BEHOLD THE MAN SERIES – PART 2

In the last article, we wrote about the overall importance of determining our place within our surroundings’ scope. Trying to find meaning to everything that exists and how we all fit in it. We look at the four main points, which include

1. Creation – Where we originated?

2. Purpose – What is the purpose of our creation?

3. Meaning – What does it mean, and how do we fit within the scope of all creation

4. Destiny – What happens when it all ends?

These questions plague us, and unless we examine each premise and look at all the arguments for and against it, we will end up more confused and disillusioned with the question we desired, left unanswered. The human condition in itself is the leading cause of confusion. It desires to maintain an autonomous existence and always look for a reason to contradict any chance of existence outside our influence and control. To allow any submission to that existence gives us the inferiority complex of being dominated. This rebellious condition of accepting such an idea has to lead to a myriad of arguments to disprove the existence of divine transcendent authority.

Some Philosophers and theologians, for centuries, have argued the interpretation of old transcripts to show that information derived from documents are ultimately human-made with the motive of subjugating humanity under authoritative control of group, societies, governments, and leaders. The ultimate passion that has evolved from human-made religious beliefs has stirred humankind to atrocities against fellow man. It is a conclusive fact that the unscrupulous man has stirred these religious passions and fervor of his fellow man to cause such heinous acts in history, and it continues today. History has shown how people have concocted religious beliefs for their purpose and selfish desires without any accountability to the consequences. The insatiable human desire for power, control, and idol worship is the inherent condition of man. We cannot deny that every world view, through history, has been guilty of this misplaced humanistic conduct. The insatiable thirst for dominance over his fellow man is but the fundamental fault of humanity itself. However, let us take a step back and examine the world views today; we begin to realize that most have the same basic principles and doctrines that attract followers. At the same time, we must understand that this similarity must have a point of origin among these significant world views. There has to be a source on which are based on these views. The source itself is unquestionable, and the innocence of one world view has manipulated to create various world views. We will not dwell on that topic just yet, but let us look at what thinking man has derived in their battle to discredit world views and beliefs.

Apart from Nihilistic, Atheistic, Agnostic, Naturalist, some Philosophical and Theological thinkers, the most massive opponent to divine existence has been the science community. No doubt their contributions to humanity have been tremendous and beneficial and can never be discredited. However, when their focus takes a direct approach in disproving religious belief and discrediting divine existence, the vigor upon which precedes it leaves many dumbfounded. Suppose we consider that much of the world views concerning creation itself have fallen within a narrow scope. The reality conducts proponents to world views to wait for any scientific arguments to disprove. Unfortunately, the reality today is that science has not been able to disprove the Creation story conclusively. They subsequently diminish their arguments to theories, concepts, mathematical and quantum physic arguments to propose the creation story’s answer. At the same time, devout believers sit back and wait for the science community’s conclusions. Because science has proven without any doubt that the known and unknown universe originated from a single point in time and space from nothing. Nothing represented an absolute without any physical or any other state within the scientific assumptions that could or would have initiated creation. Even to assume one particle within any diminished sub-atomic existence cannot in any logical explanation preceded creation.

When creation itself cannot explain, then the rest of the explanations become foundation-less, incomprehensible, and unacceptable. The complexity of life itself leave scientist perplexed to provide acceptable answers to it. When we look at the most basic human condition and the complexity of understanding it, the answers become more absurd. The simple act of picking up a hot iron with our bare hands will initiate a millisecond to respond. It makes that simple action entails a complex table of reactions within the human body. Science itself explains why the item is hot with the stimulus atomic particles, which then transferred to the tip of our hand and then in complex chronological progress travels, stimulating every cell, a cell made up of millions upon millions of bits of information, reacts to the stimulus and is passed along one after another until it reaches our brain. The brain itself would entail billions of reactions, which causes our nervous system to react in reverse order. The reverse transfer of information then entails the same amount of information transfers, causing our muscles to react in the correct region. The muscle reaction, caused by millions of various information, transfers to specific regions of our hands and not our feet or any other body part. Which ultimately makes us remove our hand.

Wow.To write out that one specific example has taken much of this paragraph. However, not finished yet because our eyes react with tears without pain when we pull our hands. The flood of emotions of anger, pain, despair, concern, revenge, etc., happens within that millisecond. Science can explain all that. However, explain why it happens? To provide answers to understand that process must also entail a why. We know-how, but can science explain why. Why does the human body react so that it entails a physical but physiological emotion, plus many other humanistic attributes to react. Why is it that the human body has that inherent condition of self-preservation and survival? That makes us uniquely different from the rest of creation. What makes us so unique. People try to dissect explanations to all existence, and science tries to disprove divine cause. Explain why we ultimately react, and that reaction in itself involves humanistic emotional counter-reactions based on a metaphysical premise. It is within the metaphysical aspect that science contradicts any explanation about divine intervention.

When we look at the overall makeup of the human physical structure, it calls for a tremendous amount of evidence, which science has proven. The extraordinary context of all this evidence is that it proves that for man to exist today within this realm calls for conscious thinking in a manner of self-preservation and survival. The evolutionary doctrine proposes that man from a single-celled organism has evolved over millions of years to evolve to a conscious state and has made leaps and bounds over the last 5000 years to the present day, having evolved to the point whereby it pursues an existence of self extermination from the global picture by the introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Humanity is exterminating itself from its realm. There will be arguments to the contrary, which would justify the current state of technology, which would benefit humanity. However, which portion of humanity would it benefit. The forest-dwelling tribes, or desert nomads, or people of the snow-covered tundras. Alternatively, maybe just the elect few who can afford it. In the same manner, technology today has pushed aside the sick and suffering because they cannot afford its cost—this foundation where all moral standards have en discarded. The self-desire exists without any consideration for our fellow man. In the same manner, man reacts to a hot iron and reacting in such a manner also dictates its selfish nature to disregard his fellow man in their existence in the global picture.

The same moral foundation that science champions. It is incredible when science champions the eager, desperate, selfish desires of the evils of the world. It is unfortunate when science disregards a transcendent point of reference, which champions the one moral foundation that gives purpose, meaning, and destiny for humanity. The intrinsic value of every human being in the global scope is part of a complete matrix that represents the core of what makes us human and what it is to be human.

The convoluted manner by which science has entwined itself in explanations does not answer the one question that would challenge any divine presence related to creation itself. Whereas believing in the opponent to science’s argument defines humanity’s origins and its meaning, purpose, and ultimately destiny; would equal comprehension, understanding, knowledge, peace, and a sound and strong moral foundation. To disregard sciences opponents allows proponents to dwell within a self-righteous, autonomous existence that disregards submission to any authority out of its control. Instead, humanity would disregard moral values and submit to another man’s authority rather than accept the existence of a divine entity. Allows them the superiority and fear to control through torture, pain, and suffering. Then we wonder with great passion and dismay about the Pain and Suffering endured by humanity today. It is a bizarre twist of fate that these ultimately caused by man in its pursuit of becoming God.

These same conditions looked at a macro level can be focused down to the micro-level when the individual himself is facing these questions daily. We conclude that we have no value and have no purpose. We put aside any moral values and subsequently lead lives of immorality and being unaccountable. We fool ourselves into believing that we can do whatever we want to avoid persecution and accountability. This micro-level platform, where each of us dwells, is the platform that has the accumulated results of not just one man but communities, societies, cities, states, countries, nations, and ultimately the world itself. Though science pursues its goals of proclaiming the absence of any divine creator which created us for a purpose with a moral foundation that will ultimately be our judge, we disregard the masses that look for leadership and a path to pursue. When science conveniently eliminates under its authority and without proof any existence outside its comfort zone, it ultimately provides an excuse for the masses to follow suit. Suppose we look at the alternative, where science, hand in hand, proves the physical evidence of human existence and concurs with the existence of a realm where a ‘creator’ with ‘purpose’ is the cause of creation, and everything within it, is built on a moral foundation with a divine point of reference. Imagine the kind of world we would live in today. All men created equal and intrinsic value. Wouldn’t it be the Eden we had lost?



Categories: Behold The Man, buddhism, christianity, english, hinduism, islam

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 replies

  1. “Unfortunately, the reality today is that science has not been able to disprove the Creation story conclusively. They subsequently diminish their arguments to theories, concepts, mathematical and quantum physic arguments to propose the creation story’s answer.”

    This is not true at all. There are two contradictory creation stories, so we have that problem right from the start. We also have the sciences showing that the moon isn’t a body like the sun as the bible claims, that stars are not lights on a dome, that biological organisms didn’t appear like they do now right from the start, etc.

    ” At the same time, devout believers sit back and wait for the science community’s conclusions.”

    This is also not true. Creationists have claimed for years that they would have evidence for their claims “soon” and it has been at least a century since they’ve claimed that, still no evidence to be given. They don’t even agree with each other on their baseless hypotheses.

    “Even to assume one particle within any diminished sub-atomic existence cannot in any logical explanation preceded creation.”

    A baseless claim. What evidence do you have of this?

    “The complexity of life itself leave scientist perplexed to provide acceptable answers to it. ”

    Nope, not at all. We have plenty of research going on about abiogenesis and evolutionary theory. Scientists work to reduce “perplexity”.

    “Why does the human body react so that it entails a physical but physiological emotion, plus many other humanistic attributes to react. Why is it that the human body has that inherent condition of self-preservation and survival? That makes us uniquely different from the rest of creation. ”

    This is false too. It is not “unique” to humans to react to pain with emotion. A simple google search on “animals emotion” shows that you again depend on willful ignorance to try to pretend humans are special.

    “The self-desire exists without any consideration for our fellow man. In the same manner, man reacts to a hot iron and reacting in such a manner also dictates its selfish nature to disregard his fellow man in their existence in the global picture.”

    Not true at all since humans work together and have for millennia. Neanderthals were taking care of their injured before that.

    “It is incredible when science champions the eager, desperate, selfish desires of the evils of the world. It is unfortunate when science disregards a transcendent point of reference, which champions the one moral foundation that gives purpose, meaning, and destiny for humanity. The intrinsic value of every human being in the global scope is part of a complete matrix that represents the core of what makes us human and what it is to be human.”

    This is not true. Science “champions” no morality. It is a process, not a worldview. Science is not a existential being. Some people may be selfish, and some are not. No transcendent reference is needed for morality, despite the baseless claims of theists. In that they themselves cannot agree on a morality that gives “purpose, meaning, and destiny”, there is no reason to think that there is some objective source.

    Few religions espouse the value of humans. Chrisitanity has its big wrap up show where every non-christian is murdered by their god.

    “Allows them the superiority and fear to control through torture, pain, and suffering”

    This is exactly what the Judeo-Christo-Islamic god does with the idea of hell.

    “Suppose we look at the alternative, where science, hand in hand, proves the physical evidence of human existence and concurs with the existence of a realm where a ‘creator’ with ‘purpose’ is the cause of creation, and everything within it, is built on a moral foundation with a divine point of reference. Imagine the kind of world we would live in today. All men created equal and intrinsic value. Wouldn’t it be the Eden we had lost?”

    so what happens if science finds a god but it is not yours, author? You assume you have the only right one. Despite theists looking for millenia, we still have no evidence for any of the gods claimed to have existed. There is no magical realm, no evidence of any deities’ affecting the earth in any way. Just the contradictory claims of theists who all often use the exact same apologetics to excuse their no-show gods.

    There is no “divine point of reference” of morality since theists don’t agree and no god has come down to set them straight. And as for Eden? Hmmm, a place where this god either couldn’t keep out evil or intentionally let it in. It doesn’t have much going for it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “Unfortunately, the reality today is that science has not been able to disprove the Creation story conclusively. They subsequently diminish their arguments to theories, concepts, mathematical and quantum physic arguments to propose the creation story’s answer.”

      This is not true at all. There are two contradictory creation stories, so we have that problem right from the start. We also have the sciences showing that the moon isn’t a body like the sun as the bible claims, that stars are not lights on a dome, that biological organisms didn’t appear like they do now right from the start, etc.
      AGAIN, YOUR ARGUMENT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. YOU ARE COMPARING A LITERARY BOOK MADE UP OF EVERY KNOWN LITERARY STYLE KNOW TO MAN WITH A SCIENCE, WHICH IS BASED ON EVIDENCE.
      I carry your heart with me (I carry it in my heart)I am never without it (anywhere
      I go you go,my dear; and whatever is done by only me is your doing,my darling)
      I fear no fate (for you are my fate,my sweet)I want no world (for beautiful you are my world,my true)
      and it’s you are whatever a moon has always meant and whatever a sun will always sing is you
      BY EE. CIMMUNGS
      I AM SURE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SEE SOMEONE WALKING DOWN THE STREET CARRYING A HEART.
      YOUR POINT IS INVALID AND LUDICROUS

      ” At the same time, devout believers sit back and wait for the science community’s conclusions.”

      This is also not true. Creationists have claimed for years that they would have evidence for their claims “soon” and it has been at least a century since they’ve claimed that, still no evidence to be given. They don’t even agree with each other on their baseless hypotheses.
      SHOW ME ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU CAN PRESENT, WHEREBY BIBLICAL THEOLOGIANS HAVE CLAIMED TO BE ABLE TO PROOF THE CREATION NANNARTIVE. THAT STATEMENT IS SELF CONTRADICTORY BECAUSE IT IS SCRIPTURE THAT REVEALS THE CREATION NARRATIVE.

      “Even to assume one particle within any diminished sub-atomic existence cannot in any logical explanation preceded creation.”

      A baseless claim. What evidence do you have of this?

      “The complexity of life itself leave scientist perplexed to provide acceptable answers to it. ”

      Nope, not at all. We have plenty of research going on about abiogenesis and evolutionary theory. Scientists work to reduce “perplexity”.
      THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY HAS BEEN DEBUNKED BY EVOLUTIONARY SCHOLARS THEMSELVES. PLEASE DO A GOOGLE SEARCH ON ‘THE SCIENTIFIC DESCENT OF DARWINISM’, WHERE OVER 600 REKNOWNED SCHOLARS HAVE REJECTED DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
      SCIENCE CANNOT APPLY FREE WILL AND SUBJECTIVE FREE THINKING INTO THE BIOGENETICS OF HUMANITY, LET ALONE PROVE WHERE IT ORIGINATED.

      “Why does the human body react so that it entails a physical but physiological emotion, plus many other humanistic attributes to react. Why is it that the human body has that inherent condition of self-preservation and survival? That makes us uniquely different from the rest of creation. ”

      This is false too. It is not “unique” to humans to react to pain with emotion. A simple google search on “animals emotion” shows that you again depend on willful ignorance to try to pretend humans are special.
      I AM DUMFOUNDED THAT YOU ASSOCIATE YOUR FREE WILL AND THOUGHTS TO ‘ANIMAL EMOTIONS’. IF THESE THE FOUNDATIONS OF WHAT YOUR FREE WILL AND MORAL STANDINGS ARE, THEN THE BASICALLY THE LAW OF THE WILD WOULD SUFFICE RATHER THAN A FREE THINKING, OBECTIVE MORAL WORLD

      “The self-desire exists without any consideration for our fellow man. In the same manner, man reacts to a hot iron and reacting in such a manner also dictates its selfish nature to disregard his fellow man in their existence in the global picture.”

      Not true at all since humans work together and have for millennia. Neanderthals were taking care of their injured before that. YOU ASSOCIATE YOUR CHOICES AND MORAL STANDARDS TO THE NEANDERTHAL MAN. A VERY STRANGE BASIS TO APPROACH THE QUESTION, WHEREAS AS HOMO SAPIENS, THE SELFISH DESIRE TO AUTONOMY IS ONLY ACCEPTABLE BASED ON THEIR OWN POINT OF VIEW, WHEREAS IS AN OPPONENT APPLIES THAT SAME VIEWS AGAINST THEM, ALL HELL BREAKS LOSE. VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHT, WOMEN RIGHTS ETC ETC. WHEREAS IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW, WE ARE ALL CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD AND HAVE AN INHERENT, INTRINSIC VALUE THAT IS HONORED AND RESPECTED, NO MATTER WHAT DIFFERENCE WE SEE IN EACH OTHER.

      “It is incredible when science champions the eager, desperate, selfish desires of the evils of the world. It is unfortunate when science disregards a transcendent point of reference, which champions the one moral foundation that gives purpose, meaning, and destiny for humanity. The intrinsic value of every human being in the global scope is part of a complete matrix that represents the core of what makes us human and what it is to be human.”

      This is not true. Science “champions” no morality. It is a process, not a worldview. Science is not a existential being. Some people may be selfish, and some are not. No transcendent reference is needed for morality, despite the baseless claims of theists. In that they themselves cannot agree on a morality that gives “purpose, meaning, and destiny”, there is no reason to think that there is some objective source.
      MORALITY IS A PRODUCT OF SCIENCE. PLEASE OFFER A REFERENCE OR SCIENTIFIC DATA TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM. EVEN RICHARD DAWKINS HIMSELF ADMITTED TO THE SOURCE OF MORALITY AND GOOD AND EVIL. IN FACT HE ADMITS THAT WITHIN THE ATHEIST MINDSET THERE IS NO MORAL CHOICE AND NO GOOD OR EVIL. IN FACT HE EVEN PROPOGATES MORALS AS A CHOICE AND AS SUCH REDEFINES THE FOUNDATIONS OF ACCPETABLE GOOD AGAINST EVIL BASED ONLY ON YOUR PREFERENCE. THIS IS ABSURD EVEN FROM ANY ATHEIST.
      DO A GOOGLE SEARCH FOR RICHARD DAWKINS VS JOHN LENNOX – HAS SCIENCE BURIED GOD.

      Few religions espouse the value of humans. Chrisitanity has its big wrap up show where every non-christian is murdered by their god.
      NONSENSE. YOU CONTINUE TO MAKE ACCUSATIONS BASED ON YOUR OWN PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. PLEASE OFFER EVIDENCE AN A SOURCE TO REFER, RATHER THAN MAKE WILD BASELESS ACCUSATIONS.

      “Allows them the superiority and fear to control through torture, pain, and suffering”
      THE CRISTAIN WORLD VIEW DOES NOT SUPPORT SUCH A MANNER OF WORSHIP. THIS ARGUMENT IS EXPLICITLY GORUNDED IN THE ATHEIST VIEW, WHEREBY THE CHOICE OF ONE SUPERCEDES ANYONE ELSE AND THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND IT IS BASED ON THE INDIVIDUALS ABILITY TO CONTROL OTHERS THROUGH THEIR OWN WEALTH AND POWER. YOUR ETHIC IS GROUNDED IN THE SURVIAL OF THE FITEST AND SUBJUGATION OF THE POOR AND WEAK.

      This is exactly what the Judeo-Christo-Islamic god does with the idea of hell.
      HELL IS A DESTINATION AND WHETHER YOU CEASE TO EXIST WITHIN YOUR CONCEPT INTO NOTHING, I RATHER PUT MY FAITH IN A WORLDVIEW THAT IS BASED OF EVIDENTIAL CLARITY AND HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST, WOULD THAT MAKE ME LESS A PERSON BASED ON A MORAL LIFE I HAVE LIVED OR IF GOD DOES EXIST THEN MY FAITH HAS PROVEN CORRECT, WHEREAS YOU ARE DOOMED EITHER WAY.

      “Suppose we look at the alternative, where science, hand in hand, proves the physical evidence of human existence and concurs with the existence of a realm where a ‘creator’ with ‘purpose’ is the cause of creation, and everything within it, is built on a moral foundation with a divine point of reference. Imagine the kind of world we would live in today. All men created equal and intrinsic value. Wouldn’t it be the Eden we had lost?”

      so what happens if science finds a god but it is not yours, author? You assume you have the only right one. Despite theists looking for millenia, we still have no evidence for any of the gods claimed to have existed. There is no magical realm, no evidence of any deities’ affecting the earth in any way. Just the contradictory claims of theists who all often use the exact same apologetics to excuse their no-show gods.
      ALL THAT I HAVE PRESENTED IN ALL MY ARTICLES ARE BASED ON WHAT I HOLD AS EVIDENTIAL, EXPERIENTIAL AND LOGICAL RELEVATIONS IN MY BELIEF. I WOULD NOT WRITE SOMETHING I DO NOT BELIEVE IN.
      APOLOGETICS IS NOT TO DEBATE TO A GOAL TO DEMEAN OR HUMILIATE. APOLOGETICS IS TO PROVIDE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS SOUGHT BY THOSE WHO SEEK ANSWERS.
      AN APOLOGIST HAS NO CONTROL OVER YOUR FREE WILL. ONLY YOU CAN MAKE THAT DECISION TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO.

      There is no “divine point of reference” of morality since theists don’t agree and no god has come down to set them straight. And as for Eden? Hmmm, a place where this god either couldn’t keep out evil or intentionally let it in. It doesn’t have much going for it.
      YOUR OWN STATEMENT IS CONTRADICTORY, SINCE THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW IS BASED ON THE HISTORICAL, EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN UNWAVERING.
      FROM A CHRISTAIN WORLD VIEW, WE SEE MORALS AS AN OBECTIVE MORAL FOUNDATION ANCHORED IN A DIVINE POINT OF REFERENCE WHICH ALLOWS US TO MAKE MORAL CHOICES THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SANCITITY OF OTHERS AND THE WORLD AROUND US.
      IF GOD DID INTERCEDE AND REMOVE ALL THAT YOU DEEM UNACCEPTABLE FROM THIS WORLD – YOU WOULD BE COMPLAINING THAT GOD HAS VIOLATED HIS OWN MORALS BY INTERCEDING AND VIOLATING YOUR OWN MORAL CHOICES.
      REMEMBER GOD INTERCEDES NOT TO YOUR OWN DEFINITONS OF GOOD AND EVIL. IF GOD INTERCEDES EVERY BIT OF EVIL AND PAIN WOULD BE ELIMINATED, INCLUDING YOUR THOUGHTS, ACTIONS YOU DEEM HIDDEN TO YOUR OWN CONCIOUSNESS, EVERY VIOLATION, INSULT, HURT AND PAIN, NO MATTER HOW SMALL IT WAS WOULD BE ELIMINATED.
      ELIMINATED BY REMOVING THE SOURCE, WHICH ULTIMATELY WOULD DEMINISH THIS WORLD TO NOTHING, EXCEPT FOR THE FEW ‘FOOLS’ AS YOU DEEM THEM, HOW BELIEVED IN A GOD.
      THEN AGAIN YOUR CHOICE OF THIS SCENARIO IS WHAT WE ALL CALL ‘JUDGEMENT DAY’

      IF YOUR OWN SELF RIGHTEOUS BELIEF’S DICATE HOW YOU VIEW THE WORLD AND YOUR AUTONOMY TO BE FREE BUT MORALLY CORRECT, THEN, WOULDN’T IT BE LOGICAL TO SEE RELIGION AS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT ALLOWS YOU A DESTINY FAR GREATER THAN THIS, WHICH YOU SO VALIANTLY PURSUE TO DENOUNCE AND DISAGREE.

      Liked by 2 people

      • using all caps makes you look very silly.

        Like

      • Actually I am making sure my responses are clear and understandable for you to grasp. You keep repeating your same question over and over. Offfering the same incoherent arguments.
        I am keeping the thread continuos for your benefit not to repeat yourself.
        Plus a simpler way for you to see the replies.
        Hope it helps.

        Liked by 2 people

      • #lukeshori Great reply but why you even bother to talk this kind of people. I have seen your replies and he keeps beating a dead horse.

        Like

%d bloggers like this: