(11) The Principles of Continuity

Chapter 11: The Principles of ContinuityShow more

Which came first the chicken or the egg? Did the cell create intelligence or did intelligence create the cell? The debate between theists and naturalists is like a debate about a celestial computer that runs a perfect simulation of our universe.

The theists sustain the possibility of the existence of an eternal living being. The theists sustain the possibility of the existence of an eternal intelligent being.

(1) The theists sustain the principle of the continuity of life, which is the principle that something living can only be created by something already living. The principle of living continuity is experimentally sustained; no experiment has ever demonstrated that it is possible to create a living cell from something non-living.

(2) The theists sustain the principle of the continuity of intelligence, which is the principle that something intelligent can only be designed by something that is already intelligent. The principle of intelligence continuity is experimentally sustained; no experiment has ever demonstrated that it is possible for something intelligent to be designed by something non-intelligent.

The theists assert that eternal living being created life. The theists assert that an eternal intelligent being designed intelligent life.

The naturalists deny the possibility of the existence of an eternal living being. The naturalists deny the possibility of the existence of an eternal intelligent being.

(1) The naturalists deny the principle of living continuity. The naturalists speculate that there could be an anomaly that would allow something living to be created by something non-living. The naturalists do not have any experimental evidence to validate this speculation, but they speculate that eventually they might.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/35/the-war-against-truth

(2) The naturalists deny the principle of intelligence continuity. The naturalists speculate that there could be an anomaly that would allow something intelligent to be created by something non-intelligent. The naturalists do not have any experimental evidence to validate this speculation, but they speculate that eventually they might.

The naturalists speculate that spontaneous anomalies created life. The naturalists speculate that a series of spontaneous anomalies produced intelligent life as one of the maintained variations.

What is the objective evidence for the difference between a live animal and a dead animal? What is the objective evidence is for the difference between a living cell and a dead cell? If there was a complex computer virus that copied itself with many different variations how would you conclude it came to be? Would you conclude than an intelligent person originally programed it and then compiled it, or would you conclude that it formed accidentally from an error in another program, compiled itself, and then evolved after numerous iterative copies?

If a person claims to have discovered a theory for a matter-producing machine that violates the principle of energy conservation and wants it taught in schools, what should happen? The scientists might laugh at the person and demand conclusive evidence. If a person claims to have discovered a theory for a perpetual motion machine that violates the second law of thermodynamics and wants it taught in schools, what should happen? The scientists might laugh at the person and demand conclusive evidence. If a person claims to be getting closer to inventing a rocket that violates the principle that nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light in empty space and wants it taught in schools, what should happen? The scientists might laugh at the person and demand conclusive evidence.

If a person claims to have invented a theory that violates the principle of the continuity of life and wants it taught in schools, what should happen? The scientists might laugh at the person and demand conclusive evidence. What did happen? The “scientists” give praise and recognition to the person, do not demand any conclusive evidence, and teach it in schools.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/36/the-war-against-truth

If a person claims to have discovered a theory that violates the principle of the continuity of intelligence, what should happen? The scientists might laugh at the person and demand conclusive evidence. What did happen? The “scientists” give praise and recognition to the person, do not demand any conclusive evidence, and teach it in schools.

The speculations of the naturalists are absurd to anyone who does not first reject the principles of living continuity and intelligence continuity. The objective evidence sustains the principles of living continuity and intelligence continuity. There is no objective evidence that disproves these continuity principles. There is experimental scientific justification for sustaining these continuity principles. There is no scientific justification for censuring these continuity principles.

The naturalists have a personal aversion to the possibility of an eternal being. This personal aversion makes it desirable for naturalists to censor the principles of living continuity and intelligence continuity. Theses continuity principles are censored as an act of faith by people who are religiously intolerant to the possibility of an eternal being. Once the principles of living continuity and intelligence continuity are censored, suddenly the speculations of the naturalists no longer seem absurd.

An impartial interpretation of the evidence is no longer possible when the principles of living continuity and intelligence continuity are censored. After these continuity principles are censored, the naturalist interpretations seem the only obvious alternative and the speculations of the naturalists go unchallenged. An unchallenged interpretation of the evidence is then used to rationalize the naturalistic assumptions.

Is it a requirement to reject all principles consistent with the existence of an eternal being in order to study nature? Can information be interpreted impartially if rival interpretations are censured?

A naturalist is like an obsessive gambler who thinks the odds are in the favor of winning even when they are not. A naturalist is like an obsessive gambler who becomes the more certain of eventually winning after each loss. A naturalist is like a naïve gambler who is betting against the way the dice have already been rigged. A naturalist is like a naïve student who out of pride accepts the challenge of trying to find the last digit of Pi, “challenge accepted!”.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/37/the-war-against-truth

Although the naturalists have no evidence that a living cell can be created from something nonliving, the naturalists can easily rationalize why that evidence is not available, yet. The naturalists speculate that a cell is simple enough to occur spontaneously but too complex for scientists to assemble, yet. The naturalists also speculate that there might be an anomaly allows cells to be created easily that scientists haven’t discovered, yet. As more fruitless sophisticated attempts to produce life from non-life occur, it becomes all the more implausible for life to have developed spontaneously. The more implausible it becomes for life to develop spontaneously, the more confident the naturalists become. The naturalists will always misrepresent their faith in the future discovery of evidence as a form of evidence itself. The speculation strategy of naturalists is foolproof; no amount of evidence could dissuade a naturalist.

As the evidence mounts against the naturalist, the naturalists will invent new speculations to distract from and evade the evidence. As the mounting evidence disproves that life could not develop spontaneously on earth, the naturalists invents new speculations about life being seeded from space. The naturalists will speculate that there is life on other planets that we just haven’t discovered, yet. The more naturalists are proved wrong by evidence, the more they resort to speculations. The naturalists will misrepresent their faith in the future discovery of life in space a form of evidence itself. The naturalists will misrepresent their religious quest to find life in space as a form of evidence itself. The speculation strategy of the naturalists is foolproof; no amount of evidence could dissuade a naturalist.

Is there the possibility of inventing a matter producing machine that violates the conservation of energy principle? Should we trust that speculation without any evidence? Is there the possibility of inventing a perpetual motion machine that violates the second law of thermodynamics? Should we trust that speculation without any evidence? Is there the possibility of inventing a rocket that can travel through space faster than the speed of light? Should we trust that speculation without any evidence? Is it possible to get “closer” to doing something that is impossible? Is there the possibility of creating life from non-life? Should we trust that speculation over the evidence? Is there the possibility of finding life on other planets? Should we trust that speculation without any evidence?
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/38/the-war-against-truth

Genetic engineering is like reprogramming an advanced celestial computer technology that would be impossible for us to build ourselves. Trying to resurrect a dead cell is like trying to start a fire in Antarctica without having a heat source. The genetic material of a cell spontaneously writing itself would be like writing an extremely complex computer program or cracking a massively long password by hitting random keystrokes. Even if a computer program is written, it is impossible for it to run without a compiler and without computer. When naturalists speculate “where there is water, there might be life” it is like saying “where there are protons, neutrons, and electrons, there might be life”. When naturalists speculate “where there is water there might be life”, it is like convicting an innocent person of murder simply because person had a motive to kill despite the fact that there was no evidence at all.

The naturalists ignore the uniqueness of life. The functioning hardware systems of the cell are completely unique. Scientists can only alter the genetic software to reprogram an already living cell through genetic engineering. It is impossible for the scientists to assemble the functioning hardware of a living cell from non-living material. The naturalists speculate that because living cells metabolize non-living components, that it must be possible to assemble a living cell from non-living material. Scientists neither randomly nor systematically can assemble non-living matter into a living cell. Scientists can only reprogram an already living sacrificial cell. The experimental evidence sustains that living cells contain a “spark of life” that scientists cannot replicate.

The naturalists ignore the astounding complexity of life. The length of the genetic code sequence required to program the simplest living bacterial has immeasurably more possible password combinations than the number of all the atoms in the visible universe multiplied by the age of the visible universe in nanoseconds. The naturalists are indoctrinated to censure the evidence for the uniqueness of life. The naturalists religiously believe that most basic non-living components of the cell such as water, sugars, and amino acids can spontaneously assemble themselves into a living cell. The naturalists also censure the evidence of complexity by vastly oversimplifying the complex integrated layered systems of life. It is absurd to equate the complex integrated layered systems of life with the most basic components of the cell. The mathematical probability of producing the variations necessary for complex human life is zero, to vastly immeasurable precision. The naturalist has been taught to censure complexity and be indoctrinated by ignorance. The naturalists speculation defies evidence, defies logic, and rest solely on blind faith. The speculation strategy of the naturalists is foolproof; no amount of evidence could dissuade a naturalist. The naturalists therefore speculate that there must be an infinite number of universes, none of which can contain an eternal being.
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/39/the-war-against-truth

Is it possible for a person who doesn’t have the tools to start a fire to still maintain a fire that is already burning? If a fire metabolizes wood, does that mean a fire can be assembled from just wood without using an additional heat source? Is it possible for a person to write a computer program who does not know how the computer works or how to build one from scratch? Is it possible for a person who is incapable of creating life to maintain life in a cell that is already living? If a living cell metabolizes non-living material, does that mean a living cell must be able to be assembled from non-living material without using an additional life source? Is the whole of a complex layered structure more than just the sum of its parts? Is the whole of a complex integrated system more than just the sum of its processes? Is naturalism a scientific principle or a religious principle? Does the evidence give naturalist the right to censure rival interpretations? Does the power to censure rival interpretations give naturalists the illusion of having evidence?
https://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/801094/40/the-war-against-truth