|
In the first discussion of dismissing spontaneous generation and atheism, it was
demonstrated in the conclusion that, "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." [1] In other words, it was explained that numerous individuals had demonstrated that spontaneous generation is not possible, and that there is no life without antecedent life. Therefore, in accepting the dichotomy of life, which was also explained quite thoroughly, we accept that life is in existence in various forms. These various forms can be of any kind, but the form which resides on this planet is a physical form which contains a spiritual or rational form. This is one state of existence, a combination or dichotomy. In no way can this be defined to be the only existence, since we have accepted the dichotomy as reality. The acceptance of "thought-soul-mind" and a physical body is the focal point which attends to spiritualism. Materialism, of course, rests its claims on spontaneous generation and fails the argument. Numerous examples in religion could be used to explain what some might find confusing at this point. For example, some might ask what other states of existence could there be? Was there not, they might ask, a time on this planet when there was no life at all, neither plant life nor animal life? Certainly, they say, there must have been a time of nothing. Yet, this contradicts our known fact, that no life exists without antecedent life, the only sure truth we have uncovered thus far. This is where one can find the extension of the dichotomy, since in itself it serves two purposes. Its reality is evident to many as it stands, but to explain it further would be to demonstrate that, if life can exist only from antecedent life, the previous life must originate in the spiritual realm, whatever way one defines that realm to be. For example, Christianity explains it as a trinity, where a spiritual state is made flesh in the real world of birth, and then, as dust returns to dust, the physical state dies to give way to another spiritual state. Spirit, flesh, spirit, together explain the concept of trinity, three states of existence for one person. This would relate to all persons, not simply the Christ that defines it in Christianity. In Buddhism, there can be 31 different states of existence, and not all necessarily on this planet. Those examples, however, rely on religion more than philosophy, but the Buddhist view is not actually based on religion in the strictest sense. In Buddhism, the other states of existence seem required, which is a more philosophical view instead of religion. In effect, when we say that spontaneous generation cannot exist and therefore atheism has no rational basis in fact, we accept some form of God, and we accept any form of spiritualism. Therefore, to answer the question about whether there was a time on this planet when no life existed, one would have to say that answer is unknowable, for it could be so, and it might not be so. There is no doubt that the odds would be equal for each. To give a Buddhist example once more, since it may clarify a thought process, when a being of some non-physical form makes a motion to identify something, it is willingly choosing to exist, and at this point would enter the womb --- as a zygote, of course. Sperm meets egg simultaneously as some non-physical being makes a decision to exist. Buddhism goes to great lengths to explain the developing fetus and how the senses grow out of this choosing to exist. To bring this to the "beginning of time for our planet" requires something we are not capable of providing. We have no way to know the origin of this planet in terms of life and living things. Not even Buddha went that far in his explanations of this universe, although he did try to explain that there are numerous ways that one exists, that there are certain planes of existence for any being. Additionally, in the realm of Judaism and Christianity which covers the Bible, there should be made a point here very clearly that Creationists have erred in their argument. Without denying the existence of God, one can clearly define the error of these Creationists in this manner: In Genesis 1 the Bible talks of a plural creation, to make "them" in "our" image. It is not the creation of one man and one woman. The story begins with Adam entering a garden and meeting Eve, but they are by no means the only inhabitants of this world. This can be proven when Cain kills Abel. Are Adam, Eve, and Cain the only people on Earth? No, because Cain was protected from others by a covenant with God, and he went to find a wife in another place. Case closed. There were many, many people on Earth at the same time. Therefore, life did not begin with the creation of one human being called Adam. Likewise, when we speak of evolution, let us make certain that we recognize the facts before us, and that there is a record of many examples of evolutionary progress on this planet. It is not myth or theory. Once we accept all facts of evolution, however, we have a problem. The facts of evolution we accept cannot explain the origin of life itself. As a matter of fact, not only can evolution not explain the very origin of life, it has trouble getting us past a single cell creature. Nothing is more efficient than a single cell creature, and the facts of evolution clearly point to no creatures becoming 2 or more cells. A creature of 2 or more cells would eat far too much, and the other single cell creatures would probably kill it. There is no advantage to having more than one cell. No antagonist in the environment can be envisioned which would require more cells to survive, although I will not say for certain that has to be it. What I will say is that the facts of evolution do not answer the question of origin at all. Evolutionists are no better than the Creationists at handling that question. Therefore, the only basis in fact that we have leads us to be against spontaneous generation, and against atheism, but leaves us with an incomplete understanding of what spiritualism actually is. Notes: [1] "Basis in Fact, Part 1," by Mr. J.V. Presogna, http://www.go2jvp.com/article11.html END OF ARTICLE See Part 1 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. |