The door opens to other suppositions, we type our destiny with desire but if so then how can our aims go awry? We are certainly in control of our destiny but the purity of that control is contaminated by the destiny that others harbor for themselves, the universe reaches a compromise, you are living that compromise.
In your way to self perfection you actually assist in corrupting that path even more, others in their own reach for perfection agree with your error and magnify it with you in unison. The err of our ways is conjured by the errors that our antecedents made before us and by those that are immediately due to be born, or have just been born, and they are greater magnified by those that have died leaving them in concrete historical archives.
With the magnificent revenue of history there is no lack of dynamic in the system, which is why we come to erroneous conclusions with such ease. Rational is an erroneous conclusion that has superimposed itself to such gargantuan proportions that it is difficult if not outfight impossible to deny it. -To deny rational is illogical.- inst that something magnificent, if you can’t deny rational how can you test for its inaccuracies? Scientists and fellow logicians alike will tell you that rational can be disproved within the context of logical-rational proceedings. And you might just guess that that is correct, it seems plausible, even probable that rational has the ability, rare in other subjective camps, of self examination.
Hardly likely, a rational conclusion is required for a rational examination; that is you need to have many rational parameters involved in the judgment process to conclude that a rational verdict can vindicate a rational ethereal. In summary, there is no way that rational can judge the rationality of an event, thing, cause or being solely from a rational perspective, and yet that is the very thing that empirical-rational-logical philosophers would want us to believe.
The leading cry of the rationalists has been, if it stands up to experimental proof then it is rational-logical and obviously it can migrate into the encyclopedias of knowledge, where all the things that have been proven true, are allowed to share a repository with all the other things that have been proven truth. Only problem is myth has been found to be false, that is not truth because it can not empirically prove its own impressive existence. God has been found wanting because he or she or it requires faith. Neither a good poem nor a good god can exist under rational parameters. They are beyond rational law and so that law can not suitably judge them. And yet, and yet we are told that all things worthy of knowing and worthy of being used to further the aims of knowledge must pass the empirical logical strainer.
The problem is in the proof, to devise a test that produces proof positive that there is a god is more difficult than to device a test for finding neutrinos. However while theorists are willing to take the existence of neutrinos as factual because they detect third parties that are apparently descendants of neutrinos, they are not willing to take the existence of god as real based on the words of his son Jesus, or for that matter through the voice of angel Gabriel or the blood tears of the virgin Mary. It requires a very-ultra sensitive detector to detect things that are the scattered progenitors of neutrinos, and to be frank only scientists can detect, interpret and reveal to us the truth of the experiment. We have to believe them, just like you have to be religious to see and feel god, you have to be a scientists to see and feel a neutrino. The scientists do not believe that is a very complex belief system, and that they consider it a threat is evidence of how closed minded scientists and science have to be in order to prove their logical desires.
In conclusion, you can not fault the scientists, they are only believing in what they desire to believe at everyone else’s expense. If you are a religious soul you should not be attempting to prove the existence of god by proving that the arc which saved Moses and his clan existed. First it is doubtful that god really flooded the world, that seems a rational way to kill someone. Second it is unlikely that if god had flooded the world that he would have needed to have Moses build an arc, and that all the animals would have been so willing to just congregate and cohabitate under nice terms. If the bible had said, “and god sent Moses and his clan, plus chosen species into a severe hibernation,” this would not only have a scientific basis but would be more believable from the perspective of faith. But the problem here has nothing to do with god’s actions and more with the fact that we need the bible to believe in god, where it is most probable that an all knowing god would have never bothered with a book of rules, much less with all those miracles, and more likely an all knowing omnipotent god, would have most likely created the universe and everything in it, maybe even down to the homo sapiens, and then just gone off; moving on to create all those other multidimensional universes that scientists need to discover. The real problem with scientists then, is that they have done too good of a job at proving their system of belief. They have made it clear that all things shall be judge with an empirical mind and that only those things that withstand such judgment can be call truth. While, the religious fellows have walked precisely and in synchronicity into the trap. When the faithful decided that they had to prove the existence of god that was a serious mistake and probably not doable from a human perspective.
I dare say, that no human can prove if god exists or not! I dare say that no Pope, Prophet or Angel can prove the existence or not of god. Further I stipulate clearly that god does not require proof any more than I require Descartes to tell me that I exist because I think. Neither can Descartes, with all his good intentions, however misguided, convince me of my existence. I prefer to be anabolic about such discussions. It is mandated by the universe that things can go wrong and a soul that was destined to believe in god might have to find god in science. That does not mean that the rest of us need to believe in such things, or prove our beliefs through such things. I am a metaphysical being, I do not believe in knowledge, I could however believe that others need to believe in quantifiable methods with categorical results. This I believe fervently, and I would be crazy and irrational to try to prove to them that my belief in the possibility of impossible things is rational or believable. It is not! Anyway I don’t have to prove it, anymore than I have to write this book which is only a jolly way for me to fancy my fancy with others that might fancy it too.
