...

A while back an epiphany struck me. With monkeys on typewriters having a chance to smash the keys in the form of Shakespeare's Complete Works... what does that say about Schizophrenia? Bear with me.

A schizophrenic might hallucinate something entirely random, to the point where the hallucination might be a duplicate of what someone with extrasensory perception might see. I have three cones in my eyes, and with four cones I might be able to view ultraviolet light. In a hypothetical I could take hallucinogens and see forms exactly in the shape of where ultraviolet light is, with no more than three cones.

There's a term for this in philosophy called 'Gettier Cases'. I think of them as 'true beliefs that have zero empirical or logical connection to the believer'. It's as though a con artist could convince you it's going to rain and then it somehow ends up raining. In that interim before it rains where you're fully convinced it will... you have a logically unjustifiable true belief.

So let's say, hypothetically, someone takes mushrooms and hears exactly what God would tell them in that moment EVEN IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST IN THAT UNIVERSE. If God were to exist then the words heard by the subject would be identical in that moment in time to words randomly generated by a hallucinating brain in a world where God doesn't exist. If brains can do this at any point then God might as well exist.*

There's a caveat to this concept: Determinism. This idea only works if God is a mechanism that we can trust to always give the same output if given the proper input. 'God' in this logic puzzle has no autonomy, and might as well be considered a program ran within a simulation. What if this 'God' were instead fundamentally unpredictable? With autonomy the same input could cause any output.

When we account for an autonomous 'God' it gets very difficult to logically prove eir existence. Logic falls short at defining things we can't expect. Empirical science depends on other scientists reading papers and replicating the results with exacting precision. Autonomy doesn't work like that -- it doesn't guarantee the same thing every time. Faith is required to believe.

All Logic can offer us is 'certified anomalies' and things yet to be explained. "Science can only tell us no." The religion within Science is the faith "It's been explained so many times before that it's sure to be explained this time." when that's not a logical argument. It's all like betting on horses in a race -- at a certain point you're just putting your money down just because you feel like it.

I think there's a leap of faith in believing anything, and I think that those things we leap of faith into are all aspects of God. It's like each and every one of us have an angle on a dekeract, and we're trying our best to map it out in three dimensions. We need the scientists just like how we need deep meditation. One tells us about the things God makes, and the other makes us one with the process of making them.