Naturally, a child's mind is at some varying point in his developing awareness of the various steps in this selection and storage process, and may even appear to jump from hearing a new concept, especially from a parent, to placing this belief straight upon his partially developed BOOKSHELF. One instance that comes to mind especially at this time of year, of such immature bypassing of important steps of investigation and testing, is the concept as taught of Santa Clause. More on this entirely sad observation at a less sensitive time, perhaps.
Right now, we will make the basic observation that many adults seem to have developed very little from such foundations of immaturity, for they will often skip lightly over one or more of the important steps as listed above, and consequently find themselves having their minds and therefore lives filled with all kinds of unsubstantiated fanciful and deceptive rubbish to the point of eventually losing sense of what is worth embracing or otherwise. Even so, they are legally and in most cases morally responsible for their acts, as based upon decision, regardless of the fact that such may have been founded on a less than judicious and mature usage of their own personal BOOKSHELF of ACCEPTED TRUTH. A man for instance, will still be at least sent to jail, even if he fully believes that he did the world a great favor by ridding our planet of Satan, in dispatching the mailman on his rounds for the day.
Essentially, we all have to agree that; to some extent, every one of us, has some volumes sitting in our own personal BOOKSHELF, such as we loyally adhere to, that do not in fact measure up to any actual incontrovertible truth. For instance one man will proudly die for his belief that a man who lived 2000 years ago, as generally accepted under the name 'Jesus'; was and still is 'God'. So such a man's life then, might be given for the sake of this personally accepted truth as locked safely inside a very precious (to him) volume, sitting in his particular BOOKSHELF. A rather supreme sacrifice to make, but would it be based upon (as he believes) ultimate truth, or a more colored and/or deceptive one?
Another man is equally convinced that 'Jesus' never actually lived at all, and is a mere construct of pagan Greek mythology and Roman imagination, all as very loosely adapted and set upon the back of a man who did actually walk the streets of Jerusalem, but was never anything more than an amazingly intelligent and blessed man, and certainly not 'God' in any way. Alternatively, he will steadfastly refuse to use the word 'god', as being based upon a Germanic deity of pagan origins; however will always defer to the Eternal Father of ALL creation, being YAHWEH. This second adherent may be just as willing to die, based upon an obviously entirely differing volume, as stored within his personal BOOKSHELF.
Then 0f course, there is a third man who, based upon his (third) BOOKSHELF of ACCEPTED TRUTH, believes the specifics of any man born 2000 years ago matters little in relevance, regardless of name or reputation. However, his cherished volumes indicate that any man of today, who fails to repeat the name 'Mohammad' 10 times every morning, noon and night, deserves to be blown to pieces; and to prove the veracity of this doctrine, he is delighted to strap a backpack of explosive on his person, and detonate in the name of ridding the world of both the above 'godless' infidel.
Each of these three men obviously have their own private BOOKSHELF, which they jealously guard, for they are equally convinced that it is their own personal bookshelf which is the one where indisputable Truth actually lives out it's undiluted days. Therefore, depending further upon one or two other volumes each has in storage; this makes the other two men, at best; mistaken, and at worst 'evil'. So as all three are equally convinced of their particular stored volumes of 'truth'; the real question is; "are all three equally safe in their respective trust?"
Despite all common belief, there can be only ONE (real) TRUTH, so as all three above differ, they clearly cannot all be the bearer of it. Indeed, there can be only one of our three friends, who can be entirely correct in his expectations, however as they have perhaps 2o,ooo other alternatives to contend with; the likelihood of any one of them having all stand-on-it's-own, incontrovertible truths, even as much, as on one single topic sitting upon his own BOOKSHELF, becomes an increasingly unlikely proposition. This is simply a mathematically assured observation.
So it is easy to see that everyone's BOOKSHELF of ACCEPTED TRUTH is very personal, and can look similar or different to another's. Furthermore, despite the owner's best laid plans and intentions, the personal volumes upon his bookshelf, most likely do not rely on factual truth in nearly the same degree as upon selected, as it were; bias and interpretation.
As much as we might object personally to the above statement, yet we really need to accept the plainly obvious fact; that our personal belief structure, as jealously guarded as it may have been all these years, could well be little more than a very biased set of volumes based upon previously cooked, colored and slanted documentation, some entirely childish and selfish interpretations by ourself and/or others, and even some deeply disturbing deceptions.
With this observation as noted, we now turn our witnessing upon a very widely accepted doctrine of supposed scientific 'truth', that much of the world's general understanding is founded upon, so has been gathering much dust on the collective BOOKSHELF worldwide. From there, we will seek out some evidence for and/or against. It's entirely possible of course, that in the end, this post may look to many a reader, like the strangest ever written, and I guess it’s also possible that Zootsoup may also some day agree. After all, it was only a few weeks ago, that he would have conceded as such. Even so, I am feeling rather compelled to type it out at this time, and present it for all it's worth, which may be little more than to eventually give us all a jolly good laugh.
I have always had a major problem with the generally accepted, set in concrete scientific explanation to do with the origins of the universe and particularly planet Earth. It has always seemed to me to be at the very least, an audacious statement that around 30, 40 or 50 billion years ago, was a kind of BIG BANG of something. From out of this event came, depending on who is telling the story; millions to billions of fire balls thrown off in all directions.
Now we find that over the considerable period since, many of these fire balls have cooled down sufficiently to the point of being planets, moons, comets, asteroids etc., leaving the larger sized remainder, to continue burning as stars, with particular focus upon our sun. Or so the theory would have it.
Even though all this may sound half acceptable to a child of 8 or 9, it seems to me that the rest of us, have somehow been lulled into accepting this explanation, as incontrovertible truth coming from minds that are greater than 'mine', so who am I to argue? From there; I am expected to place the same relevant volume of 'Origins' upon my BOOKSHELF of ACCEPTED TRUTH, along with everyone else, as upon theirs. Then we all go happily about our daily lives, as in full and sleepy agreement.
All that is, except for annoying folk such as Zootsoup.
It will come as no surprise to anyone to learn that I have less than an accomplished scientific mind, and I certainly fail in any IQ comparison. Still, for years I've had something deep within my spirit that could not settle happily with all this as a finite explanation. Therefore no actual volume of this belief ever quite made it onto my personal bookshelf, which has indeed left a rather annoying space for a long time. Some of the unanswered questions I have had to do deal with in the process are;
1. Who was around at the time to witness this amazing event called 'Big Bang'?
2. If no human eyes were around, how can we be so certain, particularly given it was so very long ago?
3. If there was a big bang, where did the spark come from that set it off?
4. What was 'whatever it was', that was ignited by this spark in this almighty explosion?
5. Where did this 'whatever it was' that was ignited find its origin, as from within the vast expanse of prevailing nothingness? If there exists nothing, then how does 'something', whatever that may be, come into being?
6. In nothingness, there exists no oxygen, so what fed all the fireballs as they were streaming away from the center of the bang of bigness? For by definition, fire cannot exist without oxygen.
7. Further to 6: Isn't billions of years an awful long time for our sun to burn without any oxygen supply whatsoever? For scientists will straight facedly explain that the universe is a vacuum. Which must mean that our sun is producing it's own oxygen in order to keep itself aflame, so is a far more clever thing than we have ever realized.
8. Why can no scientist offer even a half reasonable response to just one of these and other questions?
"A scientific law, is a law-like statement that generalizes across a set of conditions. To be accorded law-like status a wide variety of these conditions should be known, i.e. the law has a well documented history of successful replication and extension to new conditions. Ideally boundary conditions, where the law fails, should also be known.
A scientific law concerns the physical or social world, it therefore must have empirical content and therefore be capable of testing and potentially Analytic statements that are true or false by logic alone are not scientific laws, though may feature as part of scientific theories.
The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it."
So there by any standards, we have a non partisan viewpoint. I cannot help but notice that every red highlighted word is entirely failed by our friend Mr. Big Bang, as it clearly lacks miserably in every aspect of empirical evidence. Furthermore, a basic scientific code, as founded upon observations from Newton's Laws of physics, could be summed up in this manner;
* Absolutely NOTHING ever happens for no reason.
* Absolutely NOTHING exists that hasn't been caused to come into existence (by some INTELLIGENCE).
* Absolutely NOTHING is ever set in motion unless some force sets it in motion.
* Absolutely NOTHING once set in motion, is slowed down or stopped without some reverse force being applied to that motion.
So, with all this in mind, I ask (maybe again);
A. If in the beginning was NOTHING, then where did the 'whatever it was' that went bang in a big way come from?
B. Likewise, where did the spark, however big it was, eventuate in the middle of all this vast nothingness, in order to set off our bang of big proportion?
C. How does an unlikely bang of great magnitude from within an unheard-of gaseous cloud of unconvincing origin, firstly happen without any pre-existing oxygen? And most essentially;
D. How does the millions of resultant infernos from this bang, whilst streaming away from the center of the explosion; subsequently cool down to form matter, when such a result has never been shown to occur under any condition at any time in any place by anyone - and especially in a vacuum of nothingness? And the questions continue.
As already noted; I have never begun to accept any of these general explanations, because all I can see, is that any explanation that sets itself up as 'TRUTH', demanding a top billing on my BOOKSHELF of ACCEPTED TRUTH in this way, is a plain sitting duck, bringing with it as it does; a generous list of questions that it's purveyors cannot approach without a great deal of squirming. So I have always believed to some degree, that there MUST be a better explanation for the offing, if only someone can come up with it, in order that I might have a new volume with which I can finally fill the empty slot on my BOOKSHELF.Well, we are about to witness a far better explanation, which will make sense only to those who care to view 'What Is'; as built upon the perspective of other previously witnessed and understood observations of 'What Is'. Unfortunately, such observations will likely make little sense to our good friend Mr. Scientist, who can really only chew on previous carrion, which had little nutrition to start with, and has not surprisingly; failed to age as well as expected. But until now, such conceptual carrion has been the only book available for general consumption, so has enjoyed an entirely unwarranted place on his cherished BOOKSHELF of ACCEPTED TRUTH, which looks surprisingly like so many others, who have also chosen to store this volume.
So now to our alternative explanation that dovetails perfectly into our witnessing of the 'What Is' of our existence. As with all our previous observations, this will build upon what we have already witnessed, as it furthers our understanding of 'What Is' (YAHWEH).
As previously witnessed, lightning originates between a region of positive charge and a negative counterpart in storm clouds. As these two regions grow and become increasingly charged (strengthen), they inevitably move closer to touching. At that moment of coupling, a spark is generated, as all their respective charge is instantly emptied into that connection, thereby releasing a great amount of voltage, along with a very high temperature, as on its heading to find 'earth'.
The same thing happens in many other natural and otherwise applications, for instance we might get zapped by a small but annoying jolt of 'static' electricity when we touch a car door, or a door knob. Also a welder's favorite tool uses this same principle to instantly melt two pieces of steel, in order to join them as one. So where else might we find a positive and negative region, or 'north' and 'south'? Ah yes! The north and south pole, no less.
Indeed it has been well known for centuries that the entire planet is a wondrous interaction between positive (North Pole) and negative (South Pole) regions. However we will soon see that it is an interaction on a far grander scale than any two similar counterparts within storm clouds, or than anyone has previously thought.
So in short, it is the proposal of this blog, that at the core or thereabouts of planet Earth, is not as in Alternative 1 (below); a big pool of molten rock which is still in the process of cooling, but something far more wondrous and inspiring and creative. The comparison then, between our two alternatives, can be summarized as follows:
Alternative 1. By the scientists learned explanation, we have a ball of burning gas, which has cooled over many billions of years, leaving a solid ball of rock with it's center still in the process of cooling. This effectively presents an image of death and decay, for as the planet cools, and the sun does likewise, eventually the result is the death of both, and therefore every living thing in the process. In other words, this is essentially an image of what might well be termed "CREATION IN REVERSE" or perhaps 'creation in decay'.
Now, I have to ask one more question here; When or where have we ever seen any gas burn, thereby leaving a resultant single speck of matter to offer us a semblance by way of evidence? Every scientist should know that such a concept is the diametrically opposed opposite of the natural order of things. For it is matter that burns and results in among other things; a gas like release. So such a concept effectively defies all the logic he can muster. In any case, let us now look at our blog's:
Alternative 2. By our admittedly non learned witnessing of 'What Is', we see the evidence of lightning, as observed. We also see further evidence elsewhere of the same thing on varying scales. We likewise witness our planet as displaying a mightily similar set of respective force fields, with major regions of opposite electro-magnetic charges.
The only conclusion anyone above 2nd grade can draw from witnessing such observations, is; it MUST be that there is a major spark similar to a lightning discharge, constantly happening somewhere near the center of the planet (core), which is generating enormous quantities of heat, sufficient to melt large sections of rock, and then maintain it in a constantly molten state. How simple and obvious is that, all for the effort of a little simple witnessing? This image then, is the opposite to Alternative 1., such that it presents "CREATION IN PROGRESS".
Unfortunately, we have only been able to discover evidence AGAINST the scientist's 'Big Bang'. However, as we will see in future posts, our Alternative 2 is NOT merely witnessing an electrical interaction for the sake of it, constantly sparking and maintaining much surrounding matter at the core of our planet in a molten state. It is serving a far more necessary and illuminating and fascinating function, such as we are constantly in need of. In fact, our very ongoing existence relies upon it.
Oh yes, we can further witness an even bigger scale example of the same thing, with our sun. Indeed, our sun is NOT a ball of burning gas, as scientist (A) would have us believe. Nor is it constantly occurring nuclear fission as scientist (B) asserts. Rather, the sun is displaying a very similar, but bigger still spark for your buck, which in turn affects more than just the core of the thing, and constantly delivers to us the very things needed for life. Which of course, doesn't sound so different to what man has always known, but as we excavate deeper, this blog will be witnessing it as from an entirely different perspective.
We will continue our process of delving then, into these amazing parallels of observation, as our ever deepening witness of 'What Is' (YAHWEH).
