Last sentence: Flunk for being glib.
So the "design" of things around you makes you sure there is a creator, but when we get to what could possibly have designed the creator, suddenly you're not sure of anything?
Come on, Al. If the simple stuff around us requires a creator, then surely that creator had to be created by something or someone even more magnificent. And the creator's creator... and the creator's creator's creator...
Suggest you introduce yourself to my homie Mr. Darwin.
Cali,
(Warning: the following contains more lies from the lying bastard. Seekers of truth, beware?)
(Sub-warning: The following should be read to the tune of "Mary had a little lamb." Maybe. Not seriously, for sure. Not as a lecture. For entertainment value only. May contain failed logic.)
Start!
Considering the moments spent wrestling that demon, probably "facetious" rather than "glib."
As a careful analyst, you probably noted that the statement actually read "suggests a creator."
Suggests.
Suggest neither denotes or connotes certainty. Too much certainty is just off putting.
Theory grows from what facts suggest.
Phenomena in Astrophysics suggest a Big Bang. Just a theory. Might not be true.
The Big Bang: a theory fraught with evolution. Just imagine. All those pre-atomic particles suddenly released, rushing forth, trying to find a date for the prom. Wild times. Promiscuous. Infinitesimally small particles joining together to form the most basic of elements, drifting around, joining as gases that gain more and more mass--until...
...stars burst forth, a crucible in which carbon and iron emerge.
Nothing apparently alive yet.
Apparently.
The stars whizzing off into space or pre-space for millions or billions of years until they begin to go supernova. Unimaginable forces collapsing in on one another. Newer and heavier elements forming, until we have material for... wedding rings. Material to blow up our neighbors.
But applying your model (of creators creating creators ad infinitum), what caused the cause that caused the cause (ad infinitum) that became the Big Bang?
Hmmmm.
That mirrors facing each other create an illusion of infinite reflection doesn't mean something isn't sitting behind the mirrors.
At some point in both science and religion, you just have to shrug and accept that some things just are, existing without a precedent.
So the patterns of life to me suggest a designer, a creator, that needs no precedent.
I love Darwin. He contributed so much to our thinking. Vilified when he proposed his theory, vilified today. He was, and still is, considered a "dangerous" thinker. Recently, in Kansas, the Religious Right wanted Charlie's works banned in public schools, wanted his theory replaced with creationism--or at least, in a moment of reflection, demanded creationism be taught as an alternative theory. Even Fox news slams Darwin's work. "Fair and balanced." Got to keep those advertising dollars flowing.
Creationism has many flavors. Abrahamic religions, such as Christianity, emphasize a single creator. Monotheism. Many religions offer up a panoply of creators, sort of a smorgasbord of who did what. Polytheism. Scientology rewarmed that family favorite, "we're all just creating it" and brought it to the buffet.
Of course, several others had already plopped down their green-bean-casserole version of Eastern creationism for Western diners. Too much curry? Sorry. You'll develop a taste for it.
Creationism stutter steps around the vastness of this universe. Me oh my, pumpkin pie, it's big. Bigger than a triple Whopper with cheese. Eating the idea of creationism will blow your philosophical calorie allocation in a couple of bites. God, just fills you right up. You have to postulate this omnipotent, omniscient being who can manufacture mankind before the steam leaves the coffee cup. (Ooops. Spilled my coffee. Let's sue McDonald's.)
Oh yeah, faster than light. Faster than time. All knowing. All powerful.
Yet, as I've pointed out to others, I'd like to see someone create a Porsche I can drive. Poof. 911 Targa. No assembly lines. No digging up metal ores. Just poof. Leather interior. Beefed up amps. Mild to wild mufflers. Vrooom. Vrooom.
The theory of evolution needn't gainsay creationism. Perhaps the creator or creators are evolving in sophistication, starting out with very primitive ideas, applying those, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, always learning, always building a storehouse of technique and possibility.
Perhaps, animism has validity and each physical particle is actually alive with consciousness, however minute. Omnipresence. God is everywhere. Some particles and combinations having more consciousness than others. Just as some elements have more atomic weight. Maybe that's why some individuals don't perceive themselves as a spirit or soul--because they're not, because they lack the requisite consciousness, the radioactivity, regardless of intelligence.
Who knows? I don't. After all, look at the Periodic Table: same stuff comprising helium and plutonium, just in different combinations. Then look at how many different molecules can be fashioned from just that small number of distinct atoms.
Despite what Hubbard said, is it possible some have souls, some not?
Perhaps, man was NOT created in one moment of inspiration that had no precedent. Perhaps the creator (creators) actually did begin with one-celled creatures that were extremely crude. Or perhaps pre-organisms were attempted.
I don't know. A gnostic admitting humanistic agnosticism. I have failed.
Because both "glib" and "flunk" serve as trigger words in baiting Scientologists, the use of both in one sentence suggest a certain intent.
Of course, you walk out to the patio and find it splattered with blood. The presence of blood suggests horrifying events. Turns out the kids were experimenting with recipes for fake blood.
Once again, I don't know. Flunk me all you wish.
I tried it on the wall, "flunk!" and it didn't respond. Maybe the wall is brighter, serene in its allocation of consciiousness. It certainly holds its form more persistently than I hold my thoughts. Doom on you, wall. Off-putting certainty, and all. I'd hit it, but that'd probably break my hand. Evil, nasty wall.
In Scientology, "glib" is a condemnation. "Glib" for a Scientologist is a pretense of knowing, the pretense smoothly delivered.
In my circles, "glib" is a compliment. We place a premium on quick, facile wit. To know immediately and express fluently seems a virtue, highly respected and valued. Why waltz with clumsy, heavy steps?
Most scientific and artistic achievements come in bursts of sudden insight. Having inspirations is a good thing. The more, the better. Makes life entertaining.
As for the "flunk." Falling on your face and making a fool of yourself is hardly serious. I highly recommend it. Promotes humility.
To flunk for not knowing? Individuals who know all there is to know and can never be wrong seldom dine with us. We prefer experimenting with new fare-- green-bean-caserole loses its appeal after a while.
As for destructive thoughts (of which I've been accused) having "destructive thoughts" isn't grounds for ostracism in some circles--Kansas Board of Education be damned.
As Darwin proved, it's not your schtick as much as your audience. As my favorite dudette keeps telling me, "Opportunity costs, dude. Why play for an audience that wants you off the stage when the bar down the street just sold out your show? Some people actually like your act."
I know I promised brevity, so I won't launch into how Sputnik crashed into the American school system, sending up a cloud of science and math that blocked out recess. I won't talk about how that cloud dropped the concept of numerical bases onto our young skulls. Nor how concept of numerical bases can be applied to ideologies, which helps explain why different people observing the same thing come to different answers. So, I won't be able to seque into how that applies to this message board. All that must go to the gluttons at my table.
Doom on you, brevity.
As for the long post... I frequent other sites that have nothing to do with LRH and Scientology. It's a cross post--slightly modified. Quadruple duty. Thought it might entertain the lurkers who seem to be running up the views on this thread.
Thanks for the inspiration, Cali.
