Nothingness, the absence of
matter and energy. In the Nothingness,
only logical, mathematical principles exist, only reason exists independent of
the mind to comprehend it(1). Spontaneously, a physical object
appears out of the Nothingness, the simplest of atoms – hydrogen with one
proton and one electron. Another atom
appears from the Nothingness(2)(3).
It is at this point that physics is born as it requires the existence of
matter and/or energy to interact.
Physical changes begin to bring about chemicals, which then undergo chemical
changes resulting in the birth of chemistry.
When blind forces bring together the necessary chemicals to produce
complex amino acids yielding proteins, these gather unbidden into a vacuum
where lightning strikes and a living, single cell organism is born along with
biology(4).
(1) Reason and logic must necessarily exist to
govern nature even in the Nothingness otherwise a conundrum exists in that reason
must be utilized in order to develop the ability to reason which is circular. These include the fundamental principles of
cause and effect, rational thought, and mathematical axioms. The potential for
the supernatural is dismissed from consideration in the premise of this
argument, though were the supernatural being to exist, there is no obligation
for reason and logic to preexist the supernatural being as they could be
resultant from such.
(2) The origins as stated defy the physical Laws
of the Conservation of Matter and the Conservation of Energy, which state that
neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. Matter and energy can be transferred from one
form to another, but neither can be naturally created from or obliterated to
the Nothingness. Therefore, these
origins are necessarily supernatural, which contradicts the premise.
(3) The origins, as described here, ignore the
argument of eternal existence of matter and/or energy. This position presented by philosophers as
early as Aristotle resolves the messy supernatural forces required to overcome
the physical laws in some respects, but it is a complex explanation as well
since one must now reconcile the origin of the origin. Specifically when discussing the age of the
universe (see the section on Time), if matter is eternal, then in fact, the
universe is ageless. Some philosophers
have argued that matter is absolutely eternal; others have argued that matter
is absolutely not eternal; and still others have argued that we cannot know
whether matter is eternal or not and either position requires faith. Assertion of the eternal existence of matter
does not negate the argument presented herein.
The origin denoted here as the Nothingness could be replaced with the
Lifelessness.
(4) If these chemicals were to exist by process
of these origins, and then were to react in order to produce the necessary amino
acids and proteins, the odds of gathering all of these proteins in the proper
proportions in a vacuum where lightning could strike without an intentional
design is beyond astronomical. The
absence of an intelligent mind to orchestrate this event means that elements
would randomly combine repeatedly without learning from previous errant combinations.
EVOLUTION
The single cell organism evolves
into complex organisms by effecting one small change at a time(5). This process continues until some of these
become sentient beings. The singularity
has occurred. Once this stage has been
reached, evolution must necessarily be divided into two branches: unconscious
and conscious.
(5) Consider how the evolutionary process
would function on a computer program.
Imagine the program is alive and once the program fails to compile, it
dies and the entire program must be randomly reconstructed. Each character of the program is one
evolutionary step. Can a small change be
made and the program still survive?
No. Assuming that somehow the
evolutionary process was able to write three lines of functional code to
produce this living program, once one character of code is added, the program
fails. [Ignore the very basic assumption
that the origins above also had to produce an environment that could sustain,
compile, and interpret the code.] This
process of making one small change at a time assumes that the evolutionary
process has some memory of historical success and failure so that it can not
only randomly return to this same position in evolutionary progress, but it can
now make more than one single change at a time.
WAR OF TWO NATURES
With the singularity, psychology
is born. Once a group of sentient beings
forms a community, sociology is born. These
members of the new community alter themselves and manipulate others. Consider the occurrence of winter;
unconscious evolutionary processes could effect change over generations of
species while conscious evolutionary processes could effect immediate change. Unconscious evolution will preserve only the
physically fit through the process of natural selection. Conscious evolution allows for the protection
of a larger portion of the population. A
species of birds may evolve to winter with additional feathers over generations
if the species were to stay in one location and experience the severity of the
weather in which many individuals would perish.
On the other hand, the same species may consciously learn to migrate protecting
themselves and allowing the weaker of the species to continue to
reproduce. With such observation, it
becomes apparent that, at the very least, sentient beings can weaken their own
species physically by the very nature of the mental strength evolution has
bestowed upon them. Interesting.
In the animal kingdom (and by
this the author means to exclude human kind, though through the bases of this
argument there is no such distinction), conscious manipulation of others inside
the species is displayed through physical strength – as the beating of the
chest, the stamping of the hooves, the honking sounds, etc. as well as mental
deception as the hiding from prey – though these latter may primarily be a
result of using unconscious physical evolution to one’s own advantage by sheer
accident rather than by true intelligence.
In the human species it is
readily observed that manipulation is used in various forms unidentified in the
animal kingdom – physical, psychological, mental, sexual, emotional. If the knowledge of oneself that sentient beings
possess does in fact grant a species the ability to physically weaken itself as
postulated, then humankind is the greatest offender as we have gone beyond
physical alterations on moving, layering clothing, and building shelters; we
have devised chemical means to support the weaker members of our species and
beyond that we have formed social constructs to protect the weak. In fact, we find that conscious evolution is
at war with unconscious evolution. Once
the product of unconscious evolution becomes a sentient being, it has the
ability to will itself (singularity); it has the faculties to consciously make
changes which counteract unconscious evolution.
The two evolutionary forces are at war with each other, and mankind is
the primary offender. Humans go so far
as to prevent evolutionary extinction of other species – fighting against
nature itself.
NATURAL
Given these origins, everything that
exists originated from the Nothingness.
Everything that exists evolved from the Nothingness. Everything that exists must then necessarily
be natural. The bird’s feathers are a
product of unconscious evolution. The
migration patterns of the bird are a product of conscious evolution. Both are equally natural. Can we qualify one as good or bad? How would we measure this attribute? We could use the evolutionary scale of
survival equals good and extinction equals bad, but that is arbitrary since
survival and extinction are only relevant to the conscious individual; there is
no objective judge. In fact, extinction
of weak members of a species could be considered good for the evolutionary
process and extinction of an entire species if weak may be good since it
liberates resources and leads to change in other organisms as they must
consciously or unconsciously compensate for the absence of the weaker
species. Along this line of reasoning,
there is strong support from both unconscious and conscious evolutionary
principles for elimination of the defective or weak members of every species on
the planet. Perhaps Hitler was right(6).
(6) Upon the conclusion of this treatise, the
author acknowledges the adverse effects as well as the apparent incongruency of
this line of reasoning and therefore does not subscribe to this line of
reasoning. Therefore this conclusion
that we should eradicate the weaker members of our society or those of other
species is not accepted by the author.
The conclusion, however, is reasonable as it stems from the premise laid
in this document. If we agree that we
are a product of random chance per random chance ad infinitum, then killing an
unwanted child (whether in utero through abortion or at any age) is no different
than choosing chocolate over vanilla ice cream.
Why not eliminate the elderly, the blind, the lame, etc.? The choice to end another’s life is merely
the effect of conscious evolution. One
may counter that such behavior is not natural, however, the fact that murder
exists at all dismisses that argument. We
must consider this topic under the section on Morality.
Next we will address the following
systems: reason, communication, money, time, morality, religion, and purpose. The existence of any of these systems is
evidence that it itself is natural. For
any of these systems to be effective, it must be commonly accepted on at least
some level whether local or universal.
We will limit our understanding of systems to humankind such that local
acceptance entails a subgroup of humanity while universal acceptance entails
all of humanity.
REASON
Reason, logic, and mathematics
all exist in the natural world; therefore, their existence implies they are
natural. These are external, objective
tools employed by sentient beings to perceive the environment, make judgements,
and adapt. Reason is a universal system
that exists in the Nothingness. The
sentient being could use the tools of reason accurately or inaccurately
depending on his/her experience and evolved ability. Various cultures have different experiences
which lead individual members to draw similar conclusions, but the processes of
deduction, induction, and inference, are used by all cultures. Observation skills or specific details
gathered by distinct individuals also depend on the individual, therefore each
employs the tools of reason based on the imperfect data gathered.
COMMUNICATION
Communication must be natural
because it exists. Certainly among the
various species of our world, communication is prevalent. We, as humans, believe we have attained a
higher level of communication than any species in the animal kingdom. This is an interesting notion since this
pride is at least partially based on our ability to intentionally
miscommunicate or hide our meanings through double entendre.
Likely the most fundamental
communication is a product of unconscious evolution. A sentient being able to perceive events and
make decisions is to some extent communicating within itself. Perception is a basic type of communication
on the cellular level – the transfer of information. There is no doubt that conscious evolution
contributes vastly to the advancement of communication – verbal, visual, auditory,
lingual, etc.
Communication is a locally
accepted system. Since different
cultures rely on different types of communication techniques (languages, signs,
symbols, gestures, etc.), it is not universal.
While some languages are more prevalent than others, there are only a
handful of gestures that are truly universal (such as the universal potty
dance). The concept of communication is
universal, but the various methods are relegated to local communities for effectiveness. Communication is subjective in nature because
it originates from within an understanding mind, and it is received within an
understanding mind, both of which interpret the communication with their own
perspectives. This is why it is very
difficult to find a perfect language.
MONEY
The concept of a monetary system
must be natural because it exists. It
seems logical that it is a product of conscious evolution. Does this concept require the preexistence of
communication? To agree on some
equivalence of value, must the two sentient beings be able to communicate? How else would an accord be reached except
there be some understanding which would require at least some rudimentary
communication. Is the concept of money
evil? Once again, there is no universal good
or evil. Money exists and is just as
natural as water.
Money is also an example of a
locally accepted system. While the
concept of the system is universal, the denominations of currency or monetary
instruments are defined locally. Money
is also subjective because cultures and peoples determine what to value and at
what equivalences. While survival may be
of value to some, extravagance may be more valuable to another.
In order to make the money a
universally accepted system, humanity devises currency equivalences. Even before currencies were issued, people
engaged in barter trading. Within both
of these practices, values are assessed to establish some type of comparison
between the currencies or objects. This
is a subjective process, but all parties involved must agree on the subjective
equivalences making them pseudo universal.
What happens when the parties do not agree? Either they discuss and negotiate until an
arrangement can be reached or they do not trade.
TIME
The concept of time must be
natural because it exists. We could say
that time exists outside of the understanding mind. Perhaps time, like gravity, was a discovery
rather than a system devised by the evolutionary process. Perhaps like mathematics, time exists with the
Nothingness in eternity, but this notion seems contradictory. Time is an external measuring stick by which
we measure the change in our environment and in ourselves. We cannot be certain that other species have
not devised their own measuring sticks, but again our interest at this point is
in humanity’s view on the system itself.
Time is one of the only true
universal systems we have as humans. The unit of seconds is directly tied to a measurable event in an isotope of caesium; we have
atomic clocks and cell phones that all immediately change thanks to satellite
technology today. But even before this
level of fine-tuned delineation came about, time was measured by clearly
obvious, if less accurate, means.
Sunrise marks the end of night and start of day, and sunset marks the
end of day and the start of night. While
there may be various methods of communicating or describing the nature of time,
time itself is a universal measurement because it is measured by objective
markers rather than by subjective understanding.
The beginning of time (this is an
absurd notion) occurred when the first human took note of the occurrence of
change in his or her environment. Since
the concept of time is external to the observer (objective rather than
subjective), the observer (even the first observer) can look backward and
measure change in retrospect. This is to
say that there is no true beginning of time only the beginning of perceived
time, similar to the use of a stop watch.
Apples fell to the earth long before Sir Isaac Newton was born, even
without his identification of the force of gravity. Time passed before men took note of the
concept, but without a specific starting point, there is no clear definition to
describe the change in the environment.
This particular subject matter is a topic of interest to the scientist
and religious as both attempt to interpret either empirical evidence or divine
accounts of the Beginning.
Let us consider how we may
extrapolate beyond our initial perception of time to the Beginning. Consider standing on the ground and watching
a plane fly overhead. It seems to be a
small body, traveling in a straight line with an apparent speed. However, these perceptions are
misleading. The perceived size, path,
and velocity are inaccurate because of the observer’s point of view. The observer does not see the plane’s true
size or three dimensional flight path, nor does he or she have a fixed point of
reference whereby to measure speed. The
observer’s perception is relative to his or her own position. In fact, the closer the observer is to the
traveling body, the more accurate his or her perceptions will be. Furthermore, depending on the plane’s flight
path, it could appear to be moving faster or slower. Also if the observer’s view of the plane were
obscured, the perceived attributes would be affected. Clearly, perspective affects perception.
We have records of recent
history, but from generation to generation, the details become ambiguous and
forgotten. In fact, the more time
passes, the less we remember about the events of a given year, decade, or
century. With this in mind, consider the
projection back to the Beginning. Is it
conceptually close to us or far from us?
If we have trouble discerning the details of recent history, and the
Beginning must necessarily be further from us than these, we should hold
dubious any speculation on the age of the universe. In fact, the older we believe the universe to
be, the more doubt there is in the estimate.
Remember that the further the object is from the observer, the less
accurate the perception will be. The
Beginning may appear to be further or nearer to the observer than is
factual. While time is a precise,
external measure for the immediate vicinity of the observer, it is a relative
measurement for what is not in the observer’s narrow field of vision. While there are empirical, external
measurements for dating fossils and minerals, these can at best determine a
minimum age if accurate. We cannot
extrapolate back to the Beginning and measure this time elapse.
What about history? History is of course natural, but it is
inanimate though organic. Let us
differentiate History from history. The
first, History, is the objective, factual account of all events in the universe
having occurred up to this moment; thus History is not something we can know in
its fullness. In a world with few
absolutes, this History is absolute, and we can be absolutely certain that we
cannot know it completely. The second,
history, is the subjective account of known events accepted by the
perceiver. Neither History nor history
is self existent; neither existed in the Nothingness. The first, History, is objective and exists
because something came from the Nothingness.
The second, history, exists because there are sentient beings to
perceive events of History. The first is
perfect but unknowable while the second is imperfect but knowable. The first is the universal concept, while the
second is a local system. While one may
choose to believe that there was an historical figure named Hitler who
persecuted the Jewish race, another may choose to deny his existence or the
events.
MORALITY
The concept of morality must be
natural because it has occurred to sentient beings in the natural world. What is the foundation of morality? It is reserved for the sentient beings since
it addresses the criteria for decision making.
It is a somewhat abstract concept dealing with non-concrete systems of
value. In a strictly unconscious
evolutionary world, right and wrong, good and bad (or evil), have no absolute
meaning because there is no standard by which to measure the quality of an event
or action. By this we know that morality
is a local system, not a universal one.
There are some moral guidelines shared by many cultures such as don’t
kill without cause (murder), but the criteria for defining a justifiable
purpose is vague. Even so, what is
morally reprehensible to one culture may be commonplace to another.
On an absolute scale, we know
that unconscious evolution leads to what we may consider undesirable results,
such as the extinction of certain species.
In this way, we as humans have determined to value a species that the
mindless unconscious evolutionary processes would eradicate. Does this make us good or bad? In the absolute since, it makes us
neither. In our morally superior minds,
it makes us good. In a universal sense, it
merely puts us in opposition to the natural order of the world of which we are
part. This means that the mindless
natural processes with no regard for empathetic inclinations have somehow
evolved into sentient, (I hesitate to say) intelligent beings who have deemed
valuable those species which cannot protect themselves. Thus the natural world is at war with its
product, the evolved natural man (the war of two natures).
What happens when parties have a
moral conflict? Unlike in the money
system where the parties will negotiate equivalences or agree to not engage in
trade, one sentient being with a certain set of moral values may in fact
destroy another whose moral values prohibit any type of aggression or
violence. Since the natural unconscious
evolutionary process has no memory or empathy toward one party or another, the
natural world will not reconcile moral systems; in other words there is no
karma other than that devised by sentient beings. In fact, any non-aggressive group could be
completely eradicated by a single aggressive entity unless the group changes
their own moral values. It would follow
then that a group or entity may in fact change their own moral code (otherwise
we would be overrun with more aggressive behavior with every generation in
order to survive).
RELIGION
The concept of religion must be
natural because it exists. It is
important to differentiate religion from morality. While one’s moral code may stem from
religious beliefs, morality can exist independent of religion. What is religion then? For the purpose of this document, we will
consider the following Merriam-Webster definition: “an organized system of
beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or group of gods.”
Religion requires the belief in
some Deity. Since this belief exists in
the natural world, it is a natural belief.
Since we have dismissed the existence of the supernatural, the Deity is
a creation or imagination of the one who believes; or more clearly, Deity is in
the eye of the belief holder. While a
group or an individual could create a Deity and persuade/deceive others to
believe in and pay homage to their/his/her own created Deity, each deceived believer
would recreate the Deity in his/her own image.
As we’ve discussed before, there is no universal morality, so this
deception is not innately bad though we may project our own moral biases on
such an action. The desire to control
and rule others is also naturally occurring and thus religion could be a tool
to be used to that end.
Religion also depends on well-defined
beliefs and liturgy. A concerted effort would
be required to systematically define an elaborate existence beyond the
empirical world, specific ceremonies to commemorate special observances, and
itemized rules to govern the conduct of the believers. Based on our premise, the odds are that religion
is devised by a single entity to manipulate and/or deceive others into serving
one’s own selfish needs. The probability
that two individuals would randomly draw the same image and define the same
beliefs and ceremonies is infinitesimal.
Furthermore, once the selfish entity who designed the system and
deceived his/her own devout believers has expired, it would follow that the
ruse would also be unmasked and the religion along with its followers would
dissipate. The fact that any religious
group can exist beyond a single generation of the death of its leader is
testimony to the grand naivety of mankind all together(7).
(7) This fact could also indicate the existence
of the Deity who could have designed and proliferated the religious beliefs,
ceremonies, and rules, however, this possibility is contradictory to the premise.
PURPOSE
Sentient beings tend to seek
understanding, meaning, purpose. Even
the argument presented herein, is evidence that we seek to comprehend why we
exist. Since this event occurs in
nature, it must be natural. The question
is why do we seek this deep philosophical purpose? The fact that sentient beings seek meaning implies
there is in fact a design, which is contrary to our initial premise that we are
the result of random events in the universe.
Is there purpose to our existence?
Is it possible that from the Nothingness, through natural unconscious,
mindless evolutionary processes, a purpose has come into existence? No. If
such a purpose exists, it must stem from sentient beings, thus we have no
universal purpose in the cosmos; we define our own purpose. With this understanding, life is meaningless,
and we should stop trying to understand the universe and our existence. There is no meaning to life, there is no
reason to protect others. One is
relegated to protecting only his/her own best interests. We should revert to the simple mode of
operation: “Eat, drink, and be merry for
tomorrow you die”.
CONCLUSION
The fact that man searches for purpose in the
universe contradicts the premise of this entire argument. Though we claim
to believe that there is no universal design to deliver a universal purpose or
meaning, we study diligently pursuing that which we surmise cannot exist.
This leads us to one of the following mutually exclusive scenarios, one
of which must be embraced.
1)
The premise is true, and there is no universal purpose. If
so, each sentient individual must determine for oneself how to live either to:
a)
seek all the pleasure in whatever forms he/she may find it
or
b)
serve the non-unique "greater good" of humanity, the
universe, the earth, or some other ultimately meaningless cause exterior to
oneself
or
c)
find a balance between options a and b.
Once the
individual has become bored with life and the experiences stemming therefrom,
the most prudent response for the individual is to commit suicide.
2)
The premise is false, and there must necessarily exist a
universal Truth that has brought the universe into existence, and this Truth
desires to be sought out and identified. If so, each sentient individual
should purpose to seek this Truth out until It is found because It alone
defines us and gives us meaning.
The author of the present document has elected
to embrace the latter of these two options for various reasons, perhaps not the
least of which is the ability to reason itself. It is most logical that
man's desire to seek universal truth implies the existence of stated universal
Truth. The author has found the only universal Truth in the God of the
Bible and the unique purpose for life in Christ who, on the cross, demonstrated
the value of human life. It is Christ who imbues meaning into life, and
it is Christ that the sentient being seeks. Now the author can echo the
words of King Solomon who attempted option one above but concluded:
“The conclusion, when all has been heard, is:
fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For
God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is
good or evil.” Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 NASB
No comments:
Post a Comment