Saturday, December 29, 2007

God And Atheism

Perhaps the greatest irony with regard to Atheism is that the practitioners display as much faith in their Bible (The Origin of Species) and their god (Darwin) as the typical religious zealot does in theirs. The reality seems to be that the flaws in Darwin’s theory are overlooked and ignored because at its core, Darwinism is really atheism masquerading as science. In fact the way Evolution is taught in the schools and colleges it is in reality a social agenda that is anti-religious and indirectly amoral. But this focus on Darwin simply ignores the glaring flaws and inconsistencies in the theory. The Darwinist – when confronted with these – will admit they exist but expresses complete faith that science will eventually be able to explain them and they in no way justify God or intelligent design. Thus “faith” in “science” is not seen as equivalent to faith in God, so we are left to believe that God believes in Darwin but Darwin does not believe in God.

Of course the first problem with the Darwinists bible – The Origin of Species – is that it really does not address how species originate, it merely addresses how the various species adapt to their environment – changing over time but remaining within the boundaries of their species. This hole in the theory is simply glossed over by the Darwinists who maintain that the demonstrated facts of adaptation lead to the logical conclusion that if changes of the magnitude wrought by adaptation are demonstrated then it is not much of a stretch to believe that one species can be transformed into another. For example they claim that it isn’t difficult to believe that a Lion and a Tiger had a common ancestor, but what they choose to ignore is that Tigers and Lions have been known to interbreed yielding the “Liger” so they are the same species and this argument at least is simply sound and fury signifying nothing. The reality is that despite a long history of experimentation breeders (biologists) have not been successful in breeding across species lines and creating a new species. Nevertheless, the Darwinists and Atheists (if these are not one and the same) would have everyone believe that this has in fact occurred through some random, accidental process that they cannot explain or duplicate but believe happened. These same people deny that there “belief” is not the same as the “faith” expressed by the deists.

The fact is that evolution cannot explain the origin of life and makes no effort to do so. Darwin’s a priori position was that there was initial life – that there was some initial living organism from which all life sprang. The idea that life sprang from lightening striking the primordial ocean made up of hydrogen, methane, water, and ammonia and creating an amino (organic) acid has turned out to be a false alarm because this does not reflect conditions on Earth when life came into being. The origin of life remains “an unsolved mystery of science” yet the Darwinists insist that life evolved from a single cell even though they cannot explain how that single cell came into being. Now Richard Dawkins the high priest of Darwinism cites the genetic code as an algorithm for transcription and reproduction, because it is essentially a binary code similar to what is found in computers. How this single cell came into being complete with the complex DNA and RNA sequences necessary for life and reproduction is attributed to some sort of random event. Dawkins cannot explain this but simply states that “it must have happened this way because we are here.” The idiocy of this statement is lost on the Darwinists but the fact is to believe that some random combination of chemicals could have produced life any different that assuming that some random combination of atoms could have assembled themselves into a submarine or birthday cake? The similarity of Dawkins faith in science to the faith of the intelligent design proponents is lost on his closed mind, but to any rational mind intelligent design seems more logical than some random event that has never been duplicated since the first event.

The fact is that the Universe cannot have evolved through natural selection because the universe makes up the totality of nature – which brings us back to the great singularity known as the Big Bang. Prior to the postulation of the Big Bang the prevalent idea was that the universe was constant, was always there, and would always be there. This was known as the “steady state theory” but once it was discovered that the universe was not only expanding but the expansion was actually accelerating the steady state theory was doomed. Unfortunately the Big Bang led to the only logical conclusion and that was the universe not only had a beginning but it had an end and that it started from some common point. In effect the universe was formed out of nothing because there was no space or time prior to the creation of all energy and mass and space and time. Interestingly the Bible states that the universe came into being at a particular instant as an act of creation by an already existing cosmic force which – for lack of a better term – we call God. Although when Moses asked God who he was or what he should be called he said :I am that I am” Not very explanatory but the Jewish Kabbalah states that when God became aware of himself he became conscious and created all of us as companions. So when the Bible states that God created man in his image it isn’t referring to our human form but our eternal souls.

Naturally this entire description is viewed as laughable by the Darwinists because they are convinced that at some point science will discover “the truth” and will be able to explain how life came to be, how the Earth came to be, and how any belief in a divine being or force is ludicrous. However, these same fun loving Darwinists should go back and read Genesis because it is a relatively accurate description of the Big Bang. Not only is it a good description of the Big Bang it was described and documented by a bunch of nomadic goat herders thousands of years ago.

None of this should be viewed as a refutation of Evolution because much of this theory is accurate – once God got everything started.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Age of Aquarius

Science and Scientists are bounded by our reality and their vision is limited by the very rules of science. For example the universe is expanding and as the technology allows them to see to the very edge of the universe the scientists are beginning to see that the expansion is gaining speed and the objects at the very edge are nearing the speed of light. Of course Einstein’s Theories limit mass to the speed of light so theoretically nothing can exceed that limit or exist beyond it. That is exist as mass but this presupposes that nothing exists outside of our mass oriented reality. The fact that something could exceed the speed of light is not allowed by science because science is bounded by their mass orientation. This constraint of mass limits our ability to see to material things and thus science declares that if we cannot see it then obviously it cannot exist. This means that science rejects even the possibility that there is an existence that cannot be seen or demonstrated through scientific processes.. Essentially the demands of science limit us to accepted theory which states that an object cannot exceed the speed of light so nothing beyond our mass oriented reality can exist. But science has discovered a whole pantheon of sub-atomic particles which they say exist (momentarily) but in reality all they ever see is the track they leave behind but we never actually observe these particles. The reality of these sub-atomic particles and their existence is based entirely on these tracks – much like the existence of Big Foot is based entirely on tracks. Of course no reputable scientist would dare equate his search for these particles to the search for Big Foot but the evidence for them both is roughly equivalent to tracks or “was’es” because all we know is where these things were but no one has actually seen one although there are more witnesses to sightings of Big Foot than to any of the sub-atomic particles. Thus science is trapped in a box which they built and it is a box that prevents them from exploring things that they cannot encompass in their scientific concepts and processes. Consequently, it isn’t only Big Foot that gets cast into the pit of superstition but also ghosts, life after death, psychic abilities, astrology, and any existence beyond the speed of light—and that includes God and your soul.

To be fair there are some scientists who are seriously looking into some of these things that are labeled as quackery by the scientific community and the irony is that these studies are in fact yielding some interesting results – but of course these results generally don’t meet the rigors of science so they tend to be ignored. However, increasingly psychic abilities are manifesting themselves and it is getting more and more difficult for science to ignore them even though they may not meet the demands of scientific proof. Even Quantum Physics is creeping closer to accepting the reality of an unseen Cosmic Force that may be responsible for the Big Bang.

The Age of Aquarius is believed to be the age of “unity” where all of mankind and our existence will come together. The reality is that our entire existence is mass oriented but that mass is actually an illusion because what we perceive as mass – like our furniture and our bodies is in reality nothing but little bundles of energy that we call atoms and molecules. Every atom in the universe is made up from identical components which are combined in different ways to create everything in our universe including our bodies – but are our bodies just a collection of these tiny bundles of energy that are manufactured in the womb or are we more than that? Are we simply an accidental creation that defies the law of entropy that allowed us to grow from pond scum in the Pre-Cambrian to human beings who explore space? To people who are born, who live, and who die and that’s it? Is that all there is? Of course the atheists firmly believe that but then we have that anomaly – the scientist who believes in God but doesn’t believe in Intelligent Design or life after death.

But the real issue here is who are we, do we have a soul – and if we do how do you prove that? Can you be a scientist and still believe that you have soul and can you believe in having a soul and not believe in life after death? If you believe you have a soul how can you not believe in Intelligent Design? What does all of this mean? Most people believe in an afterlife and in fact this is true from the earliest man and this belief actually was a central theme in ancient Egypt. But the soul is one of those things that cannot be seen, it cannot be measured – at least scientifically – and there really is no way of proving there is such a thing – yet virtually all people believe there is such a thing and this includes many scientists who don’t believe in ghosts or psychic phenomena. But the Age of Aquarius promises to bring an understanding of many things relative to our ideas about God, medicine, education, and life as mankind is released from centuries of false doctrines, wrong ideas, and misunderstandings about these things.

In the Aquarian Age we will break free of those beliefs and false doctrines that characterized the Piscean Age. In this new age everything becomes unified and all of our differences and dualities will mix together to bring us together as never before. This means we will truly begin to understand our relationship to God, to understand energy, the universe, and the limitations of modern science. The Age of Aquarius and the predicted end of the world may only mean the destruction of these limitations and it in fact it will be the beginning of a new age and stage in man’s eternal evolution into a more spiritual being.

Friday, December 14, 2007

The Brutality of Islam

Today brings us news that a devout Muslim father has murdered his 16 year old daughter for not wearing her head scarf to school. He had previously beat her for “not being Muslim enough” and the girl had told her friends that she thought if she didn’t meet her father’s standard of “being a good Muslim” he would kill her. Killing her was required by Islam because she was apostate. The Saudi Court sentenced a young girl to 90 lashes after she was gang raped by four men. When she appealed the sentence the court raised her sentence to 200 lashes and six months in prison. The men received two years in prison and the rationale for the girl’s punishment was that she had been in the company of an unrelated male prior to the attack. Reading between the lines you can see that because she was with a boy – not related to her, she was seen as a whore and thus available to the boys who raped her. A British school teacher is sentenced to 40 lashes because she allowed her 7 year old students to name their Teddy Bear “Mohammed”. Of course the multi-culturists are doing their best to spin these atrocities into something less brutal and primitive but the reality is Islam is a barbaric religion that is anchored in the seventh century and doesn’t seem likely to join the modern world anytime soon.

Few of the apologists for Islam seem to have actually read the Koran or have any idea of what it says, but in Chapter 24:2 it calls for the fornicatress and adulteress to be lashed on the body 100 times and this is noted as the extreme limit. Please note that the Saudi Court sentenced the unfortunate victim of rape to 200 lashes. Also note that the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) or any official Islamic spokesman has failed to condemn this sentence or called on the Saudi Court to pardon the girl. This silence is telling because the Muslims -- even in the west -- place Shar’ia Law above secular law. To condemn this court would have been anti-Muslim. It should also be noted that Chapter 24:3 goes on to permit the fornicator and adulterer (males) to have sexual relations with a fornicatress, an adulteress, or a polytheistic (non-Muslim) woman. Therefore, rape of non-Muslim women is forgiven and it is easy to see why the girl who was raped had to have been condemned as a fornicatress and girl of low morality (she was in the presence of an unrelated male) because this justified the rape. For this girl to have been found innocent – a very unlikely event – it would have been necessary for her to produce four witnesses (all male) who would testify to the fact that she was forcibly raped. In effect she was guilty until proven innocent.

The Muslims all over the world demand to be treated equally with regard to the local laws but deny equal treatment in the Islamic states. No Jews or Christians are allowed in Arabia and Bibles are forbidden and possession could result in severe punishment including death. There is no freedom of religion in Islam – that is a Western concept which is enjoyed by Muslims but which they deny to others. But the fundamental hypocrisy of Islam and Muslims is visible everyday in the news as we observe Muslims killing other Muslims something strictly forbidden in the Koran – but the real hypocrisy is in Chapter 2:191. In this verse Muslims are forbidden to fight in the Holy Mosque but as we see these hyper-religious Muslims spout the Koran while using their “holy” Mosques as ammo dumps and fortresses from which they attack others – namely American Soldiers. But the irony goes on because in Chapter 2:193 where the Muslim is enjoined to fight their persecutors until religion is freely professed for Allah. How the Muslim community attacks those who believe differently and then call that “persecution” and then deny religious freedom is a blatant example of their hypocrisy and failure to live by the very dictates they profess.

In chapter 2:216 the Koran states that Muslims are expected to fight “Fighting has been ordained for you”. In this chapter the word “love” appears but the Koran is fascinating because in the few instances where this word "love" appears it never is used in reference to loving mankind – only loving God or something and in this chapter it references something you may desire that is bad for you. This failure to preach love of mankind should be contrasted with the New Testament where the underlying theme throughout is to love all mankind and to forgive your enemies. Instead the Koran is filled with references to killing, beheading, fighting, and destruction of all infidels. Islam is a brutal religion anchored firmly in the tribal culture of the seventh century and practiced by tribal people today who place tribe and religion above everything else and who have little to no loyalty to any secular authority other than military and even that is problematic. Women have very few rights in Islam and are treated as little more than property. They are married off independent of their wishes. Recently there has been a spate of female suicide bombers and these are passed off as dedicated Islamic women. The actual facts are that these are women who have been condemned to death by stoning or flogging for violating Shar’ia Law. They are given the option of dying in the name of Allah or in shame. The supreme irony here is that the “Traditions of the Prophet” clearly and unequivocally condemn suicide in any form. This is supported by the Prophet himself who quoted God as saying to a man who was morally wounded and killed himself to shorten the pain “My servant has pre-empted me by taking his soul with his own hand: he will therefore not be admitted to paradise”. So you wonder just how pure these Islamofascists are relative to their religion when they dupe malleable people into carrying out their murderous schemes. According to the Koran and Islam suicide is forbidden so why is this being ignored in the name of Allah when it is a clear violation of God's will? The simple answer is that these people are after power and they are willing to use any monstrous lie or deception and are willing to go to any extreme to achieve this power. These are brutal people who are using a brutal religion to achieve their desire for power – God has nothing to do with it.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Science God and Time

Science studies the material world – the physical aspects of our existence and denies the metaphysical because it cannot be demonstrated by any known scientific method; ergo science rejects psychic energy, telepathy, souls, and God. The scientists assure us that their secular world relies on reason and facts while religious people rely on faith. While this is what the scientists would like you to believe – and they probably believe themselves – the reality is that much of science requires the same level of faith as the religious and metaphysical. In fact, Carl Sagan stated “The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be”. This statement was made as if it were a known scientific fact – a fact that he undoubtedly believed in – but is really not a fact and is nothing more than a belief – a faith based argument and in light of current Quantum Theory most probably wrong. The Big Bang Theory has certainly thrown a monkey wrench into the tidy little world of science.

The discovery that the universe is expanding and that galaxies are moving away at an increasing rate led inexorably to the Big Bang Theory. This is a theory that is generally accepted – reluctantly accepted – by most scientists today. But if the galaxies are continuing to accelerate as they move away from each other the implication is that at one time they were closer – in fact compacted into one bundle of energy which exploded. Unfortunately this conclusion led to some very uncomfortable questions with some very disturbing potential answers. How big was this primordial bundle of energy? Apparently it was smaller than an atom and we know how large that would be. BUT, the Big Bang created both space and time so where was this bundle of energy in microsecond before the explosion? If the Cosmos is as it has always been then space and time are not an issue – but then why is the universe expanding at an accelerating rate? The obvious conclusion is that Carl Sagan and his supporters are wrong. But if the Big Bang is a true picture of the beginning of the universe then what initiated the Big Bang and where did the energy come from? Science doesn’t approve of God so that answer is disallowed on the basis that scientists have faith that a better answer will be discovered, but what does God say?

In paraphrasing Genesis it seems that the Earth was without form and void and that darkness was upon the face of the deep and God said let there be light (Bang) and there was light and God divided the light from the darkness. This was God’s work on the first day of creation and it sounds like a fairly accurate description – albeit somewhat poetic – of the first moments of the Big Bang. The scientific community likes to shrug off Genesis as a fairy tale suitable only for the gullible because they KNOW that the cosmos is at least 15 billion years old so it could not have been created in six days. Alas imagination is not a strong characteristic of the scientific community but the actual word translated in the Bible as “day” is actually a word that is much less precise and could describe a period of time from a second to an epoch. So perhaps Genesis isn’t too different from the current paleontological record, but that really isn’t the problem. The problem lies with Darwin and Evolution and the scientific community has replaced the Bible with “The Origin of Species” and God with Darwin. Of course the irony is that “The Origin of Species” does not describe how species come into being and the only explanation provided by science is an undemonstrated theory – a belief in how it all came about. So the Darwinists are not really too different than those ignoramuses who believe in God.

Science does not believe in miracles but only deals in facts – demonstrable facts – so Genesis is out and Darwin is in. First it should be noted that everything in the cosmos is built from the same stuff – protons, electrons, and neutrons – all indistinguishable from each other. It also should be noted that all of these are pure energy and that what we perceive as material is in fact energy fields – and that includes all living things. Now Genesis tells us that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into his nostrils – a miraculous beginning but science rejects miracles so there must be a rational explanation of how life was formed without bringing God into it. All of those protons and electrons bumped into each other and formed atoms, the atoms bumped into each other and formed other things which coalesced into the sun, moon, and stars and eventually the oceans, which presumably were composed of water and various salts – but lifeless.

At least some of these errant atoms floating around in the ocean either bumped into each other or were hit by some random cosmic particle that caused them to mutate into a complex molecule, which in turn evolved into a self-replicating simple cell and we were off on the evolutionary pathway to life, humankind, and the space shuttle. Of course all of this is speculation and in spite of years of effort science has failed to demonstrate any of this and it remains theory, which is science talk for a belief which is another name for faith and this brings us back to that aggravating Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang represents the beginning of both space and time, but everything that has a beginning has a cause – some initiating action. This means that since the material world did not exist prior to the Big Bang then the universe must have had a nonmaterial beginning, which would be metaphysical in nature or spiritual – in effect it was MIND not MATTER that was the initiating factor. It was a MIRACLE – something that seems to be the province of God.

Monday, December 03, 2007

Richard Dawkins, The Man of Faith

The Atheists are leading a virulent attack on religion, especially Christianity and in its place they substitute science, particularly Darwin. In fact these secularists actually call themselves “Darwinists” and place Evolution in the center of their new religion, and religion is what it is because their science is based on faith just as that old time religion that they are attacking is based on faith. In fact these Atheists who believe in science have built their new religion on two cornerstones – Evolution and the Big Bang – and each of these requires a leap of faith just as great as any other religion.

The Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, the exact month and day is as yet unknown. According to the Big Bang model the universe began as an extremely dense and hot state of pulsating energy which suffered a sudden inflation leading to the expansion of energy and space which is still going on. Precisely how much space existed prior to this expansion is unknown although it must have existed – even in a miniscule form for this bundle of cosmic energy to exist. Where this energy came from is unknown but it can only have two possibilities – it was always there or it appeared spontaneously. If it was always there then what caused it to suddenly explode and expand into the known universe? If it suddenly appeared, what were the conditions to cause it to appear and then explode? In the latter case was space always there but empty? Did this singularity also create space? Of course it is stated that this singularity had infinite density which means mass and mass requires space in which to exist so we can conclude that the initial singularity existed in space or that space must have been created prior to the introduction of this bundle of energy.

Obviously the entire Big Bang Theory is much more complicated but complication doesn’t add any substance because it still leaves these questions unanswered. Stephen Hawking and others have postulated the “Big Crunch” meaning that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin contracting down to a singularity and this may be an eternal cycle. Of course then that poses the question of what happens to Space. Will the current universe which is measured in light years contract and disappear or merely contract to the point where all of the mass/energy in the universe is once again squashed together until the temperature and energy becomes so great that it once again explodes and expands into a new universe. All very interesting stuff but where did this little bundle of mass energy come from in the first place? What created it and what caused it to expand? Science can explain and describe everything that happened within microseconds of this initial Big Bang – what they can’t explain is what initiated it and where all of this energy came from. This question is left unanswered because all of the equations work so science has faith that they understand how the universe was created --- and accept the fact that it was an accident or just a random event, but under no circumstance was God involved because they don't believe in God. A careful reading of Genesis seems to pretty well describe the Big Bang.

The second foundation stone of Atheism is Evolution. The logical flaws of Evolution and the failure of paleontology to meet the criteria needed for proof established by Darwin are well know just as the failure to explain the Cambrian explosion of life is glossed over, but undaunted the Atheists with Richard Dawkins in the forefront continue their war against God. The real conundrum for these Darwinists is “why would evolved creatures like human beings, bent on survival and reproduction, do things that seem unrelated and even inimical to those objectives?” By this they are referencing the universal belief by humans in a God or some cosmic force. Even biologists like Dawkins say there must be some natural and evolutionary explanation for the universality and persistence of religious belief.

In the Dawkins view humans are descended from some primordial molecule that evolved into pond scum and through the intervention of arbitrary mutations over billions of years evolved into apes,who in turn became humans, who became enlightened biologists like Dawkins. Thus humans are simply arbitrary products of reproducing organisms without purpose, past, or future – a pointless existence, unless you accept that the point of their existence is to demonstrate the very futility of their existence. On the other hand, those people who suffer the scorn of the Darwinists believe we are the products of a good and powerful God who has placed us above all other life forms and has created us as his companions and who has given us purpose and direction in this life and in future lives.

Given these two positions and given that Evolution favors those who are best adapted to their environment, which of these two groups seems best able to survive? Which of these two groups is flourishing and has flourished since man was placed on the Earth? The reality is that these Atheists are actually a pathetically small group – admittedly they seem to flourish in academia and scientific circles, but within the population as a whole they represent a minority. In fact it is one of those supreme ironies that some scientists who believe in Evolution attend church regularly and profess a belief in God.

The logical conclusion is that a belief in God is built into mankind and that this belief has been to our evolutionary advantage. That faith based science is really just another manifestation of this evolutionary trait and people like Dawkins believe just as strongly in their religion as those do who believe in God.