W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Volume What is New
A Walk in the Breeze on the Broadwalk
For you or for me, it is birth. As to the parade of processes: its birth, creation.
Or nothing. Nothing has neither potential nor feature, and hence anything ascribed to it is a contradiction in terms, and the thing is a deceit, confusion or false option. It, in all senses, for argument or other, does not exist. Thought of it, is not it, and that is near as it gets.
But what if matter were eternal ? It cannot be since it continually is losing available energy and is going from more to less systematically. That is its nature. If you want lots of universes (not an empirical point, just imagination, and hence not explanation in terms of what is evidential), then in principle, they either come from one or were all there always. If they were always there, then the explanation is defective, since their arrangement and array is not accounted for, and if they were always integral, then there is only one universe and it needs explanation, or dumping as too hard, and hence not entering into thought.
What is regarded as too hard is not normally regarded as a solution to a problem.
Why is it here ? is the problem. The solution is what is sought, not intelligently addressed by abandonment..
Not merely is there no solution in material domains, for which an explanation is needed, since they have separable elements of form, law, configuration, interoperability, synthetic cohesion, harmony of laws for overall function at all levels, requiring collation, co-operation and cohesion . In addition, they have an impress of control, so that not as anyone might imagine, but as is laid down, is the way. In general, it is the nature of made things as a category not to possess the qualities needed to make them, but to exhibit the derivative qualities of what makes them.
We do not, for example, attribute making to what has no evident ability to make. That would simply be a false trail, an exclusive dud option. Even the assignment of potential for development does not help, since this omits the nature of the Assigner. It is also harder, not easier, to fit things out so that they not only proceed to be themselves (made things), but ready to swing in, either in large or little steps, to something else, and so on and on, a far more comprehensive and demanding problem, leaving the actual and empirical one, which is actually THERE (not just in the idle mind), to be solved.
We return. There is also no solution in material domains for arrival of the universe (and all that is in it, however, whenever, why-ever) because there is empirical evidence of thought. Mathematical equations, geometrical configurations, assembly line technicalities, orders in ascending levels of overview and distribution, complexities of a brilliance in KIND that leave scientists gaping, these things are not in the domain that matter displays, when investigated. They do not exemplify those things of which matter is shown to be capable. They are, instead, the functions of thought, cogitation, analysis, creativity. These functions are in fact found in the mind, such as man has, as a locale, and at anything like this level, amidst the items, nowhere else on earth.
They are not in existence within the features matter displays, when viewed as generative. They may convey the impact of thought, as a piano sound, but they do not make essays, exhibit purposes in themselves by their own internal nature. To what is needed for these things, matter is as dead as a car is dead, when it is a question not of being, but of making a car. It exhibits the action of what it does not attest to possess. It is the same with a robust sandal that fits the foot in contour, moulding, and has durability, comfort and shape to act. Or a bank note, which bears expectation of trust, whether or not it has it. Ability to make is not part of what has facility to be. It is an entirely separate phenomenon, viewed when found, not when dreamt.
With matter, as to its construction, not intrinsic action, thought is shown; and the nature of the thing exhibits it, as the sun exhibits light. You can say, No, the sun gives no light. However, testimony to this effect is lacking. It is necessary to open the eyes of the head as well as those of the mind.
Moreover matter shows no capacity to create or to donate will, or purpose, or understanding; it merely shows the residue of their action, or is bound to their wit. Will is experienced in the use of invisible properties, whatever domains into which it may pour its force and power; and its coherence is with thought, power, potential that is inherent not to create itself, but simply to function and produce its own spawn, willing. This often has action following. The action does not create itself, being visibly dependent on the prior movement of the will. It may be frustrated; or not. Its nature is not omnipotence, but distinctive and assignable function, directionally, imaginatively and with degrees of knowledge and coherence depending on the invisible person. Instrumental matter is not directive thought, though it may attest it. It serves.
What of the beginning, before it had been made serviceable, since it cannot make itself, especially before it is there to do it ?
A person is not expressible in measurements, but may make them. It is not expressible in colour, but may create colour. It is not expressible as something tangible, but by will may use materials to touch. Its power to create thought, objects, direct will, has courage or cowardice, peaceableness or sadism, is inherent, and touches on the choice of pathways or principles, and their use or application. Matter however does not make and then express in detail this line of action and its basis at all.
For all these reasons, and many more, matter neither is nor could be the explanation of the universe (cf. It Bubbles ... Ch. 9). It is a means for action, a facility for direction, by whomever or whatever. What the whoever or whatever is, is the point. Let us pursue it.
Can mind be the explanation then ? Its elements are included in the attestable results and characteristics and criteria to be explained. It is not alien or irrelevant. Invisible aspects of the universe are very numerous (logic, courage, hope, purpose, hatred, love, dourness), though they yield some indices of their presence very often. These may however be hidden temporarily by will. Yet, if you define mind as the ideational functionary, for example, then this is only part of what is needed; but it is part.
If you wish in the realm of what is, in fact, invisible, motives being amongst these, for instance to be argumentative rather than to find the truth, a very variable thrust in general in man, what then ? Then there are still areas of priorities, values, personal principles, will and so on and on. We go beyond the merely psychic, to the foundational, in terms of which a given psyche runs. Some try to ignore this, but as with any other operative element, denying it a term to signify it, does not remove its function. It merely voids your power in communication, to express yourself, unless of course you there and then invent a term, and secure usability in company for it, the normal solution.
These areas can conveniently and are often traditionally known as spirit. The term has two main uses: it can indicate such functions as courage, decisiveness, determination, as if bloody but unbowed; or it can indicate the functions of spiritedness noted above. Context normally makes it easy enough to determine which is in view.
ALL these feature, matter, mind and spirit need explanation for their existence, whether formally, functionally or visibly.
Ignoring them is simply an abortion of the empirical, a first folly and logical flaw, that needs no addition for fallacy.
If we omit the question of time, so that this comes into being, on the ground that nothing will always have to suffice when you are stumped, the irrational option, then time is wasted, not accounted for. It is invalid, a contradiction in terms. If you face it, then either this Functional Source was always there or it came from nothing, for however many steps you may unempirically imagine there may have been, there is always the beginning. It is that which has, logically to be there. 'Nothing' is uninventive and impotent, and also, an example of a word signifying what is not there, even if it could do anything!
ALWAYS there, this Functional Source has to be there - logically. It has always to have the potential to make a universe. It cannot acquire that power when it is all, if it lacks it, for where from ? and if it were implanted potential, where from is this also ? Ultimately this potential cannot have been made by something or someone else, since in that case we have simply avoided the explanation, and as such, have dipped out of the contest to find what explains. This is not a solution. In mathematics, it would be laughable, pretension and blindedness, combined. Logic does not offer sinecures to empty words.
If at any time, processive or progressive point, the entire potential were not there, then the result could not come, the extra of nothing being singularly unhelpful. There are two singularities, one being what is necessary, and the other what is ineffectual: Functional source and nothing. Alternation is useless since in the one phase, there would be no potential for the other, leaving nothing as all, and it becomes merely irrationality by steps.
Since the visible cannot account for itself, the Eternal must be invisible. That is why it is so funny when a Russian astronaut declared he had not seen God. What would he expect ? to find a poet laid out on a grave amidst his poems ? a deity hanging from a moonbeam ? an aircraft designer asleep somewhere under a seat ? The reason for such extravagance of irrelevance and confusion (either because it is there or will is seeking to induce it in others) is biblically simple: escape from, attack on, engage in derogation of God. Why ? Like a bank debt, many run from Him because He and they both would like to run the universe. It is just that it is His, and He understands it, because He made it, and does not need anything out of it (though glad of faithfulness in relationships), for if He did, then He would not be the Functional Source, but one for whom some elements were assigned, but found unsatisfactory. That would involve simply moving logically to one thing, and then avoiding it, a change of premises, or slide. Who did the assigning, making such an inadequate result and so creating a hollow ?
As in the goosestep action plan for arrogance, so that many steps high from the energy level of many people might be hoped to intimidate (as in China, or North Korea, or as was the case with Hitler), so in many steps for explanation of the universe. But if you have many steps, you have to have at least one step. Where did it come from, where the thing that does the stepping and what was the programmatic, purposeful or executive basis for stepping as such ? It implies coherence, succession of relevant items and developments; but where did the power to develop come from, and that to enable coherence ? How do you improve by steps unless you have the potential to be improved ? to sustain and to advance with it ? How does action become a 'step' so that there is implied a route and a series of innovations so acutely collated and co-coded or emitted, that their association becomes meaningful, or moves in any one direction ?
Removing failure does not provide success, when nothing passes. Omitting the meaningless does not aid, when it is all meaningless. Then you omit the universe of the unexplained type. Keeping only what is in some sense meaningful, is directive, contrary to the model. Killing off the greatest follies (from the point of view of trying to urge the universe both to start and then to improve, from the point of view of certain criteria that appeal), does not create wisdom; having a universe with not even any PLACE for truth in its relativistic totality, does not help you to enunciate it, about it. Nothing solves the riddles of getting what is precise and cognitively brilliant out of what lacks any directive, calculative, analytical, synthesising or creative spirit. If you want to create, you have to be creative; or if the desire is for something else to do so, it has to be able to do so.
Removing the most ridiculous does not make anything else non-ridiculous, far less to exhibit the characteristics of thought, when its domain exhibits the work of being what it is, and shows nothing of the work of making what it is. Removing the worse wobbles does not provide steering, intensive overall coherence, creative mathematics, or cohesion in plans from necessary oversight. It is not only a tall order, but a tall story.
Even babies do not make babies, clever as they are. Being and Making are Two. The fusion of making them one is simple confusion. It is not a fruitful marriage.
Let's look further at steps and explanations.
If a child without substantial knowledge background, say from some jungle location, saw perhaps 40 cars of very similar kinds, he might imagine (like perhaps unusual canoe transport), things. For example, he might well laugh at the idea that they were separately made. He could readily imagine that each one was made, as if by plasticine (not knowing the properties of matter), but nice little touches here or there, because they are so similar, might appeal. It seem strange to start again every time. Why ? Because of ignorance and presumption. He hardly understands any element. Many of the children of men have done much the same. They want somewhat similar things to be induced from each other, as if they were sentences on a computer typewriter, not objects with laws insisting on being obeyed. It is always useful to keep the eyes open.
Thus objects are not so easily mergible, nor are complex mathematical specifications really all generic, so that given a push to two, one becomes the other. Thought is specialised and in types of domains dealing with different kinds of forces, control options, formats, combinations, conceptions, elaborations, fastidious considerations; and its objects are not simply capable of a few nudges, despite the ideas of unfettered imagination. It is found so in genetics, as Dr Michael Denton points out (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, from his biological specialty), and exporting bits does nothing to allay the overall TYPE of need in stringent systematics and conformed and co-operative content. The idea of bits creating lairs and laws and occupying their little selves with inventions of intellectual grandeur and vision, with integrality of operation, one for all, is mere mischief. They are not found to do this. They are not seen to do this. The power so to create is not found in them.
Where then is the idea of marvellous mergers of different things by some kind of magical overview and impact to be found ? It is not found.
Continuity, as Denton declares, is not found except in the mind of man. Actually lies in separate and separated units at the microbiological level. This is almost astounding, but on reflection merely systematic way in which distinctive means keep apart distinctive operations and items. They do not have brilliant moments or movements. It would be to the point is ANYONE were to show them writing their own DNA, without which living cells do not appear. It would be good to s start again for all this surmise, contra-evidential, anti-empirical, mere mysticism and refusal of logic, and to s ee where EVIDENCE LEADS, You can similarly imagine how hammer (from somewhere) and purpose (from somewhere) and bits, windows and the like, might build a house. All that is lacking if you actually WANT the house, is the vision, power, penetrationn, organisation, provision in timely fashion and objects and so on: that is, the entrepreneur and the master craftsman. Imagining it is irrelevant, rather prior to the thought lags of adolescents, and akin to early Primary dreaming.
Accordingly, then, as Denton insists most vigorously, in this field, there are separate depositions, and they are distinct, distinctive and well separated at the microbiological level. He is at great pains on the point.
Controls, whether in aircraft or bikes are what they are; and they are what they are in different moulds of a given type of craft, in which different systems may be chosen. The multiple SYSTEMS in life are astonishing, like a poet in the planning department. The imaginative array is staggering. It is, of course, precisely the exhibit of a creatively empowered thinker, with a willing spirit. These are the products for which that is the sufficient cause, and these are the levels at which such operates to get from one sphere to the other. The spheres do not invent themselves; and that is precisely why they are never seen to do so. It is important to get back to scientific method in this matter, to logic, the empirical, the actual, and to s top day-dreaming before the race becomes the former race, except for residues on the one hand, and the redeemed BY the Maker on the other. You do not HAVE to be deluded.
To say in explanation that something 'arises' is logical baby-talk. Reason is absent. Imagination is present; explanation is on vacation. Vagueness ferments.
In fact, as shown in Genetic Entropy, a work by Emeritus Professor J.C. Sanford of Cornell, deterioration is the DIRECTION of the human genome in particular. This finding is a result of research. Its adequacy and accuracy is declining. Copies are not entirely perfect; are often made, and the errors can and do accumulate. The lifespan of the genome is not unlimited; indeed far from it.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, indicative of increase of entropy, not created specialty, deals with the empirical facts. The exact opposite has never been demonstrated, despite all the frenzy to convert to a self-creating universe, starting from ... but we have been into that, a matter of nothing, or the Creator.
Jesus Christ is the specific and empirical reality that stands in the way of mockers, as well of course, and with, logic. If someone tried to convince me (and I had not heard of Jesus Christ and the testimony maintained for millenia), I would have a few questions, if the testimony given seemed even to warrant this.
Where did you come from ? The Creator, and He used Me to do it, conceivably He might answer, in such a conversation, using what He actually did say elsewhere.
How can you show this ? By fulfilling many prophecies made over a period of successive and confirmed actions and words, over more than a millenium, the reply could come.
I would then examine these, as now, and find them more than inexplicable by other means. What He does, speaks for itself, as it always has done.
A testimony unique and staggering. What can you do ? I might pursue. Follow me and see, He could reply perhaps. If I did, I could see thousands coming internationally to follow Him in enormous crushes, during His day on this earth, and notice that no type of disease was too hard to cure, that nothing stumped Him, but that He normally required faith for recipients, and made decisions of how to proceed, in an energetically penetrating way; and had knowledge which was never falsified even under scrutiny from people whose life had been study in relevant religious and priestly sectors.
If I had the privilege of living and visiting the world now and again over a couple of millenia, I should see packs of pronouncements fulfilled in glorious detail (cf. SMR Chs. 8 - 9, as a beginning).
If I became a Christian (I did so become, but this is a hypothetical situation, merely using myself as an illustration, depersonalised), then I could test out the personal aspects of His personal statements. As just noted, I did; and I have done so.
Then I could reflect: He was either mad, and startlingly effective beyond all wisdom in covering every type of case, the exact opposite of madness, and this was applicable over millenia as all His words flowed on into fulfilment, like a river running its course ... or else ? What ? Or else He was what He said. What was that ? God sent His personalised and eternal Word into human form to deal with the deformation, degradation, rebellion and guilt, penalty and destiny awaiting a rebellious race, one that tortured this same Jesus Christ, and now tortures to all but incredible degree, His servants. It was He who did this. being sent.
Then I should believe Him.
In fact, I have already done so, long ago, and found psychologically as logically, empirically as theoretically, personally as well as propositionally, emotionally as well as notionally, that His record is unimpugnable. He tests out as what He says. Nothing and no one else comes within sight for comparison. Stark, sovereign, meaningfully mutilated by the sin-enslaved race, He has magnificently liberated and remove guilt for many, even as many as received Him (cf. The Magnificence of the Messiah)., All history (up to, and from Him) bows, as to nothing else. That is because there is nothing else in the field. His yoke is indeed easy, and it is wonderful to have a boss who is not only wonderful, but the source of the wonderful way in which we are made. Misuse does not help. But the underlying realities are superb.
You can leave it.
It can leave you as when your disregard flowers. That does not kill them; but you no longer FEEL interested. That is one of the penalties of fooling about, delaying and fighting battles with Nothing &Co, Importers of Fancy Goods, which are never nourishing, leaving this world as the artificially barbaric residue it is rapidly becoming. Neglect is a wonderful way of bringing things to nothing; not by any means always the things themselves, but the ones that need them, those things called people. This can be done and often is. That is the difference. Nothing does not exist; what 'comes to nothing' idiomatically, simply ceases to have a sound future, or a good rapport with reality, a ruin. You see that in John 3:16-19, and 36.