I do not consider myself anything more than an amateur philosopher. Though I do have a college degree, I have no degree in philosophy. I never saw such a degree as being practical or a valuable use of one's time and effort. I mean, what would such a major teach you except to look at things in a certain way.
Do not get me wrong, I am not ignorant of the major known philosophies such as existentialism, epicureanism, hedonism, and pragmatism, but I find the study of logic to be far more practical in arguing truth and knowledge. Logic is what I prefer to base my ideas upon, not the sophistic ideas of philosophy. Sophism is a convolution of ideas and theories that confuse, rather than solve, our deepest questions and spiritual longings.
When a person refers to someone as being "sophisticated," they are usually referring to that person's finer tastes and deeper way of thinking. However, the root of "sophistication" comes from sophism which means:
1. a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone.
2. any false argument; fallacy. (Dictionary(dot)com)
This is what many scientists do, whether they know it or not: they have an idea of how things are and search for evidence to support their beliefs. They develop sophisticated theories to explain the world as they see it. Many of their theories defy logic and are sometimes highly specious, but they insist that these theories must be more reasonable than the alternative, stating that when the impossible has been eliminated, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth. This sounds like a logical way of approaching a question or mystery, but the biggest mistake is assuming what is possible and what is impossible.
In this universe, far more exists that is unknown than that which is known or even can be known. In other words, how foolish we become when we insist that nothing exists if it can not be quantified or analyzed with an instrument. To think in such a way is not only foolish, but arrogant.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that we should believe every "wind of doctrine" or person claiming to have seen a UFO or ghost. That would be taking foolishness to the other extreme. However, we should use logic and reasoning that does not rule out anything before the process of deduction even begins. The concept of assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty should stand just as firm in science as it does in the court system. We should not exclude the possibility of God's existence until that existence has been thoroughly disproven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
Sadly, the opposite is usually the case. Scientists and skeptics assert that since we can not prove God's existence then He must not exist. Some other explanation must account for all that has transpired since the beginning of the universe.And, just as sadly, untold numbers of theories and sophisticated fallacies are all that can fill in the void. These explanations range from the Big Bang Theory, a theory in which all that exists came from a point in space smaller than an atom, to the Theory of Evolution, which many make reference to as authoritative and irrefutable fact.
Of course, I could maybe believe the Big Bang Theory...maybe. Yes, I could possibly be convinced of such a theory.....but wait a second, the very fact that I even exist to be persuaded at all defies any attempt at persuasion, at least as far as I am concerned.What I mean is that if all that existed were physical objects and energy and laws of physics, then maybe some of the theories that scientists hold so dearly might make sense.But there will always be a stumbling block to a sure and irrefutable scientific argument for the genesis of all that exists. This stumbling block is Life itself.
All that exists testifies to the fact that life is by design. Nothing that exists has ever happened by accident. People have accidents, complex biological systems do not. To say that a system as complex as the human body developed over millions of years by accident is truly absurd. It should take only a little bit of logical reasoning to discount such a scenario.
Let us take for instance the natural process of reproduction. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that somehow a series of accidents occurred that produced a living organism. What then? Would it just automatically have an inbuilt need to reproduce? Not necessarily. Why not? Because a whole new series of accidents would have to occur before reproduction could take place. So what happens meanwhile? Certainly not reproduction. The Series of Miraculous Accidents never decreed that the living organism should go forth and multiply. Why would it? Why must a series of accidents absolutely have to culminate in a creature that can reproduce its own kind? Nature has been likened to a mother, but she is an indifferent mother for sure. By this I mean that nature has no mind or will or awareness to direct these accidents to produce a meaningful result, much less a meaningful result that can reproduce itself.
What are we left with then? A creature that lives and dies and returns to the ground from which it sprang. Then nature must start the series of extremely improbable accidents all over again. Scientists claim Earth is billions of years old, but for these series of accident to take place successfully billions of years would be a drop in the ocean compared to the time it would actually take. It would be more like a billion to the billionth power to the billionth power to the billionth power. And if anything, this is a serious underestimation.
Now, let us suppose that nature has produced a successfully reproductive living organism. The next stumbling block is far more of an obstacle than even producing a living breathing reproductive creature from a series of near infinite years of accidents. This obstacle is consciousness.
The idea that complexity makes something closer to a higher form of thought and awareness occurs repeatedly in science fiction. Star Trek, for example, has an android named Data that constantly questions what it is to be human and eventually comes to understand and therefore become more human. The character that Gene Roddenberry created is quite charming and endearing......so endearing that the viewer is put off guard to this sophistic fallacy that complexity breeds consciousness. This very detailed and complex robot was designed and built to behave and reason as a human individual, therefore (according to the storyline of the show) the inevitable result would be that it grows into its proper role as a sentient being. But, realistically, can we expect a puppet or even a self-sustaining and self-diagnostic robot to develop consciousness just because it resembles a sentient being?
If we are to believe that complexity breeds self-awareness, then we must ask, "What amount of complexity, exactly, constitutes a sufficient catalyst for self-awareness?" This is truly an unanswerable question. What scientific experiment can possibly determine the level of complexity needed to develop higher brain functions, or even develop a brain at all? Just because something is biological doesn't mean that it will, or even can, develop a brain.
Look at plants. Scientists have determined that plants do not have an intelligence as we know it. They merely respond to stimuli in their environment. They do not choose where they will be planted. They do not choose when to turn their petals and leaves toward the sun. They are basically slaves to chemical processes (but even to use the word "slave" is inappropriate since this word implies having a will that can be subverted).
Speaking of plants, this brings me to my next topic of consideration. Not only are we to believe that a biological organism can spring up from inert matter, reproduce itself, and develop a consciousness (not necessarily in that order) through a series of serendipitous accidents, but are we to also believe that two completely different forms of life can spring up simultaneously through this same process and be dependent upon each other so completely.
Yes, I said simultaneously. There is no other way for the process to develop since both components of the process of the Oxygen-Carbon Dioxide Cycle are interdependent. Without one side of the cycle, the other will die out shortly (relatively speaking, considering the amount of time necessary to evolve). If plants do not have a steady source of carbon dioxide, then they will die. If animals do not have a steady supply of oxygen, then they will die.
Now we have added to our dilemma. How can two systems develop simultaneously when they are dependent on each other? I mean, do they both start out providing what the other needs from day one? They'd better, or else neither one stands any chance of surviving long enough to develop the process of reproduction over the millions of years that the evolutionary process states that they require.
I'm sure someone is thinking, "They would use the abundant supply of oxygen or carbon dioxide (whichever the case may be) that is already present in the atmosphere, of course. DUH!." Very good observation, except for one problem. Don't forget that the process of evolution takes millions of years to produce a meaningful result. In that amount of time, the organism will have used up the reserve of oxygen or carbon dioxide and will have suffocated on its own waste product without a renewable source of oxygen or carbon dioxide (again, whichever the case may be).
Even if scientists can come up with an explanation for any one of these dilemmas, how can we reasonably believe that the end result, as we know it today, came about through a series of accidents. Alone, each of these stumbling blocks is formidable, but when combined they truly stop us in our tracks and make us think. Ask yourself if you are holding on to the belief that life developed over millions of years because the idea really makes sense or are you holding onto it because you have a preconceived notion of the non-existence of a designer?
Do not get me wrong, I am not ignorant of the major known philosophies such as existentialism, epicureanism, hedonism, and pragmatism, but I find the study of logic to be far more practical in arguing truth and knowledge. Logic is what I prefer to base my ideas upon, not the sophistic ideas of philosophy. Sophism is a convolution of ideas and theories that confuse, rather than solve, our deepest questions and spiritual longings.
When a person refers to someone as being "sophisticated," they are usually referring to that person's finer tastes and deeper way of thinking. However, the root of "sophistication" comes from sophism which means:
1. a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone.
2. any false argument; fallacy. (Dictionary(dot)com)
This is what many scientists do, whether they know it or not: they have an idea of how things are and search for evidence to support their beliefs. They develop sophisticated theories to explain the world as they see it. Many of their theories defy logic and are sometimes highly specious, but they insist that these theories must be more reasonable than the alternative, stating that when the impossible has been eliminated, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth. This sounds like a logical way of approaching a question or mystery, but the biggest mistake is assuming what is possible and what is impossible.
In this universe, far more exists that is unknown than that which is known or even can be known. In other words, how foolish we become when we insist that nothing exists if it can not be quantified or analyzed with an instrument. To think in such a way is not only foolish, but arrogant.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that we should believe every "wind of doctrine" or person claiming to have seen a UFO or ghost. That would be taking foolishness to the other extreme. However, we should use logic and reasoning that does not rule out anything before the process of deduction even begins. The concept of assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty should stand just as firm in science as it does in the court system. We should not exclude the possibility of God's existence until that existence has been thoroughly disproven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
Sadly, the opposite is usually the case. Scientists and skeptics assert that since we can not prove God's existence then He must not exist. Some other explanation must account for all that has transpired since the beginning of the universe.And, just as sadly, untold numbers of theories and sophisticated fallacies are all that can fill in the void. These explanations range from the Big Bang Theory, a theory in which all that exists came from a point in space smaller than an atom, to the Theory of Evolution, which many make reference to as authoritative and irrefutable fact.
Of course, I could maybe believe the Big Bang Theory...maybe. Yes, I could possibly be convinced of such a theory.....but wait a second, the very fact that I even exist to be persuaded at all defies any attempt at persuasion, at least as far as I am concerned.What I mean is that if all that existed were physical objects and energy and laws of physics, then maybe some of the theories that scientists hold so dearly might make sense.But there will always be a stumbling block to a sure and irrefutable scientific argument for the genesis of all that exists. This stumbling block is Life itself.
All that exists testifies to the fact that life is by design. Nothing that exists has ever happened by accident. People have accidents, complex biological systems do not. To say that a system as complex as the human body developed over millions of years by accident is truly absurd. It should take only a little bit of logical reasoning to discount such a scenario.
Let us take for instance the natural process of reproduction. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that somehow a series of accidents occurred that produced a living organism. What then? Would it just automatically have an inbuilt need to reproduce? Not necessarily. Why not? Because a whole new series of accidents would have to occur before reproduction could take place. So what happens meanwhile? Certainly not reproduction. The Series of Miraculous Accidents never decreed that the living organism should go forth and multiply. Why would it? Why must a series of accidents absolutely have to culminate in a creature that can reproduce its own kind? Nature has been likened to a mother, but she is an indifferent mother for sure. By this I mean that nature has no mind or will or awareness to direct these accidents to produce a meaningful result, much less a meaningful result that can reproduce itself.
What are we left with then? A creature that lives and dies and returns to the ground from which it sprang. Then nature must start the series of extremely improbable accidents all over again. Scientists claim Earth is billions of years old, but for these series of accident to take place successfully billions of years would be a drop in the ocean compared to the time it would actually take. It would be more like a billion to the billionth power to the billionth power to the billionth power. And if anything, this is a serious underestimation.
Now, let us suppose that nature has produced a successfully reproductive living organism. The next stumbling block is far more of an obstacle than even producing a living breathing reproductive creature from a series of near infinite years of accidents. This obstacle is consciousness.
The idea that complexity makes something closer to a higher form of thought and awareness occurs repeatedly in science fiction. Star Trek, for example, has an android named Data that constantly questions what it is to be human and eventually comes to understand and therefore become more human. The character that Gene Roddenberry created is quite charming and endearing......so endearing that the viewer is put off guard to this sophistic fallacy that complexity breeds consciousness. This very detailed and complex robot was designed and built to behave and reason as a human individual, therefore (according to the storyline of the show) the inevitable result would be that it grows into its proper role as a sentient being. But, realistically, can we expect a puppet or even a self-sustaining and self-diagnostic robot to develop consciousness just because it resembles a sentient being?
If we are to believe that complexity breeds self-awareness, then we must ask, "What amount of complexity, exactly, constitutes a sufficient catalyst for self-awareness?" This is truly an unanswerable question. What scientific experiment can possibly determine the level of complexity needed to develop higher brain functions, or even develop a brain at all? Just because something is biological doesn't mean that it will, or even can, develop a brain.
Look at plants. Scientists have determined that plants do not have an intelligence as we know it. They merely respond to stimuli in their environment. They do not choose where they will be planted. They do not choose when to turn their petals and leaves toward the sun. They are basically slaves to chemical processes (but even to use the word "slave" is inappropriate since this word implies having a will that can be subverted).
Speaking of plants, this brings me to my next topic of consideration. Not only are we to believe that a biological organism can spring up from inert matter, reproduce itself, and develop a consciousness (not necessarily in that order) through a series of serendipitous accidents, but are we to also believe that two completely different forms of life can spring up simultaneously through this same process and be dependent upon each other so completely.
Yes, I said simultaneously. There is no other way for the process to develop since both components of the process of the Oxygen-Carbon Dioxide Cycle are interdependent. Without one side of the cycle, the other will die out shortly (relatively speaking, considering the amount of time necessary to evolve). If plants do not have a steady source of carbon dioxide, then they will die. If animals do not have a steady supply of oxygen, then they will die.
Now we have added to our dilemma. How can two systems develop simultaneously when they are dependent on each other? I mean, do they both start out providing what the other needs from day one? They'd better, or else neither one stands any chance of surviving long enough to develop the process of reproduction over the millions of years that the evolutionary process states that they require.
I'm sure someone is thinking, "They would use the abundant supply of oxygen or carbon dioxide (whichever the case may be) that is already present in the atmosphere, of course. DUH!." Very good observation, except for one problem. Don't forget that the process of evolution takes millions of years to produce a meaningful result. In that amount of time, the organism will have used up the reserve of oxygen or carbon dioxide and will have suffocated on its own waste product without a renewable source of oxygen or carbon dioxide (again, whichever the case may be).
Even if scientists can come up with an explanation for any one of these dilemmas, how can we reasonably believe that the end result, as we know it today, came about through a series of accidents. Alone, each of these stumbling blocks is formidable, but when combined they truly stop us in our tracks and make us think. Ask yourself if you are holding on to the belief that life developed over millions of years because the idea really makes sense or are you holding onto it because you have a preconceived notion of the non-existence of a designer?
