A letter, a story, as you are aware, came from one who wrote it, an author.  Computer software, from a programmer.  Science, is being able to test hypotheses and observe the results.  Anytime we find information, it's traced back to a mind.  Originally, information which governs the universe and makes life, either came from a mind preceding our own...or it didn't.  In the world, time and time again, we recreate and observe the results, that information comes from a mind.  Have we been able to observe life and information generating without what we know for a fact to have at some point begun with an intelligent catalyst?  Experiments akin to Miller-Urey, for example, in which chemicals were vaporized, introduced to electrodes, allowed to cool, and the resulting liquid contained amino acids; or those experiments in which computers perform functions similar to those of the human brain.  Deconstruct each experiment now; they need to occur without a scientist...

Now, if, a mind prior to our own exists, it has an identity.  As all claims as to the nature of such are different and contradictory, because of the logical law of non contradiction, they could all be wrong, but they could not all be simultaneously correct.  What, then, of all the separate claims?

What causes you to trust that something has historicity?  Especially be it from ancient history?  How many years exist between the earliest known extant copy and when the text was written originally?  And how many extant copies are known to exist?  The more copies and the fewer years between the earliest extant and when written originally, the more ability you have to trust you're observing what was originally written, and test if any changes since then.  Are there differences between the earliest extant copy and what still exists to this day?  And what, specifically, are those differences?  How do those numbers compare among the separate texts claiming knowledge of origins?  How do secular epics or records of history compare?  Ones, perhaps, which you already enjoy or trust?

Any accounts from, or recorded from, claimed eyewitnesses?  When were these accounts recorded in reference to when they were said to have occurred?  Would there still have been other individuals or a community around, to which such accounts were appealed?  Do the accounts contain details of locations, individuals, and dates which can be corroborated?  Do the authors claim to communicate something of value, and what value is it to them to do so?  Could they have been aware of any falsehood to their accounts, and what determined their veracity, if any?

Still reading the text itself and taking into consideration its original language, does it even describe the universe including the world as we discover it?  Do you deduce contradictions with reality would disprove the authority of its contents and discredit its advices?  Encouragement in it would thus be deceptive, even if well-intentioned.
What then, does the text, itself, even teach?  You wouldn't want it to condone injustice.  But, why would that be a problem?  Because things such as murder, rape, and slavery are wrong?  Why?  Because they're not good?  Why?  Because they hurt people?  Why would that be a problem; especially if it benefits survival over a fellow chemical accident or animal?  We have, however, mentally evolved to accept these behaviors as not good, also benefiting our survival.  Yet, that's assuming a standard of goodness.  Maybe what's right for you, is not right for someone else, and vice versa.  If one disagrees with slavery, as an example, they simply need not own a slave.  Is it always wrong to have something you want at the forced expense of another?  Why?  To think something is always incorrect, means that to ever think it correct, would be incorrect thinking.  Who or what decides, what is correct, against which, something would be considered incorrect?  Animals simply follow instincts.  Why would we, develop supposedly objective reasons why to do, and why not to do, certain things?  Because, we have a selective advantage at developing altruistic behavior.  Selective advantage, however, does not explain why something is incorrect, always.  Is it known by the chemistry of the brain?  If what is good is brain chemistry, people would follow it every time, and we do not.  Chemicals follow laws of chemistry and physics, and do not have a choice.  But certain reactions connote goodness while others do not.  We all collectively differ and have differed, however, on our concepts of what is good and what is not.

With inconsistent concepts throughout humanity, thankfully, there are conceptual laws governing the world and universe allowing us to operate which themselves do not change, apply everywhere, and without exception, such as those of mathematics.  Since, as an example, the planets orbit accordingly, we can be grateful.  Why then, would they?  Did humans not create mathematics?  Such laws derive from the universe.  Yet the universe even changes with time as it expands, a fact validated during modern times in the 1920s after which being originally opposed in the middle of the twentieth century by many and well known scientists who held to a belief of an eternal universe.  Numbers (represented by numerals) and laws of mathematics themselves are not made of nor are they affected by space, matter, or time.  The universe is.  Notation could change, or could notation have been different, the laws themselves would remain the same to govern the universe in the manner they do to support our existence to even be aware of such laws.  Disorder and chance cannot account for the invariant application of even mathematics everywhere and without exception.

Why is the physical world and universe compelled to follow conceptual laws?  Because they work.  If following these laws were done simply because they were the easier thing to do, than why would failure or challenge be possibilities?  And considering the risk of failure for any one thing to not function within the parameters that it does and in relation to other factors, all which allow our eventual ability to exist, the probability that they do function within those parameters is astronomical.  Should it have happened that of all particles and so on, the only ones successful at combining, and relating, to collectively become what they did, have done so because they were the only ones functioning according to the laws allowing their survival, there still remains the origination of such laws.  And should the laws themselves be all there is to our existence, choice is irrelevant.  That which is immaterial and invariant, without a mind to exert will other than necessity, can produce nothing other than that which exists necessarily, let alone material and bound by time.

Assuming past this, mineral, vegetable, animal in nature, we can only explain how we behave.  However, we conceptualize how others or we shouldn't or should.  Yet, there is no standard beyond what we decide.  All concepts are relatively justifiable.  Everything is tolerable; everything.  Including what someone could choose to do, to you.  Because when you attest an example of when something is unacceptable, an opposite party can attest for its relative justification.  Something is consistent, however it is not us.  Yet the invariant, timeless, and unchanging nature of logical and mathematical laws themselves cannot account for what does change, for consciousness, or for conscience.  Or, relation out of desire rather than mere necessity, the idea of voluntary requite, or justice for that matter.

The truth can't be known about anything.  Would you agree?  Yet, should you agree, you operate with presuppositions that you know the truth about certain things in your daily life.  Such as, for example, the statement .  For how do you know the statement itself is even true?  For that matter, why then should I believe you?  If that is something to which you espouse, that we can't know the truth about anything, let alone why we know, are you not then living out a belief in something in which you are uncertain?  Is what you have then, not blind faith?

If a mind prior to our own exists, it has an identity.  As all claims as to the nature of such are different and contradictory, they could all be wrong, but they could not all be simultaneously correct. 

Who or what then, not from hearsay or others' interpretation, but from directly and presently studying thoroughly its own declaration, is not made of nor affected by space, matter, or time, but is able to act upon it, does not deny itself, does not self-contradict, never changes, and acts voluntarily?



logic, reason

   Misc Michelle