Posted on 06/23/2008 3:05:46 PM PDT by betty boop
What is Life/Non-life in Nature?
by Jean F. Drew
Everywhere we see the “behavior” of life/non-life (death) in nature; but that doesn’t tell us what life/non-life IS.
Darwin’s theory of evolution doesn’t help with this question. It presupposes the existence of life axiomatically, and then proceeds to speak of the origin and evolution of species. Its fundamental assumption is that biological evolution is a wholly naturalistic, material process governed by the laws of physics and chemistry, with random variation and natural selection as the principal drivers of the system. Central to the Darwinist view is that life forms — species — evolve into completely other, more complex species; and this is so because all living beings are members of a Tree of Life that is rooted in a single common ancestor (the theory is silent on where the common ancestor came from).
But Darwinist theory doesn’t tell us what life is, or where it came from, just how it evolves (or speciates) under purely materialistic and naturalistic constraints. It is not a theory of life, and I think Darwin would agree with that.
This does not prevent theorists from speculating that, given the preferred scientific cosmology of a material universe of infinite size and unlimited duration — no beginning, no end — anything that can happen, will happen in time. Therefore, it is plausible to suppose that life itself may have originated from random chemical reactions that somehow “lucked out” and “stuck,” giving us the origin of life and its ubiquity and persistence henceforth.
The important point is that Darwinism rests on a certain cosmology, or world view. That worldview is increasingly being falsified by modern physics. (See below.)
It seems doubtful that an investigation carried out at the level of physical chemistry can demonstrate the emergence of life from non-living matter. This is called abiogenesis, which describes the situation where non-life (inorganic matter) spontaneously bootstraps itself into a living organism.
Miller and Urey attempted to demonstrate abiogenesis under laboratory conditions, using simulated lightning strikes on a suitable “pre-biotic soup.” They got a bunch of amino acids. But amino acids are the building blocks of living systems, not living systems themselves.
Wimmer got a better result in his attempt to create a polio virus, a living organism. He actually succeeded! But his “recipe” involved far more than the material “cell-free juice” he used as his culture: He introduced information into the mix: Wimmer began with the information sequence of RNA which he synthesized to DNA (because RNA cannot be synthesized) and then synthesized the message from DNA to RNA. When he added the message to a cell free juice, it began transmitting and duplicating. And he got himself a polio virus — a living being….
But the important thing to bear in mind is that, although Wimmer was successful in creating a living being, he was not the author of the information that led to this result. It was already “there” — and no scientist claims to know its source. Indeed, physics so far has been unable to locate any source for this type of life-generating information within the physical world. In other words, scientists recognize the indispensable requirement of information to living systems, they see that it is indeed “there”; but they cannot say how it got there, or from whence it came.
Consider also that the universe itself seems to be “informed,” in the sense of displaying evidence of some remarkable “fine-tuning” that guides its evolution. Physical chemistry itself rests on, is informed by, deeper principles: the physical laws, which in turn depend on certain ubiquitous universal constants — the speed of light; the value of pi; Plank’s constant; Plank time; the resonance precision required for the existence of carbon (a necessary element for life); the explosive power of the Big Bang precisely matched to the power of gravity (its density precisely matched with the critical density of the universe); the delicate balance in the strong nuclear force; the precise balancing of gravitational force and electromagnetic force; the meticulous balance between the number of electrons and protons; the precision in electromagnetic force and the ratio of proton mass to electron mass and neutron mass to proton mass; the Big Bang’s defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and gravity’s cumulative effect; etc., for examples.
If the universe were at bottom “random” in its evolution, these instances of evident fine-tuning would be inexplicable. The fact is we cannot say whether a system is random or not without knowing its symmetrical properties.
The “fans of random” speak and act as if they think the problem of symmetry is irrelevant to their concerns. Yet to the extent that they recognize the universe conforms to physical laws (and usually they do), the symmetry problem cannot be obviated. For laws demonstrate the property of what mathematicians call symmetry. A symmetry of some mathematical object — and the physical laws are inherently mathematical structures — is any transformation that preserves the object’s structure.
A practical application of the principle of symmetry can be found in Einstein’s observation (in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, the same that gave us his magnificent unification of mass and energy, e = mc2) that the laws of nature are the same for all observers, regardless of their particular space-time positions.
It is evident that there are symmetries in nature, and also that mathematics has been amazingly successful in teasing them out. A favorite story is Reimann’s geometry of curved spaces. He “created” this geometry at a time when no one believed that geometry could be other than flat (Euclidean). So Reimann put his geometry on the shelf where it sat for about 50 years, gathering dust. Then a friend of Einstein pointed him to Reimann’s geometry (and Ricci’s tensor) as possible keys to the elucidation of the problems of special relativity. And they exactly did the trick.
Indeed, mathematicians have been so good at doing this sort of thing — creating mathematical systems with an eye to symmetry, and finally beauty — that Eugene Wigner marveled about “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in its ability to model and describe nature.
At this point, it seems useful to widen our purview and revisit cosmology, for now we are speaking of the universe as a whole, and cosmology is the branch of knowledge that deals with the universe as an integrated and (some would say) even living system (in some fashion).
Cosmology is conventionally defined as: (1) a branch of philosophy dealing with the origin, processes, and structure of the universe; and (2), the astrophysical study of the structure and constituent dynamics of the universe, with a particular eye on the construction and modeling of a comprehensive theory that describes such structure and dynamics. The latter is the scientific approach. Note that (2) does not explicitly address the question of origin.
Indeed, questions of origin, both of the universe and of life, seem to be troubling to many scientists. Historically, their preferred cosmology has been the eternal universe model, wherein the universe, thought to be infinite in size, just always was, having no beginning or end; it just goes along in periods of expansions and contractions in a sort of self-conserving “boom and bust” cycle forever (no second law of thermodynamics to bother it).
Now in an infinite, eternal universe, anything can happen. And so this “classical perspective” of biology anticipates that the origin of life involves “random chemicals reacting for eons and finally lucking out, resulting in a living cell coming together,” as Harold Morowitz explains it.
But then satellite observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation starting in the 1960s provided striking evidence that the universe actually had a beginning. That is, it is not eternal, and it is not infinite. The CMBR — which is universal in extent — is thought to be the “echo” of the original “big bang,” which constituted the creation event of the universe in which we live, and which powers the cosmic space-time expansion. Thus the universe truly can be thought to have “initial conditions.”
The troubling thing about the big bang/inflationary universe theory is the suggestion that the universe was either created out of nothing, or if it was created out of something, then there’s no way we can detect or prove that cause. Using a “time-reversal symmetry transformation” here — running evolutionary time “backwards” like a videotape played in reverse — the laws of physics break down at the Planck Era — 10–43 of the first second following the big bang. “Prior” to that, there is no space, no time, no physical laws of nature, no matter; it’s pure nihil: Nothing.
The nothingness “before” the creation of the universe is the most complete void that we can imagine — no space, time or matter existed. It is a world without place, without duration or eternity, without number — it is what the mathematicians call “the empty set.” Yet this unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence — a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into that void? What “tells” the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to a law, a logic that exists prior to space and time. — Heinz Pagels
Which of course is precisely what Genesis says: The Creation is “ex nihilo,” initiated by and proceeding according to the Word, the Logos of God, Who Is the Law of the Void as well as of the Creation, the “logic that exists prior to space and time.”
Evidently this is not a scientific statement, though I believe it is a truthful one. Still it is true that some physicists (and biologists) find the idea of a beginning of space and time out of nothing deeply disturbing for whatever reason. Taking into effect the evidence that leads to this conclusion, some have sought a “non-theistic” explanation for the phenomenon of the Big Bang. This cosmology grudgingly acknowledges that the universe did have a beginning, postulating its origin as a random fluctuation in a universal quantum vacuum field. But of course, this line of reasoning is silent about where the universal vacuum field itself came from in which a random fluctuation can occur, or how time and space got started so that events can occur in it.
This view (non-theistic cosmogenesis) is fallacious, however, because sudden quantum appearances don’t really take place out of “nothing.” A larger quantum field is first required before this can happen, but a quantum field can hardly be described as being “nothing.” Rather, it is a thing of unsearchable order and complexity, whose origin we can’t even begin to explain. Thus, trying to account for the appearance of the universe in a sudden quantum fluctuation doesn’t do away with the need for a Creator at all; it simply moves the whole problem backward one step to the unknown origin of the quantum field itself. — M. A. Corey
Whether your cosmology is philosophical or scientific, ultimately it rests on an unknown that is directly unknowable, a mystery. Scientists just as much as anybody else ponder the origin question, despite the fact that their formal methods cannot help them much there.
Cosmologically speaking, scientists get much better traction with the problem of constructing and modeling a comprehensive theory that describes, not the origin, but the structure and dynamics of the universe. But even here, they run into “mysteries.” Such as evidence for the almost eerie fine-tuning of the universe necessary for the inception, evolution, and support of Life. As Freeman Dyson put it, “The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”
Take just one example from among many, the just mentioned universal vacuum. Because the vacuum is not “nothing,” it has energy, specifically “vacuum energy” — the energy content of empty space. Ian Stewart notes:
As it happens, the observed value [of vacuum energy] is very, very small, around 10–120, but it is not zero.
According to the conventional “fine-tuning” story, this particular value is exactly right for life to exist. Anything larger than 10–118 makes local space-time explode; anything smaller than 10–120 and space-time contracts in a cosmic crunch and disappears. So the “window of opportunity” for life is very small. By a miracle, our universe sits neatly within it.
But Stewart is a tough-minded mathematical scientist, and so evidently feels constrained to add:
The “weak anthropic principle” points out that if our universe were not constituted the way it is, we wouldn’t be here to notice, but that leaves open the question why there is a “here” for us to occupy. The “strong anthropic principle” says that we’re here because the universe was designed specially for life to exist — which is mystical nonsense. No one actually knows what the possibilities would be if the vacuum energy were markedly different from what it is. We know a few things that would go wrong — but we have no idea what might go right instead. Most of the fine-tuning arguments are bogus.”
What a relief that Professor Stewart thinks that only “most” of the fine-tuning arguments are bogus, and not all of them! One of the things likely to “go wrong” under his scenario would be the end of life as we know it on this planet, and with it intelligence. But other than that, his is a respectable argument, even though it would probably be entirely moot under different values for the vacuum energy, since intelligent beings probably would not then be around to entertain it.
There is an abundance of evidence from the precision of the fundamental values of the universe that contradicts the theory that a universe compossible with life can arise (or indeed actually rose) from an “accident.” Just as “nothing comes from nothing,” the laws of nature cannot have been established via a random process. There is nothing implicit in the meaning of “random” that contains any motive spring for it to generate order, organization, higher complexity. It is simply “random”; i.e., it reflects no law in its behavior. The people who say that the universal evolution is nothing more than the effect of a process of matter in its motions and “pure, blind chance” — as Nobel laureate Jacques Monod claims — rely on the same reasoning that says, if life can be spontaneously generated from non-life, then similarly order can come from disorder.
Which is the same sort of problem, it seems to me, involved in all the multiverse and parallel universe and “panspermia” cosmologies one finds littering the landscape these days. The latter — panspermia theory — seems to be a particular favorite of atheists such as Francis Crick and Sir Fred Hoyle.
Panspermia theory holds that life on Earth was seeded here by space aliens. I gather anything that avoids the conclusion that the universe, and Life, is a divine creation, and thus has a spiritual dimension (which would include such things as intelligence, law, information, etc., all the “non-phenomenal” aspects that “tell” phenomena “what to do”) is what is being sought in such fanciful imaginings. Such theories seem ultimately designed to forbid anything that is immaterial from having causal impact in the universe. But if you say that, then where does physical law fit in, where mathematics, or logic, or intelligence, or information? Not to mention the evident universal constants? None of these are material entities.
But the fact regarding these exotic cosmologies is, not a one of them can be falsified, or subjected to replicable experiments. All these cosmologies are works of pure philosophical imagination dressed up in the language of scientific jargon.
However, that doesn’t mean the adherents of such imaginative speculations are bad scientists. Here’s Sir Fred Hoyle, a “non-Darwinian evolutionist,” contented atheist, and honest thinker:
No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning… there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.… the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems… cannot in our view be generated by what are often called “natural” processes,… For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly… There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago.
Information is the key to life, just as it is the key to the fundamental structure and evolution of the universe, from the beginning. One conjectures the universe has the structure and dynamics it has because these were “programmed” in at the beginning. And this structure evidently was primed for life.
Again, this is what Genesis tells us: The Universe has an intelligent cause that is outside of space-time. Physics and biology acknowledge the necessity of information for the rise and maintenance of life, but assign no cause for this information within spatiotemporal reality. But if it cannot be found “there,” then where can it be found?
See Genesis. And consider this observation, from Albert Einstein:
“The natural law reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
Scientists recognize so well that the universe has fundamental structure that they are encouraged to propound “grand unified theories,” GUTs, or “Theories of Everything.” The standard model of physics today recognizes four fundamental forces in nature: the nuclear strong, the nuclear weak, electromagnetism, and gravity. So far, all have been conveniently “reconciled together,” or unified — except for gravity, which continues to resist being fitted into any kind of “grand unified” model thus far.
Regarding the four fundamental forces, here are some more interesting thoughts from Ian Stewart:
Other types of forces could in principle give rise to other types of universe, and our ignorance of such possibilities is almost total. It is often claimed that without the particular forces we have, life would be impossible, proving that our universe is amazingly fine-tuned to make life possible. This argument is bogus, a wild exaggeration based on too limited a view of what constitutes life. Life like ours would be impossible — but it is the height of arrogance to assume that our kind of life is the only kind of organized complexity that could exist. The fallacy here is to confuse sufficient conditions for life (those aspects of our universe on which our kind of life depends) with necessary ones.
It is interesting that here Stewart reduces life to the definition, “organized complexity.” The description appears to be general enough to encompass everything (everything material at least), yet at the same time, is useless to provide insight into the living nature of actual, particular living beings.
Be that as it may, it seems Stewart is working to a doctrine, to a particular world view, in giving his analysis. And he seems to recognize this in what follows:
The view that a Theory of Everything must exist brings to mind monotheist religion — in which, over the millennia, disparate collections of gods and goddesses with their own special domains have been replaced by one god whose domain is everything. This process is widely viewed as an advance, but it resembles a standard philosophical error known as “the equation of unknowns” in which the same cause is assigned to all mysterious phenomena…. “Explanations” like this give a false sense of progress — we used to have three mysteries to explain; now we have just one. But the one new mystery conflates three separate ones, which might well have entirely different explanations. By conflating them, we blind ourselves to this possibility.
When you explain the Sun by a sun-god and rain by a rain-god, you can endow each god with its own special features. But if you insist that both Sun and rain are controlled by the same god, then you may end up trying to force two different things into the same straightjacket. So in some ways fundamental physics is more like fundamentalist physics. Equations [brief enough to fit] on a T-shirt replace an immanent deity, and the unfolding of the consequences of those equations replaces divine intervention in daily life.
Despite these reservations, my heart is with the physical fundamentalists. I would like to see a Theory of Everything, and I would be delighted if it were mathematical, beautiful, and true. I think religious people might also approve, because they could interpret it as proof of the exquisite taste and intelligence of their deity.
Exactly so — that would be my takeaway!
To sum up, it appears that a model of the universe that stipulates that all that exists — life and non-life — is simply the product of random transformations of “matter in its motions” has been falsified by modern physics. To the extent that information — which presupposes intelligence — plays a role, we have to acknowledge that other, immaterial factors are at work. Which of course we do, to the extent we realize and acknowledge the universal existence of physical laws, of finely-tuned cosmic values, and of the symmetries in nature. To do so, we have to put a check on randomness as a possible explanation for the nature or structure of things.
But we cannot eliminate randomness altogether. In the final analysis, it seems to me the universe lives in the dynamic tension that obtains between that which is changeless (the symmetry), and that which is changeable (a symmetry-breaking event). Or as Leibniz put it, at the level of fundamental universal principles the universe must consist of something that does not ever change, and something that is capable of changing.
For example, consider the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The first is a conservation law — matter cannot be either created or destroyed — that is, matter is unchangeable; i.e., it is “symmetrical” under all known conditions. The second law “breaks the symmetry” of the first; and if it couldn’t do that, then probably nothing would ever happen in our universe.
The most amazing thing to me is that evidently, as a consequence of such a fundamental tension, we live in a “guided” universe, but not a wholly deterministic one.
And the Guide does not seem to reside in the system — at least, as far as science can tell.
Thus it seems to me if the Guide could construct a universe finely-tuned and primed for life on the most global scale — i.e., that of the whole universe — then it should be child’s play for this Source to prime and guide any living (or non-living) sub-unit of the universe — preeminently biological creatures; and of these, Man above all.
Given that the universe evidently has been left deliberately incompletely determined, or underdetermined (Planck’s constant reminds us of this), then not only the “free development” of nature has been left intact (subject only to the natural symmetries), but so also has human free will been left wholly intact.
Given the splendors of natural reality, and the uncanny facility that man has for exploring and understanding them, really all I can say is: I am on my knees in gratitude, thanks, and praise, and all glory be to God — in Whom we live and move and have our Being.
Good point.. Without "a" Holy Spirit you would be exactly correct.. even WITH a Holy Spirit.. you've defined "faith".. The corollary would be "faith" in what?..
WHat if ideas originate NOT in the brain but in the spirit.. and the human brain is mechanical like a "telephone".. and just transduces ideas relaying them.. from the spiritual dimension/realm to the fleshly/material realm/ one..
Well, let’s look at that for a moment. What you’ve hit upon is the dichotomy, where the soul of life is supposed to be outside of spacetime of the lifeless structures like molecules, yet the act of conceptualizing is spread out over hundreds of thousands of cells in the brain generating electromagnetic signals, which when considered together through interaction achieve a conceptualization ‘back’ to the non-physical soul of life. The very act of conceptualizing appears to be an emergent phenomenon achieved throguh the interaction of a very large number of non-conscious elements having some level of life as units in an organism having consciousness individuality based upon connected smaller non-conscious units.
And what if divine revelation isn't the highest form of knowledge?
Thanks, I'll stick to what can be observed in some way and leave to you metaphysics and religion and other intangibles.
ps. I think Jack London, quoted upthread, may have a point, eh?
Jack London, The Iron Heel, 1908This one's better. From an interview of Richard Feynman in Omni magazine, 1979:
It isn't the philosohpy that gets me, it's the pomposity. If they'd just laugh at themselves! If they'd just say, "I think it's like this, but von Leipzig thought it was like that, and he had a good shot at it, too." If they'd explain that this is their best guess... But so few of them do; instead, they seize on the possibility that there may not be any ultimate fundamental particle, and say that you should stop work and ponder with great profundity. "You haven't thought deeply enough, first let me define the world for you." Well, I'm going to investigate it without defining it!Mostly because it lacks the, er... "pomposity" of socialist London.
The typical human problem, and one whose answer religion aims to supply, is always of the following form: Should I do this? Should we do this? Should the government do this? To answer this question we can resolve it into two parts: First--If I do this, what will happen?--and second--Do I want that to happen? What would come of it of value--of good?Now, there is plenty regarding religion in this talk with which I would take issue (to his credit, however, he admits in the introductory remarks his "very evident lack of knowledge and understanding of religion") but the part I quoted above is particularly perspicacious... especially for an atheist! :)
Now a question of the form: If I do this, what will happen? is strictly scientific. As a matter of fact, science can be defined as a method for, and a body of information obtained by, trying to answer only questions which can be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally, is: Try it and see. Then you put together a large amount of information from such experiences. All scientists will agree that a question--any question, philosophical or other--which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment (or, in simple terms, that cannot be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen?) is not a scientific question; it is outside the realm of science.
I claim that whether you want something to happen or not--what value there is in the result, and how you judge the value of the result (which is the other end of the question: Should I do this?), must lie outside of science because it is not a question that you can answer only by knowing what happens; you still have to judge what happens--in a moral way. So, for this theoretical reason I think that there is a complete consistency between the moral view--or the ethical aspect of religion--and scientific information.
Ping to 465.
Thus the reasoning of a person living in a "second reality" may be self-consistent to him but in truth - woefully incomplete, a fantasy and flat wrong.
If people were like oysters then "second realities" would be understandable. How could an oyster be expected to know what is on the other side of the island much less what is above the water?
Yet human beings are not "oysters." We are called to greater things....
Dearest sister in Christ, what a brilliant description of the phenomenon of the "second reality" — and its main implication (i.e., the "oyster scenario")! Thank you oh so very much!
The main problem with second realities is the nasty habit they have of becoming "socially effective." We wouldn't mind so much (perhaps) if a person chooses to "will himself" out of the common reality by opting for such reduced schemes of it, were it not for the fact that "no man is an island" (i.e., "no man is an oyster"). That is to say, such personal acts have wider social ramifications.
Second realities are alternative realities. People might ask: Alternative to what? Basically the answer to that question is: alternative to key common understandings of humankind facing their existential contingency and mortality as men, as developed over several millennia, regarding the nature of the world and man's place in it.
Perhaps the most acute example of a second reality we could give would be Marxism. Yet "isms" in general are always suspect. Common with Marxism, all "isms" finally seem to reduce to problems/opportunities of transfers of power, influence, and authority in society. Thus any second reality is instantly "at war" with First reality at the individual and social levels.
But how to describe "First reality?" Judeo-Christian theology (though not Islam), and classical philosophy as well, both recognize that First reality is constituted as a great hierarchy of being: God–Man–world–society. That is of four participants constantly mutually engaged with each other in a dynamic world process evolving in time, yet always evolving against and within the "background" of a divine order given as Logos (Christianity), or as Nous (Plato et al.).
Science itself arose on this millennial tradition, which also happens to be the foundation of Western — and thus, of American — culture.
At this point, one wants to probe the psychology of the person who finds a second reality attractive in the first place.
On my view, such ready acceptance depends on the sheer refusal to engage reality as it is. There is too much uncertainly, too much pain, too much contingency in the human condition; and then we die. Reality itself seems to be basically "unfair" on the view of the modern Lotus Eater, who has utopian plans to rectify the deficiencies of the original creation, and would do so, if only he can gain sufficient power and influence....
You noted the association between second reality and spiritual disorder. This recognition has a heritage in Plato, who called this spiritual disease nosos; in Aristotle, it was called nosemos; and in Cicero, aspernatio rationalis, or the "refusal to apperceive reality" (which MHGinTN has felicitously termed, "the absolute refusal to engage the patently obvious." Bravo and kudos, MHGinTN! That's "spot-on!")
Sigh.... Well, that seems to be where we're all AT, at the moment. Just take a look at the Obama campaign for a "school" in the ins-and-outs of the "second reality business".... If you're paying attention, you'll already have noted how very often this campaign sacrifices truthful statements to political expediency.... "Isms" must work that way; for they are cut off from foundational Reality in the first place; and they always have their ambitions to realize.... Their claim that "the end justifies the means" gives them an ersatz legitimacy that justifies literally anything they may choose to undertake.
As for me, I think it's a really bad idea to give the keys to the asylum to the lunatics residing within. Yet it seems that today, many others don't see this as a deeply dangerous problem....
Anyhoot, thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your absolutely splendid essay/post!
You are fishing for an answer supporting your religious belief that these rights are bestowed by some deity.
Don't you have to show some evidence for such a deity before you can start assigning attributes and attributing munificence?
As to your other question, most human groups still operate largely at the tribal level. This is the result of millions of years of evolution. It is only in the past few hundred, or thousands, or years that large-scale travel was possible whereby members of one tribe encountered members of other tribes in large numbers. I would suggest that many of our customs are still adapting to catch up with our technology.
Rarely has Charles Darwin and Karl Marx been toyed with, with so unkind a slap..
The Iceholes deserve it too..
Still, we must pray for the Iceholes.
Did you ever read Francis Schaefer’s
The God Who Is There?
If no God Almighty were there . . . one set of contingencies.
Given that God Almighty IS THERE and here and everywhere, as David said . . .
THAT makes ALL the difference.
His BEING, HIS WORD are the ultimate reality. All else is being brought into alignment with His Being, His Word . . . or suffering the consequences . . . which is also coming into alignment with His Being, His Word.
INDEED.
And even some who have ears to hear need to take hot shower water to the wax in their ears.
IMHO, FWIW: On the basis of the evidence you present, Jack London is clearly suffering from an extreme case of nosos. Which is to say he has no point that a rational (i.e., sane) person needs to consider at all. It is all "sound and fury, signifying Nothing."
Individuals are convinced of all kinds of things.
Jimmy Stewart’s character was convinced of the big rabbit Harvey’s existence.
Jihadi’s are convinced of umpteen virgins awaiting them.
Some globalist leaders are reportedly convinced of satan that satan will defeat Almighty God at Armageddon.
Lots of folks are convinced there’s absolutely no globalist conspiracy at all.
Lots of folks are convinced that the USA is not self-sufficient in oil reserves for another 300-400 years.
Folks have gotten on a train convinced emphatically that they were going to end up in D.C. and ended up in New York.
Reality matters. Ultimate Reality about God matters ultimately emphatically and . . . terminally in a sense or three.
Thankfully, God articulates in the New Testament . . . testable assertions. Even in the Old Testament, we are encouraged to open our mouths wide and ask largely of Him.
God has engineered this boot camp such that there is sufficient reason for doubt such that choice is an authentic choice.
Yet, there is sufficient solid grounds for faith . . . for those who dare to trust that God is; that He said what He meant; that He follows through on what He said.
And He does. Every time—regardless of temporal and temporary appearances.
[ Science relies on the belief in evidence — and on the belief in the scientific method. ]
Exactly.. well said.. very well said..
All global and local views by humans, any humans are based in faith in something..
Even calculated guesses are based in accepted peripheral data..
= = =
Well put.
WHat if ideas originate NOT in the brain but in the spirit.. and the human brain is mechanical like a “telephone”.. and just transduces ideas relaying them.. from the spiritual dimension/realm to the fleshly/material realm/ one..
==
Have often thought that must be at least partially true.
Well, come to think of it I might elaborate on Plato just a tad further. He didn't believe in "shadows" per se; he believed in forms of divine provenance....
Agreed.
Though . . . technically . . .
electrical along the axon and chemical between nerve cells at the synaptic cleft.
Scripture has been emphatically true about
—tangible mundane reality that I observe
—other individuals
—other groups
—the man in my mirror.
No other source or collection of inputs comes close to such accuracy in my 61 years.
Agreed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.