Pragmatic Proof of God (Part II)

Abstract

Under the panoply that natural science and theology are not mutually exclusive, but opposite ends of a broad spectrum of human epistemology; what constitutes a pragmatic proof of God? The most primitive tool of epistemology, Myth and Superstition, which guided civilization for thousands of years, still exists to a surprising degree in modern cultures. The second tool, Logic and Reason can produce egregiously valid arguments both for and against the existence of God. The third tool of epistemology, empiricism, since Galileo has been the basis of modern experimental science; but the challenge of repeatability remains between objective and subjective modes of measurement and some experiments are deemed impossible to perform.  The fourth tool, completing epistemology, transcendence, perhaps had secular origin in the noetic writings of ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It has always been possible to demonstrate the existence of God utilizing this fourth tool of epistemology, but because transcendence is generally subjective; it has not been acceptable by current definitions of pragmatic science or to nonbelievers unwilling/unable to achieve the required state-of-mind. Because of the lack of a rigorous model for a Physics of the Observer, and limitations imposed by the quantum uncertainty principle; the currently available tools of physical science have not allowed an objectively oriented empirical proof of God. This however, changes to an arguable degree with the addition of the 3^rd regime of Natural Science - Unified Field Mechanics (Classical-Quantum-UFM). The Perennial Philosophy promotes the idea that all world religions are based on a single universal truth that promotes spiritual union with God. Stated another way, the Perennial Philosophy says: If there is a God he has provided a way for Man to find him. In this work, we review logical and metaphysical methods of fulfilling this premise; but most saliently provide an empirical protocol that for the first time in history is able to demonstrate the existence of a Life Principle tantamount to the Spirit of God as a physically real noumenon, hidden until now behind the uncertainty principle. Although this represents a major step forward, there remains ineffable properties of the Spirit of God unknowable to a temporal mind; and the subtleties of a new physical UFM noetic action principle will remain engendered with concomitant bias of interpretation in what is demonstrated depending on whether one is inclined or disinclined to believe in the existence of God. Ultimately mystical experience provides the only proof of God.

Part II of this two-part article includes: 4. Post Scholum – Final Ratiocination; Appendix: Methodology Breaking Down 1st Person 3rd Person Barrier; and References.