Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then, no. I don't think stating that his mother died and his father was a clockmaker who abandoned him is related to the bible or any other form of clap trap.
I thought it was interesting, but it had some Christian proselytizing grafted onto it, telling us of our alleged need for the Christian god and mentioning sin several times. But after all, the site admits to seeing things 'from a Biblical perspective', so I expected it. I must say that he treated his children badly.
Did Rousseau (or, if not, who) write: 'Either the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by God- or they were Gods themselves, for it is too profound to be a mere work of man'.
Sorry: I can no longer authenticate the sourse of the quote I asked about, re Rousseau; it's been a number of years since I read it and I didn't record the original source. However, all of the world's 'doubting Thomases' will get to see this 'global Titanic' sink according to specific prophetic details. Dunno if the lifeboat will still be available then- not too many of Noah's generation made it. But for logical evaluation, try this:
CHAPTER ONE
THE AXIOM
I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness;
I did not say . . . Seek me in chaos.
--(Isaiah 5:19 D.S.V.)
There are two possible schools of thought pertaining to the evaluation of the Universe that we live in. One school of thought is embodied in the philosophy known as Solipsism. This philosophy expounds that all external reality is relative to the perception of the individual, or, in other words, all reality is subjective and cannot be described by objective analysis. As an example, Solipsism is the belief that everything that individuals perceive is a projection of the thoughts of their mind. Taken to its fullest implications, Solipsism means that if you think strongly that an object that you perceive does not really exist, then you will cease to perceive it and it will thus disappear. On the other hand, if you think strongly enough that an object does exist, then you will perceive it and it will thus exist. Understandably, the ardent adherents of this school of thought soon lost what sanity they had.
When we lead from ignorance, we can come to no conclusions. When we say, “Anything can happen, and anything can be, because we know so little that we have no right to say ‘This is’ or ‘This isn’t,’” then all reasoning comes to a halt right there. We can eliminate nothing; we can assert nothing. All we can do is put words and thoughts together on the basis of intuition or faith or revelation and, unfortunately, no two people seem to share the same intuition or faith or revelation.
What we must do is place rules and set limits, however arbitrary these may seem to be. We then discover what we can say within these rules and limits. The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations (which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations.1
Most importantly, Einstein presumed that all laws of nature must be entirely equivalent in all conceivable systems of reference, differing only by uniform velocities. Without an ether, reasoned Einstein, there is no real physical basis for absolute spatial positions or orientations; all, therefore, must be relative to the observer. At the same time, all observers must see the many laws of nature in an identical way.2
Science deals only with phenomena that can be reproduced; observations that, under certain fixewd conditions, can be made by anybody of normal intelligencew; observations upon which reasonable men can agree.3
In opposition to Solipsism is the school of thought that objective interpretation of the universe we live in is possible. Since the validity of Solipsism would mean that it would be impossible to make logical sense out of what we are aware of, we will assume that Solipsism is invalid. Bearing this in mind, I propose the following axiom, which we may call the Axiom of Interdependency:
If a “spiritual universe” exists, there likewise must also exist laws or principles common to both such a “spiritual universe” and to the physical universe, in order for us to be able to perceive any manifestation of such a “spiritual universe.”
Notice that this axiom in no way assumes the existence of a spiritual universe. The reason why seeking objective proof of the existence of a spiritual universe is futile will be dealt with in later chapters.
What this axiom does say is that if a spiritual universe exists that does not have laws or principles in common with our physical universe, then we cannot be aware of it and thus it would be of no concern to us. However, if a spiritual universe exists such that we are aware of some of its manifestations, then it will have laws or principles in common with our physical universe. Thus, for any postulated assertion of a spiritual reality, there should be corresponding evidence of that reality reflected in our physical universe. Conversely, it should be possible to formulate a framework of characteristics of the physical universe that will indicate the nature of the corresponding spiritual reality. Practically speaking, this axiom means that it is possible to construct a logical theory encompassing virtually every field of science that will explain the purpose behind everything known to man.
Extrapolation from the explanation of the existence of life
There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.
First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created.
Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point).
The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:...
Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.
What are the implications of such a conclusion?
Such an entity would in all practicality be:
1. Omnipotent and
2. Omniscient and
3. Omnipresent.
Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.
Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.
...
amessageforthehumanrace
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Extrapolation from the explanation of the existence of life
