Free the thinking from static models to one of constant change rippling through space/time.
dwise1 suggests that I broaden my thinking. This is how major breakthroughs happen in science. Religion is far too static, but it does postulate that change is a part of growth. The change itself is fairly rigid and rule-bound. Perhaps simply thinking of positive (good) overriding negative(as bad) is too simplistic. One question: Is our nature as thinkers to think good thoughts, bad thoughts or complete thoughts? Forest Gumps Mom used to say that death is just another part of life. Traditional thinking views eternal life as a goal and death as a mutation. I'm not sure, but I think I believe that good by definition is life and that bad by definition is death.
At the cellular level, it's not so clear. Even a mutated cell seeks to live. And yet cellular death is programmed into the cells if I understand correctly.
I'm in virgin territory here. Do you separate your emotional philosophical thinking from your science mind or are you able to form a cohesion?
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"
If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile