Morality, Instinct, and Law

The interrelationship between these 3 parts of human motivation are not always delineated. They are often blurred together, so they all seem the same, and the nuances of each element are missed. I propose a deeper look into each element, parsing them as different, for better understanding of ourselves and the peculiarities of the human animal.

First, definitions:

Morality is an embedded sense, classically considered to be 'endowed' by a Creator, as in the American declaration of independence,

*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights*

Merriam's: conformity to ideals of right human conduct

Morality is a 'self evident' standard that humans in every region, time, and culture have appealed to. It is equivalent to 'natural law', from reformation and Enlightenment philosophers. It is something internal, embedded, and universal in humanity.

Instinct is an animal quality, where certain responses are programmed internally, apart from a learned response. Migration of birds. Self preservation. Maternal care. It differs from morality in that is involuntary, not a rational choice.

From Merriam's: *a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason*

Law is a codefied rule, enforced by a human agenct.

Merriam's: *a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority*

Law can be a moral imperative, or even an instinct. Or, it can be something arbitrary, contrary to a moral sense or instinct. Power to enforce a law is the determining factor. Morals can be observed with or without the force of law. Law can be immoral, or counter instinctive.

The relationships between these human elements are fascinating, and are rooted in a fundamental belief about the universe.

The existence of morality, as a Real Thing, hinges on the embedding ability of a Creator, or some Force able to endow such traits into the inner psyche or soul of man. In a godless universe, morality is not real. It is either animal instinct, a delusion, or arbitrary law by a compelling force. A person's worldview shapes the way they see law, instinct, and morality.

Morality', as defined here, is different from instinct and law. It is an inner, 'felt sense' of right and wrong that transcends instinct or law. Its only philosophical basis is from a Creator, or some kind of embedding Agent. It is a Standard of behavior EXPECTED from this Creator or Agent, and is not a human construct or animal instinct.

In a godless universe, no morality like this is possible. It is a delusion or manipulation, to control people. There is only animal instinct, or declared Law, in a godless universe, with no absolutes to appeal to.

IF... there is a God, or Something, that embedded a moral 'sense' in humanity,
THEN that is the philosophical basis for morality.

IF... there is no God, or no moral 'sense' embedded,
THEN any moral 'sense' is a delusion. It is not there.

Those are the logical conclusions of each premise.

The basis for morality, as defined in this article, can ONLY come from an 'Embedder'. It is different from instinct or arbitrary Law.

Here is the logical progression. We will assume both premises, and follow the implications and conclusions, as they relate to morality.

IF... there is a Creator/moral Embedder..
AND IF... this Creator/moral embedder embedded moral standards in humans..
THEN... that is the source of embedded moral standards.. a 'sense' of universal, absolute morality.

BUT..

IF.. there is no Creator/moral Embedder..
THEN... morality is a human construct. ..a 'sense' of universal, absolute morality is a delusion or manipulation of man.

For example..

IF.. a Creator embedded, 'thou shalt not steal', into the inner conscience of man..
THEN.. any 'sense' of property rights are an inherent moral value, embedded by God.

But in a godless universe, 'thou shalt not steal!', is a human construct. It is not even an instinct, as every animal species rewards stealing as a virtue. It can be (and is) codefied into Law, to deter theft by a human enforcer, but at its root, it is only a human construct, to control weak minded dupes. It is an imposed platitude, to control people. There is no overriding moral imperative to sting one's conscience, if they steal something.

'Conscience!' is also a human construct, in a godless universe. With no moral values embedded, but only human manipulation, any appeals to 'conscience!' are manipulations from human controllers.

If you remove the 'Higher Power' source of Morality, it becomes nothing more than situation ethics, or no morality at all. People do what they want to do, & who can say they are wrong? Unless many band together with some kind of agreement, (and what basis is there for that?), all you have is the changing winds of relativism, tossing everyone to & fro until they shipwreck on the rocks of anarchy.

Why are sociopaths considered an aberration in humanity? Most of them were raised with moral values, but chose to 'switch off' that part of their psyche, or some other psychobabble theory. Why would there be any morality in humans, if it is not there inherently?

A male lion will kill cubs, if he can, with no consequence. Theft is a common virtue, in the animal kingdom. How are these human moral platitudes different, from the rest of the animal world, if they are just instinctive? Why should we submit to moralizing platitudes from manipulators, and follow their constructs?


'Thou shalt not steal'

Let's examine this moral imperative.

Moral value? Yes
Animal instinct? No
Human Law? Yes

This is a good example of a moral belief, that has been codefied into Law, in almost every human society. In every animal setting, theft is a virtue.. it enhances survival, and better thieves have better chances of survival.

But in humanity, this has been declared a 'sin!', or a criminal act. Religions, throughout the human experience condemn theft, and all human societies that have any law respect the basic right of property.

The Enlightenment philosophers waxed long and eloquently on the essentials of 'Natural Law', and summarized it thusly:

Right to Life
Right to Liberty
Right to Property

The BASIS for this 'moral', is that it is a God given right, to your property, and any who take what is another's is guilty of a crime.

Bastiat confirmed the basic right of property, which is the foundation for the 'moral value'.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat

Morality, such as described by philosophers, can only exist in a God made universe. They are meaningless platitudes in a godless one.

If we are in a God made universe (Who has embedded moral values in man), then morality is a Real Thing, and we ought to follow our moral inclinations, as given by the Creator.

BUT... if we are in a godless universe, then all such moralizing are human constructs, to manipulate and control. Morality is NOT Real, but is a delusion, indoctrinated into people for some human agenda. We are fools and dupes, to submit to such manipulation.

Theft is a good example of the difference between a moral precept, a law, and instinct.

The Sociopath

Dictionary definition:
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

I probably should define and analyze 'conscience', first, since it is foundational to defining a Sociopath. But, since we have been using the concept of 'conscience', as a moral 'sense' that is universal and self evident, it should be unnecessary.

The very existence of the term, 'sociopath' implies a normal human standard.. a 'sense' of right and wrong that the Sociopath lacks. How can anyone condemn a sociopath, if all moral values are arbitrary or relative? He just exhibits his values, and not yours.

So the 'science' of psychiatry, the justice system, the media, and all human institutions accept and reflect a belief in a 'normal' human standard, or sense of conscience, that the sociopath does not have.

Whether a biological aberration, or a learned condition, sociopathy is a negative condition, in the human collective. That judgement is made by appealing to a self evident standard of acceptable and normal human moral values, as reflected in the conscience.

Conscience

What is it? Is it a Real Thing, or a human construct, imposed upon a pliable herd? Conscience is closely related to morality. It is the 'thing' within humans that reflects the inner, felt morality. It provides the 'sting' when it is violated. It could be correlated to pain, the negative feedback our body gives when we do something injurious to ourselves. In the same way, conscience provides negative feedback when we injure it by violating it's sensitivity.

As usual, I'll give a dictionary definition:

Conscience: the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good
All of the terms used in these definitions are steeped in moralizing undertones. 'Sense', 'moral goodness', 'do right', etc, ALL reflect the underlying assumption of common knowledge of these things. 'Good' carries a moral judgement, as well as 'bad'. Nobody is confused, or thinks that murder, theft, lying, etc are 'good!', and bravery, honesty, and altruistic acts are 'bad!'

So there is a common base of communication, even crossing language, culture, race, and time. You can ask anyone, in any culture, era, or region, to list 'good & bad!' things, and they will very nearly correlate. There may be a few specifics, or arbitrary cultural mores that vary, but the core elements of morality are consistent and constant, throughout the human experience.

An Indian might have, 'eaten by tiger' as bad, while a pacific islander might use shark. But the basics, murder, theft, assault, fraud, lying; are universally held in disdain by the human collective. I know of no culture or society where these things are esteemed as virtues.

On the 'good' side, bravery, hard work, altruistic acts, kindness, honesty, helping in time of need, and personal responsibility are universally esteemed and held as virtuous, among human beings.

I haven't had many quotes in this article, but i will rectify that immediately. 

There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ~Martin Luther King Jr

Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, something is out of tune. ~Carl Gustav Jung

The only tyrant I accept in this world is the 'still small voice' within me. And even though I have to face the prospect of being a minority of one, I humbly believe I have the courage to be in such a hopeless minority. ~Mahatma Gandhi

The torture of a bad conscience is the hell of a living soul. ~John Calvin

It is neither right nor safe to go against my conscience. ~Martin Luther

A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory. ~Mark Twain

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, “Is it safe?” Expediency asks the question, “Is it politic?” And Vanity comes along and asks the question, “Is it popular?” But Conscience asks the question, “Is it right?”... The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of convenience, but where he stands in moments of challenge, moments of great crisis and controversy. ~Martin Luther King Jr.

Nobody can turn you into a slave unless you allow them. Nobody can make you afraid of anything, unless you allow them. Nobody can tell you to do something wrong, unless you allow them. God never created you to be a slave, man did. God never created division or set up any borders between brothers, man did. God never told you hurt or kill another, man did. So why is man your god, and not the Creator? ~Suzy Kassem

There is no witness so dreadful, no accuser so terrible as the conscience that dwells in the heart of every man. ~Polybius

How pitiful is an intelligence used only to make excuses to quieten the conscience. ~Ignazio Silone

Natural Law

This is perhaps the Central Theme of the Enlightenment. Man is endowed with Rights, inherently, not granted by human power.

it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat

Life, Liberty, and Property. These are the Basic Rights of Man, summarized by the Enlightenment.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.. ~Thomas Jefferson

Natural law is the basis for almost all human rights declarations, since the 18th century. From wiki:

..natural law has been claimed or attributed as a key component in the United States Declaration of Independence (1776), the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) of France, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948..)of the United Nations General Assembly, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) of the European Union.

It is the basis for almost all perceptions of human rights, in contemporary culture. It is not always credited with the ASSUMPTION of human rights, but it is always there.

Again from wiki:
Natural law (Latin: ius natural, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal;[1] it exists independently of human understanding, and of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large.

Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind. The concept of natural law was documented in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle,[2] and was referred to in Roman philosophy by Cicero. References to natural law are also found in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, later expounded upon in the Middle Ages by Christian philosophers such as Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas.

Natural law is an extrapolation of universal morality:

IF... God or some Creative Power has imbued morality into mankind, as evidenced by the universal acceptance of conscience, THEN.. it follows that this same endowment would include rights, as well as obligations. If murder is 'wrong', then each person has a 'right' to life. If property is a 'right', then theft is 'wrong!'. Morality and natural law are 2 sides of the same coin.

But both morality and natural law are contingent on an Embuing Power. A godless universe has no such power, but only human law and animal instinct. Morality and natural law are human constructs, for manipulation, in a godless universe.

There is nothing inherently 'wrong!' about murder, or theft, or exploiting anyone.. there are only human laws for those things, passed to manipulate people.

Theft, murder, and exploitation are virtues, in the natural world, and enhance survival.

Instinct and Anthropomorphism 

Projecting human emotion, reason, and decision making onto animals is called Anthropomorphism.

Studies that attempt to 'prove!' uniquely human attributes in animals are roundly criticised for anthropomorphic projection.

Chimps have been studied extensively, trying to prove anthropomorphic qualities, when there are other, more reasonable explanations, than 'human like!' projection.

The attempt, here, is to blur the distinction between morality and instinct. But instinct is not morality. There are no 'good and bad!' judgments in instinctive behavior.

Animals might SEEM to exhibit human qualities, but that is merely projection.. anthropomorphic projection. YouTube videos, showing animals exhibiting human behaviour, are just tricks, trained by conditioned response. Talking animals, oozing human emotion are Disney films, not biological reality.

There is no 'justice', or 'morality', in any animal society. There is jungle law. Might makes right. There are thousands of studies of animal societies, and any 'human like!' behavior is projected. There is no moralizing taking place, or abstract reasoning.

But in the Brave New World of Progessive mandates, real science must take a back seat to religious belief, and fantasy as reality. Here, animals talk and are just like people. You pick your own identity, regardless of your born biology.

'Morality', if it is real in humans, is not the same as animal instinct, no matter how hard we try to project it upon them. Only humans have this abstract sense of morality. 

A False Dilemma in Atheism

A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. (from wiki)

The dilemma presented is usually like this:

'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

But, there are other possibilities, not just the 'either/or' of this dilemma.

1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
3. The Majesty and holiness of God may be too much for sinful man to observe, so God waits, to give opportunity to be reconciled.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to grasp the obvious.
5. God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.

We do not have enough evidence, individually, to categorically declare one of these possibilities as 'truth!', and dismiss all others. Therefore, this argument is fallacious, based on a false dilemma.

Delusions in a Godless Universe

Here is a list of what can only be called 'delusions', IF this is a godless universe :

1. There is a God
2. God Created everything and everyone
3. There is a soul
4. There is an absolute moral code
5. There is a heaven and hell
6. Love is a spiritual experience
7. Life has purpose and meaning
8. God has ordained gifts and duties for man
9. 'Good' and 'bad' are Real and Absolute
10. God is good
11. God loves you
12. God created you for a purpose
13. God has embedded each soul with a conscience
14. The choices you make in life have eternal consequence
15. Angels and devils are real beings
16. There exists a spiritual dimension

I'm sure there are more. 
Why do people have these delusions, if indeed, this is a godless universe?
Why do some atheists retain some of these delusions?
What natural processes would impart such wholesale delusions, on the majority of human beings, in every culture, region, and era?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~Aristotle

Model of Origins

Model of Origins

I have been asked what my opinion is, regarding origins. I'm a vocal critic of ancient earth common descent, so some are curious what my leanings are, regarding origins.

I present this as a model, that fits with the current evidence. My model can change (and has!), as better data becomes available. I am not dogmatic, but see this model as the most likely, given the physical evidence. Scientific minded people have to be open to possibility, and not lock themselves in dogmatic belief.

I also have the luxury of inside information, regarding a very important factor in this quest for understanding our origins. I met the Creator, and can take His creative power into account. When i was an atheist, i denied the Ability of a Creator, and assumed godless naturalism. But knowing there is a Supreme Being, Who hath wrought all things, my quest can concern itself with HOW, God accomplished this feat of creation.

Most people, who attended State run Indoctrination centers (like i did), have a limited, biased slant, regarding origins. It is a very difficult thing, to question Authority and the status quo, especially now. I was fortunate to be in the waning moments of a classical liberal education, where critical thinking and skepticism were emphasized. Mandated conformity of belief was not emphasized, in my day, as it is now.

So.. now, the model, and the facts that support it. I won't overwhelm the thread with every minutia of data, but summarize. Other threads can be used to examine the science behind individual points, and scrutinize detail.

There Exists a Creator
HOW He did this thing, is my goal of inquiry.

Age of the Earth
This is a foundational element, in any model. I was spoon fed ancient dates, of millions and billions of years, and assumed there was valid science behind those assumptions. But as i examined the evidence more critically, i could see many problems with the ancient earth assumptions. The formation of fossils, oil, coal, canyons, etc, did not require 'millions and billions!' of years, but could have happened rapidly. Isotope dating is fraught with unrealistic assumptions, and the helium isotopes in the atmosphere, as well as the magnetic half life of the earth, indicate a MUCH shorter time frame. I now see a time frame of 10k yrs or so as most likely. The entire universe was created, 'ex nihilo', fully functional, with the earth able to support life.

Age of Man
The discovery of mtDNA, and especially the matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor (mt-MRCA) has revolutionized the beliefs about man's origins. Neanderthal is now known to be just another human tribe, descended from the mt-MRCA, like all of us. The mitochondrial clock has been measured, using Russian Romanovs, Swedish kings, and others. The dates arrived at were extrapolated backward, following the mutation rate they were able to calculate, and the time to the mt-MRCA was discovered to be ~ 6k years. That fits with other data, even though it flies in the face of the majority belief of ancient dates.

Common Ancestry?
No. Every family/genera/phylogenetic type of organism appear suddenly, fully formed and developed, and then varied from there. All living things were created less than 10k yrs ago, and varied within their genetic parameters as they spread across the planet. There is no evidence of universal common descent, and plenty of evidence against it. It is a competing religious belief, in the progressive religion, that is based on the assumption of atheistic naturalism.

To summarize my current perception of the facts, and the model of origins:

1. God created the universe, in a 'big bang' creation event.. ~10k yrs ago
2. All living things were created soon after, including man. They have remained in their individual genetic states (with some variability), inviolate.
3. Fossils, oil, coal, canyons, etc, were formed in a short time frame, thousands (not millions) of years in the past. They were formed primarily from cataclysmic events, that seem to be uniformly spread across the globe.

I will be happy to clarify, or provide further detail, for this model, and offer critiques for conflicting models, if there is interest. I am not interested in a flame war with intolerant religious bigots, who demand conformity with THEIR indoctrinated beliefs. I have studied this subject for decades, am conversant with much of the technical language, and can see through assumptions, conjecture, and assertions. Bullying and intimidation will not change my perceptions of the scientific facts, nor do they refute the reasoning and methodology behind this model.

Billions of Years!

How do the believers in Common Ancestry 'know' that the earth & universe is millions or billions of years old? They don't. They ASSUME it. There is NO verifiable, testable, or quantifiable method to measure dating for these time frames. They are all fraught with assumptions & speculations, then declared as 'scientific fact'. But what are these 'methods'? I'll list a few:

1. Seasonal rings.
We can 'measure' the age of a tree by its rings, so this same logic is used in some glaciers in Greenland, which they declare to be 123,000 years old. Some in antarctica are measured & declared to be 740,000 yrs old. But the central problem with these calculations is the assumption of uniformity. They ASSUME that the earth has always been as it is now, & there were no mitigating circumstances that might have laid down multiple layers in a short time. But we observe evidence of very tempestuous times in the earth's geography. How can we even theorize uniformity? Plate tectonics, volcanic activity, massive flooding, moving glaciers, constantly changing upheaval in the earth's surface makes assuming annual uniformity of ice deposits impossible. There are too many variables to assume that.

2. Radiometric dating. This is done by taking the half life of an isotope, which can be measured by extrapolating backward in time, to when it was full. Greenland seems to be a popular hangout for the old earth Believers, & it was here they 'discovered' rocks they declare to be 1.3 billion years old. They make this assumption thusly:
1. Potassium-40 is trapped in molten lava, & has a half life of 1.3 billion years.
2. Potassium-40 decays into argon-40.
3. by measuring the content of both in the rocks, you can extrapolate their age.
They use other radiometric dating, including uranium & carbon-14 in the same way.
But this, too if full of assumptions:
1. The countdown started at full. If some isotopes are trapped in molten lava, or laid down in a strata, how can you assume it began at full strength?
2. The decay rate is assumed to be constant. Why? How can this be assumed? The universe is full of drastic changes, passing asteroids, solar & weather changes, magnetic fields, & constant change in the earth's surface. It is a pretty wild assumption to theorize uniformity in deposits or decay of anything.
3. Often, samples taken a few feet apart in a test setting produced wildly different measurements.
4. The amount of the original parent & daughter isotopes in a specimen are unknown. How can you assume 100% parent at the beginning, & 0% daughter isotope? How could that even have happened, in an ancient, ever changing, big banging world of exploding matter?
5. Dating methods are constantly producing impossible results. They pick & choose the ones that 'fit' within their assumed time frame, & toss out the ones that don't. A diamond, for example, is allegedly billions of years old, as is coal. But some have been measured to have carbon-14, which would have completely dissipated according to their own time frame. But problem evidence is just dismissed, while the 'evidence' they like is embraced.

3. Speed of light & expanding universe.
Here the argument is that we can see light coming from millions of light years away, so it must have taken millions of years for the light to get here. They also theorize an expanding universe, a la the 'big bang'. All of matter was once, somehow, compressed into the size of a pea, or such, & suddenly exploded. Some scientists have measured this expansion rate, assumed it to be constant in time & space, & declared the age of the universe.
a. If the speed of light is absolutely constant (a big assumption) AND the universe is expanding uniformly (another big assumption) the times should match. They don't, unless you juggle them.
b. There are other possibilities than a 'big bang', & assumed expansion.
c. This presumes light & the expanding universe as a constant. Einstein has suggested some 'relativity' into the mix, which makes these assumptions faulty.

4. Strata. This one is not bandied about as much, but is slipped in from time to time. If a fossil is found in a strata, it is declared to be a certain age, depending on the strata it is found in. But how is the age of the strata determined? By the fossils found in them. They use the conclusion to prove the premise! The assumptions of the age of the strata date the fossils, & the types of fossils date the strata. It is all declared dates, with no empirical methodology to produce it. It is merely circular reasoning, another logical fallacy.

Other problems:
1. Earth's magnetic field.
The magnetic field of the earth has been measured to be ~1400 yrs. If you ASSUME uniformity, the strength of the field would be too powerful if you go back more than 10k yrs or so, & would have vaporized everything on the planet, having the heat & energy of a magnetic star. To solve this, the old earthers suggest 'flipping magnetic poles'. Somehow, for no known reason, & by no known mechanism, the magnetic fields reverse themselves from time to time. They demand uniformity in all their other dating methods, but want some leeway with the magnetic field.
2. Atmospheric helium. When some isotopes decay, they release helium-4. If we assume a zero starting point (as they do with all other radiometric dating processes) then we can measure the helium isotopes in the atmosphere, & extrapolate backwards to when it started. These calculations yield less than 10k yrs, not millions or billions.

There are a lot of problems with the dating methods, & declaring millions & billions of years dogmatically as 'fact' is a disservice to the scientific method, & is a return to 'science by decree'. Dating methods are too variable, & based on too many assumptions. It is part of the religion of atheistic naturalism, & is based NOT on scientifically proven facts or valid theories, but decrees & mandates: Assumptions & Assertions.

It is just like the 'science' of times past, when the earth was declared to be flat, the sun revolved around the earth, & that life spontaneously arose from non-life. It is a mandated & indoctrinated belief, with no scientific evidence.

Thinking people with a basic understanding of science & the scientific method should not be fooled by these pseudo scientists. They deceive gullible people with their bluffs & dogmatic declarations, but there is no scientific evidence for the dates that they propose. None of them can stand under scrutiny, & should be classified as speculations, not trumpeted as scientific fact. These phonies do the same with other factual disciplines. They promote global warming, which has no basis in scientific reality, & is just a political agenda masked in pseudo science terms. They also distort economic numbers & fiscal matters. Truth, facts, & evidence are just propaganda tools, & have no meaning to those promoting some ideological narrative. Evolution & naturalism as origins is the same thing. It is pseudo science jargon, presented in an intellectually titillating way, delivered with smug arrogance, masked in techno babble, but with NO empirical, scientific basis. It is a religion.. a philosophy about the origins of life. It has no scientific basis.

Origins

I see 2 basic options for Origins:
1. All matter & life was created by an unknown being or beings: Intelligent Design.
2. All matter & life happened by accident, via unknown natural processes: Naturalism.

Intelligent design includes creationism, alien seeding, & any other theories that require the outside involvement of an intelligent being or beings. Naturalism says that life started by natural processes, & has evolved by other natural processes to the state we observe today.

Now, there are also hybrid theories that combine the 2. Some believe that intelligent design 'started' the process, & natural processes have evolved life to where it is today. But there are still basically these 2 possibilities of our origin. And if you could prove the naturalistic view, there would be no need for any supernatural explanation, as the naturalistic one would suffice. And of course the flip side would also be true. If you could prove the existence of a being or beings who have the power to create a universe, any natural explanations would only be the methods they used.

We try to use science & logic to decide which of these is the more likely, or what the evidence suggests, but nothing really works. Science cannot answer this. We cannot see or define any natural process that could have done it, so we are left ONLY with belief in either theory. Neither are subject to the scientific method.. they can't be repeated or observed. But neither has any provable evidence. Both theories are logically impossible. LIFE is impossible. The entire universe is impossible, yet here we are.

Of all the fundamental questions of life, Origins is the MOST BASIC of the questions, & the answer to this one affects all the others.

IF we are here by naturalism:
1. There is no purpose to our existence. 'Why' is meaningless.
2. There are no rules. Morality & law are inventions of our own minds.
3. There is no destiny. You die & cease to exist. As you were for eternity past, so you will be for eternity future.

IF we are here by Supernatural Design:
1. There might be a purpose. Why would such a Being do this?
2. There might be rules, from the Creator's perspective. Perhaps there are consequences to our words & deeds.
3. There might be life after death. We may have souls, & live beyond what we see here.

As you can see, there are completely different answers to other fundamental questions, depending on the answer to the very first one: How. Wise men & philosophers have spent millennia grappling with the latter possibility, but humanity is at no more of a consensus than when we started.

That is why a person's view of Origins is the foundation upon which their entire world view is built upon. Most people are content to have a disjointed, hodge podge of irrational thought, faulty assumptions, and wrong answers to base their philosophy of life upon. But that is because the MOST BASIC QUESTION, our origins, is unknown by any of our natural senses. We have to start with a belief, & go from there. There are other factors: mental, emotional, or spiritual that are not part of our natural sensory perceptions that figure in. But from a scientific point of view, those are not subject to scientific scrutiny, & do not count as empirical evidence.

There is no empirical answer to our origins. There are no natural laws, or scientific explanations that can even make a decent guess as to HOW we came about. We are here. But HOW we came about remains a mystery, unanswerable by human reason & senses. If there is an answer to this question, reason & science cannot answer it.

Unfortunately, the beliefs about origins are not clearly seen by many. Some believe that evolution & natural processes are proven fact, & that the naturalist theory is scientifically 'settled'. They will zealously & dogmatically assert evolution as proven scientific fact, when it is not even a valid theory. Most of our public institutions support this unscientific concept, & evolution is taught as fact in schools, national parks, nature shows, & practically all human institutions. It is the status quo of origins, but like others before, it should be scrutinized & submit to the scientific method.

Big Bang Belief

Most people believe the present theory of a 'big bang', for the origins of the universe. Here are some points to ponder, about this theory:

1. Who or What initiated this big bang, compressing the universe into a small size, then exploding it into the universe?
2. What is the difference between a 'big bang', and a Creation event from a Creator?
3. How does light appear to us, which would take 'millions of years!' to get to us from the far reaches of the universe?

I have been referred to this link, as the most recent authoritative data behind the theory of big bang:

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/

WMAP's "baby picture of the universe" maps the afterglow of the hot, young universe at a time when it was only 375,000 years old, when it was a tiny fraction of its current age of 13.77 billion years. The patterns in this baby picture were used to limit what could have possibly happened earlier, and what happened in the billions of year since that early time. The (mis-named) "big bang" framework of cosmology, which posits that the young universe was hot and dense, and has been expanding and cooling ever since, is now solidly supported, according to WMAP.

WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.

Now, if a godless universe could set aside all laws of physics, and expand 'by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second', then how is that any different than positing a Creator, who did the same thing?

Why the belief in '13.7 billion years!', as the age of the universe, if this phenomenal expansion could do it in 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second'?

What natural processes could have compressed the universe into a size of a pea, then explode it to the expanses of the universe in 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second'?

It seems to me, that the faith needed to believe this happened spontaneously, through physical law defying processes, is just as great, if not greater, than believing in a Creator.

There is either an unknown, physical law defying natural process that could do this thing, or an unknown, physical law defying Creator Who did it.

Which belief is more reasonable? Why would believing in atheistic naturalism be 'Science!', but believing in a Creator is 'Religion!'? Both are leaps of faith, requiring an assumption of some physical law defying Cause.

...

WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.

So, a period of 'inflation', where the laws of physics were set aside for 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second', occured, it is suggested. The entire universed exploded in an instant, filling millions of light years of space, allowing light and other waves continuity, so they can be seen, now, without having to wait billions of years for them to get here.

But by what standard do you arbitrarily assign '13.77 billion years!', as the age of the universe, if you posit an inflation of 'less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second', to expand it to its current condition? It could have been just millions, or even thousands.. why arbitrarily choose '13.77 billions!', when there is NO WAY of knowing how far back this 'inflation' took place?

'Tiny fluctuations grew to form galaxies!' Really? Can you not see the fantastic speculation going on here, dogmatically declared as 'science!'?

And just HOW did this inflation allegedly happen, suspending all known natural laws? Trillions fold expansion in trillionths of a second? The acceleration to do this would vaporize any matter. This phenomenon cannot be observed, repeated, or any mechanism explained. It is a physical impossibility, yet is glibly declared as 'settled science!', and eager bobbleheads eat it up like candy.

Is there no skepticism? Are we really that gullible, to accept the techno babble filled spinnings of agenda driven ideologues?

..this is the Hope: 'Someone!' out there is Really Smart, and knows how this all fits together. Us mere mortals cannot possibly understand the complexities, and should just Trust the mysterious experts, who can't be bothered with actually explaining or demonstrating with sound scientific methodology, what their theories entail.

We can't explain it, understand it, or observe it, but the Really Smart People told us it was 'settled science!', so it must be true!

Progressive Indoctrination relies on trust and gullibility. Skepticism, critical thinking, and sound scientific methodology, are its worse enemies.

So, what is the difference between positing a mysterious, unknown, untestable Creator, over mysterious, unknown, untestable godless processes, that allegedly did the same thing? Why is speculating atheistic naturalism, 'science!', but a Creator, 'religion?' It is religious bigotry, pretending one religio/philosophical belief is 'settled science!', while a competing one is 'religious!', and using the power of the State to mandate the belief.

What natural processes can Create the universe ex nihilo? This is just a religious belief, masquerading as 'Science!'