Fundamental Philosophical Laws

As previously stated on Ride The Movement page, this page, also, forms part of The Movement process. It is here that, with the help of solving the topical, philosophical dilemmas over at the Great Philosophical Puzzles page, we can start to come up with fundamental laws that will form the tenets of a real system by which we can live with total freedom.

Without further ado, then, let me present you with my much-philosophised-upon laws.

Remember, I encourage you to take part by leaving your feedback regarding the validity, ethicality and potential implementation of the laws by writing in the 'Comments' box down below.

First up…

It is impossible for one to prove or disprove that which one either did not bear witness to, or does not have conclusive evidence for.

This sounds obvious, but it is often dismissed in favour of faith. Let me explain with an example.

I'm an evolutionist. A devout evolutionist. But as passionate I am about the evolution theory of existence and life, by taking a step back and taking an objective view - i.e., bypassing emotion, faith and opinion - we realise a couple of things.

Firstly, there is no human alive today that has borne witness to evolution. The oldest human alive today is only just over a hundred years old, and evolution is something that happens over thousands to millions of years. So we have no eye witness accounts.

Secondly, we currently don't have 100% proof that evolution is the answer. I am no scientist, but as far as I'm aware, noone has left their laboratory with conclusive proof that evolution is definitely the missing link.

And this is the creationists' argument against the evolution theory - that it is unproven. So let's look at their theory. Of course, they will tell you that creation isn't a theory - it's fact. Allow me to point out that again, there is no human alive today that bore witness to creation. Likewise, there is still zero proof of another dimension, supernature, ghosts, angels and, well, gods.

So we have two theories for life and existence: creation and evolution, both of which are yet to be proved. And as far as I know, there are no more public theories; not serious ones, anyhow. But didn't I say I was an evolutionist earlier? Why have I chosen evolution over creation?

Quite simply, there is more evidence to back-up evolution than there is creation. In fact, as far as I'm aware, the only 'proof' of creation is contained in rehashed stories in ancient books. As far as I'm aware, there have been no proven video recordings or photographs of ghosts or spirits or angels.

Books have been written about angels and spirits and millions have claimed to see them and communicate with them, but that is not proof. None of my religious friends have even claimed to see God, although they insist they speak with him. That is not proof that can be verified.

Creationists claim that God is from another dimension that can't be reached by 'mere' humans. Which means disproving God is currently impossible. In that case, for all we know, we could all have a group of miniature, dancing, ghost monkeys that follow us around all day on our shoulders. The only reason one could claim this to be rubbish is because there are no ancient books written on mini, dancing, ghost monkeys, or no schools or churches built for their worship.

A man walking on water, a man building a boat out of wood housing two of every animal, a man feeding five thousand with two small fish and five loaves of bread, and a man parting the sea? All true apparently. But unprovable because they were 'miracles'. Not good enough. To proclaim an illogical act as a miracle because it says so in a book is infantile.

Evolution, on the other hand, is researchable, since it resides in our dimension - the only dimension proven to exist. We still have missing links, sure, but with each passing day, new theorems are tested within evolution - some have weight, others are dismissed as improbable. As humans progress, and science and technology improve, we become more adept at proving or disproving theorems.

So out of all the theories (two), evolution is not only undoubtedly the one with more credibility, but it is becoming more viable every day. Creation on the other hand has zero evidence to back it up, and is impossible to research right now. It, then, behooves us to concentrate on, or at least regard evolution as the likely explanation for life and existence.

We may yet be able to prove it, such is the growth in technology. And if humans are still around in a million years, we may even have recorded evidence of evolution slowly in action. Only then can we declare that evolution is 100% fact. Until then, we are only partially sure of its likelihood. But it sure beats faith.

This evolution discussion is my way of illustrating my point, that for something to be fact, it has to have evidence to back it up, otherwise one is living by faith. And living by faith is an ignorant way of living, because it negates thought and reason, and it is these qualities that have allowed humans to prosper so. It is these qualities that, without the shackles of blind faith, will allow humans to grow further.