Every philosophical proposition must have within it a basis in fact, else it
becomes either irrational or reactionary.
If something is irrational or reactionary, it dwells in the realm of emotions, and this is outside the scope of true philosophical discussion.
It follows, therefore, that most philosophical discussions center upon empirical or á posteriori principles. The discussions must evolve from some basis in fact, some experience or conclusion previously rendered.
It is well known that atheism is dependent upon spontaneous generation for its viability. Spontaneous generation can easily be defined as the spontaneous eruption of some form of life from non-biological entities. In simple terms, the atheist states that life must somehow be a natural manifestation of some raw, non-biological matter.
The problem with this is that several prominent men have proved beyond doubt that spontaneous generation cannot be, that it is false and impossible. In the 1950s, all scientists came to an abrupt conclusion concerning the principle of spontaneous generation. Although by that time even artificial amino acids could be created in the laboratory, no amount of trickery or electricity or jolt could bring any component put together to life.
Suffice it to say that in the 1950s the principle of spontaneous generation was labeled a defunct principle, an empty philosophy without basis in fact, and with no scientific backing whatsoever. The conclusion was that there is no life without antecedent life.
In truth, the atheist needs several dozen accidents to take place with raw, non-biological matter. These accidents appear mysteriously at the beginning of time for no apparent reason. They happen just once, and then they never happen again. Just as mysteriously as they first appeared, they never appear again.
The first accident would necessarily have to be a single cell protozoa, and the second accident would necessarily have to be a single cell bacterium. This would be the accidental beginning of 2 forms of life, animal life and plant life, both beginning simultaneously and without explanation from some raw, non-biological matter.
These 2 accidents would never happen again, as was proved outright by Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799) with his experiments on Infusoria. Pure water, cleaned of all matter and biological substance, could never on its own produce any kind of life form.
Of course, none of the several dozen accidents necessary for the atheist would ever happen again, which leads us to wonder why they would ever happen in the first place, and only once. If the spontaneous eruption of life were natural, it would seem to be perpetual in nature, just as any natural thing would be.
The logical conclusion that anyone can make, then, is that through scientific examination, experiment, and reasoning, from some of the best and brightest minds available, there can be no claim for spontaneous generation to exist. In a court of law, this would be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, if an atheist be cranky, and demand that a negative cannot be proved, and that spontaneous generation exists, then the atheist does not have a full grasp of the concept proposed.
Just how much more proof would the atheist demand, past the scientific experiments and history already on record?
The claim that there is no God began during the Age of Enlightenment, which in many respects is the beginning of modern times. Yet, despite all of the enlightenment that was being produced, the more stubborn of folk retained their illogical positions.
Just where did it all start?
It began with maggots. The claim was that maggots appeared spontaneously in raw meat. The claim was powerful, that God was not creating anything, that the maggots sprouted and erupted on their own, a spontaneous generation of life in the dead meat.
To prove this was false was simple. By placing a towel over the cut of meat in question, flies were prevented from laying their eggs, and no maggots appeared.
Still, the stubborn persisted in laying claim to some form of spontaneous generation that would negate the existence of God. Yet, over decades of time, scientists would, over and over again, prove that there is no spontaneous generation taking place anywhere on this Earth. The amount of study and evidence on this is astounding, and the weight of it would crush many a person if they tried to lift it.
Again, it must be asked, "How much more evidence and proof is necessary to kill the illogical concept of spontaneous generation?"
Now, however, the atheist tries a bargain. "If there is no spontaneous generation," he asks, "Then how could God create something out of nothing Himself? Is this not also proof that there is no God?"
We must return to the 1950s for the answer to that question. There is no life without antecedent life.
Before going further, however, I must relate that there are only 3 kinds of proof available in any argument, and I shall describe each briefly here.
1. Absolute Proof:
If you want to know how many beans are in a mason jar, there is only one way to actually prove the correct amount. That is to count the beans. Only then can we know absolutely the number of beans.
2. Mathematical or Scientific Proof:
If, and only if, the principles have already been established in mathematics and science, the established principles can be used to prove any point. If you were accused of a murder in Los Angeles, CA, taking place at 2:00 PM Pacific Time, and you were in Philadelphia, PA, at 5:00 PM Eastern Time when it happened, you could no doubt be proved innocent by the mathematics of time. Since Eastern Time is 3 hours ahead of Pacific Time, there is no way you could be in 2 places at once.
3. Preponderance of the Evidence:
In a court of law, seeing that some cases can never be proved absolutely, the standard is usually a preponderance of the evidence, and in capital cases there must be a preponderance of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the total amount of evidence is weighed against the defendant, and this is how people decide upon who is guilty or innocent.
Of one thing we have no doubt: There is no life without antecedent life.
Even in the science of cloning, which is abhorrent to many people, there is no life created. Quite the contrary, the cell, which is already alive, becomes confused and tortured by the invasion of the cloning acts, and this confusion yields the clone. It is the manipulation of life when a thing is cloned, not the creation of life.
Some form of life must precede any new life.
This is what originally produced the understanding of spiritual nature. From ancient peoples like the Egyptians who believed in an afterlife to the scientists in the 1950s who confirmed the death of spontaneous generation, the understanding of something not exactly physical was the problem.
In philosophy, it is called the dichotomy of life, and the famed dualists who tried to reconcile spiritualism and materialism, mind and brain, spirit and body, and consciousness and unconsciousness, were driven to the conclusion that even if the profound answers they sought could not be stated flatly, the dichotomy existed. Only a few philosophers would argue against a dichotomy of life.
The materialists who claim there is no dichotomy, however, have already lost the argument, since their argument is dependent upon spontaneous generation. If one is a true materialist who believes that no dichotomy exists, and that all things upon this planet are purely physical in nature, not having any kind of mind or soul, then de facto this materialist claims spontaneous generation as the basis. Spontaneous generation is a false basis.
Therefore, in order to answer the atheist's question, as was stated above, one must clarify the actual proposition.
"If there is no spontaneous generation," the atheist asks, "Then how could God create something out of nothing Himself? Is this not also proof that there is no God?"
A mountain of evidence is presented historically to prove there is no spontaneous generation, so that question is indeed settled. By trying to put similar evidence on the table concerning the existence of God would be to color the problem incorrectly.
If there is no life without antecedent life, all life must have existed, and has continued to exist, although the prior existence of such life cannot be known.
We can bring in Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) to qualify this situation for us, although Buddhism produces a similar argument to the famed scientist.
In simple terms, the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg states that when you have 2 conjugate variables, the more you know of one, the less you know of the other. And, an absolute knowledge of one produces an absolute ignorance of the other.
The dichotomy of life produces 2 such conjugate variables, of which Heisenberg could qualify in similar manner. The more we know of the physical world, the less we know of the spiritual world. An absolute knowledge of the physical world produces an absolute ignorance of the spiritual world.
In other words, the more we know of this planet, of human beings, of space and the universe, of quantum reality and relativity, the less we will ever know of anything outside of this knowledge. There is an uncertainty that cannot be crossed in real terms.
Buddhism calls it the knowable and the unknowable.
This is NOT an argument for agnosticism, however, for it falls directly into the structure of dichotomy. An agnostic cannot possibly believe in a dichotomy, since he is unsure of anything. An agnostic fails in either arena, the fool who cannot decide upon which road to travel.
If you accept the dichotomy, you accept the unknowable.
If you accept the dichotomy, there must be a spiritualism side by side with a materialism.
If you do not accept the dichotomy, you are a materialist, one who shuns any aspect of a dual nature to life or existence. There is only a brain, not a mind.
An agnostic is neither materialist nor spiritualist, so that does not enter the picture. The agnostic is the juror who cannot decide who is guilty, the one who causes the hung jury to start the case all over again.
Despite all of the evidence leading to the conclusion of a dichotomy of life, the juror hesitates, but rather than going to the opposite side of materialism, he simply says he cannot decide.
Therefore, agnosticism has no argument, for the agnostic knows not what to argue. It cannot be allowed that agnosticism is an alternate argument, for it argues nothing.
The agnostic is simply a hung juror.
To enter the argument one must either accept a dichotomy of life, thereby accepting both a physical being and a rational or spiritual being together, or one must reject a dichotomy of life and place his belief squarely on materialism.
That is the only argument, for accepting a dichotomy of life accepts the existence of God, not as the creator God that one might think is being projected, but a God of some kind. If all life existed in some form, and this life continues in other forms, then creation is not a part of the first principles in this argument.
By first principles, we can establish some God, but not the creator God you may want.
This is done by a logical deduction of what we have already proved. We know in fact that there is no life without antecedent life. Therefore, life must exist in other forms if it is to be continuous, whatever those forms are. In effect, then, by accepting this proved fact of life, we accept that life exists in other forms.
If we also accept the dichotomy of life, which most philosophers do accept, the de facto conclusion is that the part of us that continues is the rational or spiritual part.
Finally, if the meat of our existence is indeed the rational or spiritual part, since that is the eternal part that must exist throughout, then there must be some kind of framework to this. The framework would be the God that is the question of the proposition.
At this point the atheist rises again to ask one last question. He asks, "Could what you say be the way it is, but without a God?"
This makes no sense at all.
After providing arguments against spontaneous generation, and providing much evidence for the dichotomy of life, and after destroying the actual legs of the table that atheism rests upon, we are now to conclude that all of the sound arguments against atheism now support it.
I cannot fathom a more stubborn person than the atheist.
Rest assured I do not intend to define God. That is a matter of religion and faith, and certainly this argument is philosophical, not based in faith.
It is not actually necessary to define the God we assume to be, for it is necessary only to understand that spontaneous generation cannot exist, and therefore the continuous existence of life, in many and various forms, must be a reality. If we understand this, the framework that supports it is an easy acceptance.
Part of the problem many religious people have in trying to make an argument for God is that they intend to define God, which in Buddhism, at least, is unknowable.
The definition of God is indeed unknowable in terms of fact. Upon what would anyone base their conclusions except on faith?
In philosophy there must be a basis in fact, or there is no argument, so even if we can conclude there is a God by first principles and scientific evidence to support our conclusion, we can never be able to define this unknowable thing.
Is there a God?
It stands to reason that there must be some kind of a God, even if we cannot define God Himself.
END OF ARTICLE
See Part 2 of this Article Here
Mr. J.V. Presogna is a writer, composer and artist with a background in science and mathematics. He is a Christian-Buddhist.