The Austin Cry: be the Cause, join the Movement, PaRDeS Universal ReConstitution for Washington and World Repair!

Visit my websites www.PaRDeSism.com,  www.Ric4USH21.com, podcasts with pdf, or at iTunes and other platforms.

I have a calling, born out of enthusiasm; a book to deliver, “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”; and a job to get done, place the cornerstone of civilization for the III Millennium!

Title: “PaRDeSism ~ Human Science 101”

Subtitle: (PaRDeS primevalism ~ treeseeding our original common-sense on the Bible’s Creation Story 1:1-2:3; Universal World ReConstitution, from Crisis City to PaRaDiSe Earth)

Author: Ricardo Turullols-Bonilla.

Where: At Amazon, in paperback and digital, in English and Spanish translation.

What we create, here and now, reconstitutes the universe!

004* Nothing explains Creation; but, the Bible Creation Story explains everything

Dear Friends of Dialogue:

Everything has a beginning, or else, it doesn’t, in which case, it has always been. This seems to follow since a Universe does exist, unless you deny its existence. The question then is, what’s with this beginning concern, and why should we even care about it at all?

The bottom-line of, it doesn’t have a beginning, is that the whole wide Universe has always been. This line of reasoning comes from the side of Athens Greece, known as the Eternal Universe, as distinct from that proceeding from Jerusalem Israel, known as Creation Big Bang.

The philosophical position of the School of Athens is known as the eternal regression argument. Today got started yesterday, yesterday got started the day before yesterday, and so on, you get the idea. This infinitely regressive line of thought has no beginning, it just keeps going further and further back in time. The argument was, that since infinity has no beginning, the Universe, likewise, has no beginning. Simply put, it has always been. End of argument.

The consequences of the Eternal Universe are no Creation, no Creator, no creatures. There are no personal relations whatsoever. Things just are. They are what you make of them, nothing in themselves.

While this argument might put anybody against the ropes, at a first bout, its magic is dispelled once we start questioning its footings. It has as much support as a brush hanging from the wall.

Argument it is, but, what is argument? Argument is reasoning, but, whence reasoning? In consonance with the primary argument, we could likewise reenact it here, and say, that reason comes from logic, logic comes from math and language, and math and language comes from, well, numbers and letters have always existed, somehow. The main argument fleshes out in its partial arguments.

Irrespective of the argument, whole or pieces, the point being is that it explains nothing, merely phases out all and everything.

This self-sustaining reason has its merits, without a doubt. Like if you want to go from here to there, or, plan from today to tomorrow, it works quite well. It has no problem with the finite. However, it gets into deep waters when it starts addressing the non-finite, or infinite. The problem is that infinite is not finite, it isn’t just a bigger finite.

To cut to the chase, my opinion on the matter is simply that what is limited is our reasoning. It has a range of validity, namely, the finite; and, beyond that, it simply doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. It leads us to some outlandish conclusions that are plain nonsense. Of course, one could object that the infinite doesn’t really exist, that all we have experience is of the finite. That all there is finite. End of argument.

While this is stable, it is hardly convincing. We can no more proof the existence of the infinite any more that ...