Christian Witnesses of Jah do not define what we choose to believe by what we assume is true. We define our beliefs based on what we believe we can show or demonstrate is true or most likely true according to the best available reasons.
In other words, just because we call ourselves “Christian” does not mean we start with the assumption that the Bible is true, or even reliable. We come to these conclusions (or to ones like them) after we evaluate the beliefs according to their supporting good reasons which is the standard each one of us uses every day, in one way or another, as we consider books, religions, and ways of life.
It is just as incorrect to assume the Bible is inspired as it is to assume that God exists, or to assume he or some personal being or “life” does not exist. If it’s an assumption, then it is not a decision reached after considering the best available reasons. This does not mean every belief with supporting good reasons is the right one, only that beliefs with good reasons supporting them are better than are those beliefs without good reasons, or beliefs which are based purely on one or more assumptions.
It is just as incorrect to assume the Bible is inspired as it is to assume that God exists, or to assume he or some personal being or “life” does not exist. If it’s an assumption, then it is not a decision reached after considering the best available reasons. This does not mean every belief with supporting good reasons is the right one, only that beliefs with good reasons supporting them are better than are those beliefs without good reasons, or beliefs which are based purely on one or more assumptions.
Consider the life that we are, each one of us, and then look at the life existing all around us, on land, in the air, and in the sea. Living things exist all over the earth, and they and various objects move on, over, and even through it. Since our existence or our life here on the earth is demonstrably true and so accepted by all living beings, from here we can use the best available reasons to show that the life who/which gave life to other life is, ultimately, eternal. Here again is my argument for the eternal existence of the life who/which gave life to life:
1) Life exists.
2) Based on all known, shared, and/or otherwise available scientific study and information life can only come from something or from someone already alive or living.
3) Therefore, since based on all known, shared, and/or otherwise available scientific study and information life can only come from something or from someone already alive or living, the origin of life must be life, or something or someone already alive.
4) Further, and based on the above (namely, that all known, shared, and/or otherwise available scientific study and information which shows without exception that life can only come from something or from someone already alive or living), life is eternal because life is, in fact, here.
Having reached this point, any one of us can credibly (or for good reasons) ask whether this eternal life is intelligent, or “unintelligent”? Using the same reasoning we use every day in a variety of ways, even according to principles of science based on observation (as per my above argument for the origin of life), we can credibly answer this question and do so convincingly, as reasonably as we might answer any other, similar question for which good reasons exist and can be presented.
Apart from the existence of so much varied, complete, and demonstrably systemic forms of life, including the many ‘moving’ processes of the earth (weather systems, plate tectonics, and the rotation of the earth itself, among others), consider something which is not “alive,” or even moving the way trees move because of the wind, or the way the moon moves across the night sky as it orbits around the earth. Consider our use of “time.”
Elsewhere I have written about our use of “time” and how it relates to our human evaluation of beliefs, that is, whether we accept or reject beliefs about events in the world around us, beliefs about “time,” even where it concerns believing “any ‘truth’ in a religious sense.” My conclusion is we believe and often act according to what we have accepted as the best available reasons (see my, “The People of God, Part Two: ‘On the Side of the Truth,’” IN MEDIO 2.4 [April, 2007 (rev. April, 2008)], pages 1-16). In this same online article, I presented reasoning which I will here quote from extendedly in order to help establish my position and argument concerning the intelligence of the eternal life whose existence has already been demonstrated, according to the best available reasons.
Since I believe the intelligence in life can be seen and easily accepted by how we measure our existence and the events and the affairs of this world by “time,” I therefore ask the reader to consider each of these four full paragraphs, and my comments which follow them, in this light:
How do you determine something is true every day of your life? For example, when it comes to your decision about what time you will get out of bed, on what basis do you accept the truth of a particular clock’s “time” so that you structure your activities around it in order to get dressed, eat breakfast, and then go to work, school, or elsewhere? How is that you have the confidence that the world around you (your family, your employer, your teacher, etc.) will receive your decisions about time in a way that will fit with, not run contrary to, the way they have structured their life, work, or school? What about decisions you make when you drive a vehicle on public roads? If you drive a car and you live in the United States, on what basis do you accept as true the color of the stop lights so that you stop and go according whether the light is red, yellow, or green?
Let’s take a closer look at “time.” We view and treat time as a discernable measurement of events, actions, or periods. The “measurement” is in relation to accepted sequences that progress from event to event, from act to act, or from one point in a period to another point (such as in a period of “life,” that is, the period [of time] in which a person is alive). For example, we may start work at 8:00 AM and end at 5:00 PM. The measured sequences between these points are usually hours, minutes, and seconds. The “time” of this period, lunches and breaks aside, is nine hours. This is the “measurement,” or “time,” from one point to another, from the start to the end. So it is with an “act.” I may clench my fist (thereby beginning the act), hold it clenched for one minute, and then release it (ending the act). The “time” of this act is one minute, or sixty seconds. A “period,” then, is an extent of “time” in which something occurs in one sense or another, usually (with an exception admitted for certain periods that may have had no beginning or ending, such as God’s eternal existence) with a start and a finish.
The period of our human life outside of our mother’s womb begins when we are born, and it ends when we die. The “time” of this period is the length of years, months, days, and however many other accepted life sequences can be measured. Again, as we use it, “time” is a discernable measurement of events, actions, or periods, or other similarly measurable things, that occur. Anything that is measurable in this way is “in time,” by being measured by time, at least in terms of how we actually view time and use time in our lives. Thus, “time” is as old as the first act, or as eternal as the acts, or even the thoughts (if sequential, as are our thoughts), of Jehovah God himself.
The period of our human life outside of our mother’s womb begins when we are born, and it ends when we die. The “time” of this period is the length of years, months, days, and however many other accepted life sequences can be measured. Again, as we use it, “time” is a discernable measurement of events, actions, or periods, or other similarly measurable things, that occur. Anything that is measurable in this way is “in time,” by being measured by time, at least in terms of how we actually view time and use time in our lives. Thus, “time” is as old as the first act, or as eternal as the acts, or even the thoughts (if sequential, as are our thoughts), of Jehovah God himself.
Philosophically, speculatively, people can say whatever they want about “time.” But we actually have good reasons to define time the way I have done. These good reasons include the very treatment and use of time that we accept, whether we realize it or not, in our everyday lives. Unless someone is going to argue for some other [view of] time than that which we know and use in our everyday lives, then “time” must be defined in relation to what we know, or what we believe, which belief is shown by our actions relative to it. Our actions relative to “time” (our planning, our expectations for others, etc.) show that we accept as reliable the sequential measurements with which we act in harmony. Thus, for the truth about the time of day we have as good reasons such things as the time when the sun will rise, the time when the sun will set, and the fact that such things occur with predictable regularity absent any reasons for doubting that they will continue as they always have in our relatable and historical human experience.
Of course, not all human clocks are exactly the same. Some run slow and others run fast, but such clocks are considered to be “slow” or “fast” in relation to the most widely accepted clock or time which is set in relation to the time of day or night relative to our position on earth and in relation to the position of the earth relative to the sun, moon, and stars. Thus, if our watch is set according to the measurements of time accepted in accordance with our position and the position of our earth relative to these heavenly bodies and if someone then asks us, “What time is it?” we can give the time with a reasonable degree of confidence and expect that there will be no good reason that can be given as a legitimate contradiction to the “time” we give relative to such settings. So, if we are asked by the same person, “Is what you just gave me the true time?” we can answer “yes” because we know that the time of our watch is based on the accepted standards for which time can be given on this earth, according to such positions, without any reason to believe otherwise. We recognize such time because of its recurrence without contradiction. We are “on the side of time,” so to speak, when we accept the time that we have good reasons to believe. When the accepted time tells us it’s 8:00 AM, if that is when we are supposed to be at work then we do not show up at 9:00 AM and act as if there is something wrong with anyone who thinks that we should have been there at 8:00 AM. [“The People of God, Part Two: ‘On the Side of the Truth,’” IN MEDIO 2.4 (April, 2007 [rev. April, 2008], pages 2-3. Note: A hyperlink was added to the main text in the quote above from this article due to its relationship to the expressed point.]
Our acceptance and even daily use of such beliefs, indeed, our reliance on them for the structure and planning of our days and throughout our lives, links our view of intelligence with a defined intent that can be isolated and expressed according to the moving objects and living things on or outside of and within the earth. Otherwise, it is not consistent with how we otherwise form beliefs and make decisions, that is, we already make regular (daily and nightly) use of the tested predictability of (as described in quoted par. 4, above) “the time of day or night relative to our position on earth and in relation to the position of the earth relative to the sun, moon, and stars.”
So much so is this the case, that if we set our watches or clocks “according to the measurements of time accepted in accordance with our position and the position of our earth relative to these heavenly bodies and if someone then asks us, ‘What time is it?’ we can give the time with a reasonable degree of confidence and expect that there will be no good reason that can be given as a legitimate contradiction to the ‘time’ we give relative to such settings” (“The People of God,” quote from above, par. 4).
Consider further the question of intent. When we evaluate a person’s intelligence we do not simply look at the person’s test score, ultimately, because a person might guess at the answers and in guessing accidentally receive a passing or even a high grade but without knowing why, as opposed to a student who answers correctly because of knowing the good reasons which help him or her answer with understanding. Clearly more than just guessing correctly is needed before we would say there is real intelligence behind the intent of the answer. This again shows the necessity of demonstrating our intended intelligence through the presentation of good reasons (the best available) so the reasons can inform the answer (thus, rightly, preceding the conclusion) and, ultimately, the good reasons may validate the answer (or the conclusion) to others. Consider another example.
Today my eldest son Jared asked me a two-part question, the first of which was a “yes or no” answer and in the second part I was asked to give the specific reasons informing my answer. (I did not put him up to this; but it complemented what I was already in the process of writing here, so I am using it now.) The question had to do with whether certain dinosaurs were grouped similarly and, if so, what were the similarities used to establish their common grouping. I had no specific reasons behind my answer to the first part of the question, but I answered “yes” anyway. When he asked about the second part, I admitted I had guessed with my first answer, and so I did not have any good reason for giving my first answer, even though I was accidentally correct.
We then discussed how my answer to the first part of the question was a guess, that is, I answered “yes” without any specific reasons (I had a 50/50 chance). That I was correct was accidental, a random chance among two existing options by an “intelligent” being, by a human. But the answer to the second part could not be so described because it required what could only (by any standard humans actually use) be considered a response showing actual understanding of the subject, a response showing that the answer to the first part of the question was intentional.
The type of response required for the second part of the question, when provided, can be used to validate whether the answer to the first part of the question was correct by intent. This shows the importance and the difference between ‘just guessing’ and answering with an understanding that is (to the person’s available knowledge [= what we have each learned through to this point in our lives]) based on the best available reasons. As illustrated above, ultimately it is this process which defines (and in the process validates or invalidates) our own beliefs about ourselves, about our history, and about the world in which we presently live, or that is all around us, or directly available to us (unlike much or our history), and so testable in ways beyond our own unique, personal experience or feelings, though these, too, are often important; they are simply not so easily testable by others.—Compare Revelation 2:2, 10; 3:10; 1 John 4:1.
I believe for the good reasons given in this Blog and in the material referenced within it that our use of “time” points each one of us to the intelligence in the life and in objects that exist all around us, life and objects which move and by which we measure our existence in predictably reliable ways, indeed, without which we would not have a basis for measuring “time,” at least not as we use it (which is often different from how people explain it). Otherwise, why are we placing so much trust (faith) in “time”? We did not make it. But we believe in it; we accept it; we define our very existence each day according to it. We do so for good reasons, the best available, in fact.
Separately I intend to show this further, specifically where the intentional intelligence in life can be seen, again, according to how we already view and evaluate whether something or someone is intelligent by intent. After I have considered this question of the eternal life who/which gave life to the life which exists further, I intend to move the discussion about this scientifically demonstrable eternal life further and consider where this life’s intentional intelligence may be seen in the history and in the present affairs of the earth and of that which fills it (Psalm 24:1). But every day we move and exist and use “time” we do so, in my belief (which I will show further, later in this Blog series), because of the eternal life who gave life to life’s intent to use the sun, the moon, and the earth for reasons which have been captioned this way in at least one historical source attributed to an intelligent, intentional Life Giver named Jah God:
New Revised Standard Version (1989), Genesis 1:14-18
And [Jah] God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. [Underlining added.]
Whether we believe the above as historically accurate, in general or in specifics, the early attribution of purpose or intent for these heavenly lights, not just to “be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth” (though that is an existing condition which is itself marvelous), but for the sun, the moon, and for “the stars” to serve as “signs and for seasons and for days and years,” is something we use, and will continue to use, each and every single day of our lives on the earth just as Genesis says they were to be used.
As I wrote when I started this article, Christians do not assume things are true before we have good reasons to believe them. We will apply this test to Genesis further as this series continues. As of now, however, I believe I have given a reasonable response scientifically and socially testable by all of the highest living creatures on the earth, in ways we can individually consider before we believe anything about the origin of life or about any intentional intelligence found in it, in us, and in the things which move and exist around us.
