whole universe and what true reality is, since mankind has not been able to do it thus far?
Science has concluded that our reality is only influenced by our five senses. There is some truth to this statement, but cannot be promoted as fullness of truth.
There are many instruments that can capture the senses (e.g. sound). From these apparatuses, the senses can be defined and measured. Mankind has learned of the five senses that are used to define the perception of our objective reality. Within these senses, we are still are limited in our understanding of the universe. Reality is different to each person because human experiences are an opinion or “take” on what reality is. Science has been biased by trying to explain everything from a materialistic perspective, but cannot negate the fact that there is still more to discover and things we don’t fully understand; therefore, the principles of science and logic cannot be applied as universal law to full understanding of our universe.
One of the mysteries of mankind is trying to understand that there may be an immaterial essence of something that is in us. Reality can also be in the mind’s eye from external influences, but there is a unique phenomenon that occurs within us when we experience something internally.
- Could there be a dual reality where one is material, and the other is in its true or eternal form, which is immaterial?
A true eternal reality would have to be beyond our limited logic and understanding, meaning that there could be a higher domain of what mere-man decides there is. To comprehend this somewhat, may or may not be attainable for some, but is still a logical pursuit. If logic cannot be applied universally, then logic alone cannot conclude on those who trust in something that is immaterial, because in itself, logic is immaterial. Science does not have the tools or instruments to reach or discover beyond the five senses to prove otherwise.
To boldly proclaim that one field of knowledge has no limitations, or is superior logically, is an unreasonable statement unless a limitation is added.
- Is it reasonable to say that logic has not been capable of solving all the mysteries of the universe? Therefore, a true permanent reality is a plausible notion?
- Has mankind achieved some understanding of the concepts of an immaterial nature?
- Is it rational to say that unless someone offers material proof that an immaterial reality does not exist?
- Is it rational to exclude from science something because is not believed to be sensory?
Science tries to limit “exist” and reduce its definitions within number calculations, instrument measurements, and objective observations.
Science strives to be rational, but has been biased and treated some theories as invalid due to prejudicial opinion. An intellectual trick is often used by the sceptic by saying that material proof must be provided for something immaterial, which is not a rational statement. Definitions are changed to fit the external; anything that is internal, or immaterial, is invalid or not worthy of investigation. I believe it is more plausible that a true-eternal reality influences our material reality. Through experience, our minds grow, develop, and influence in an immaterial sense. Mankind are the receptors from the influx of both time-space and non-time space. The immaterial concepts such as truth, purpose, love and interest would not work without the material to influence. I believe that internal concepts are more real, substantial, and influential than that of an external rock.
- In this context, could it be that the essence of an immaterial eternal power could have created that which is material?
Contemporary science has based a foundation on something dead that created itself, which evolved to life and society as we know it. An explanation of the cause of the universe must be rational, but trying to reduce everything to materialistic state is not so. The mind is immaterial, and the brain is material; when they act together it forms reality. All events that take place in the universe, whether material or immaterial, cannot be ignored or separated. True reality must include both to be rational.
- The Concept of Evil
There is a common deliberation over evil, either God created it, or He didn't. This leaves the question to the origin of evil if God is all-good. If God did not create evil, then who did?
- God in the Concept of Good and Evil
The problem with good and evil are, who is it that really makes the rules and the terms of their definitions?