One of the arguments that continues to exist among chiropractors is the issue of cause and effect. They are intertwined and interdependent. If it is true that universal intelligence is a legitimate principle (and it is), that “every effect has a cause and every cause has effects” as RWS wrote. That negates the idea that universal intelligence is God. Being synonymous, as BJ maintained, would mean that something/someone created God which is blasphemous or that He created Himself which defies logic. To be consistent with our 33 principles we must step out of our chiropractic philosophy and consider God to be a theological construct and that He created Principle #1, the major premise of chiropractic and the other 32, a theological argument or, we can begin with the major premise and not get into theology, (the OSC position). What we cannot do is take the position of BJ that P#1 and God are synonymous.Keep the major premise and call God the Source of creation including every Law. Judaeo-Christian belief says just that, including the Law of Organization(P#1)
God or universal intelligence are not things so your argument that they are not synonymous fails.
Steven, synonym by def.: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses. The definition says nothing about things. Laws and principles are not things yet they are synonymous (law of organization and principle #1). Judeo-christian theology teaches that God is the Lawgiver (Gen. 49:10). The Giver of some-“thing” cannot be that “thing”. BJ rejected the Judeo-Christian concept of God (at least at this point in his life)and viewed it/Him as a principle. He gives no cause of the major premise making cause and effect the same. In logic that is called a circular argument and violates/negates his own principle #17. If universal intelligence is the same as God then P.#17 does not exist.
Over 80 years of “first impression” that remained unchallenged until 1975, have dogmatized many faulty conclusion due to personal beliefs of the profession’s leadership. It is understandable from the point of view of the followhip that surrender its right to think for themselves. Now, faced with the unequivocality of the rational logic of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science, deductive reasoning prevails to allow true conclusions. As long as we, without condemnation, follow the AUTHORITY of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science for guidance, we will realized that our conclusions are true, until proven otherwise, which is the objective of chiropractic research.
“followship”