Good Versus Evil

Our society is tolerant.  It is multi-cultural.  It is accepting of virtually anything and everything even to the point of only lightly punishing criminal behavior.  However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that what our society does not tolerate or accept is God.  Satan is not acknowledged as a force and evil as a practice, or even as a concept, is fading out of our collective consciousness.  Our society seems to be in a decline with greater violence, poverty, sickness, and disasters occurring without anyone seeming to see any connection to either Satan or God, maybe it is time for a review.

Perhaps the best place to begin our review is with the Ten Commandments. The first Commandment is “I am the Lord, thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me” so this seems like a good place to start with the question “do we have other gods?”  Many people might disagree and claim that we have no other gods because God is simply a myth created by man.  In fact modern science has gone to great lengths to prove that God doesn’t exist.  Without any empirical evidence modern science has embraced the belief that a random and accidental event initiated life.  In fact the creation of the universe is viewed as a scientific event as yet unexplained but believed to be eventually explainable by science.  In effect modern science like all religions is faith based but has replaced God with Man in the form of scientists. Modern science requires the same level of faith as any religion does. 

Our society in general has increasingly embraced atheism as the atheists drive God out of any public display or acknowledgement that He exists.  The atheist sees his existence and the circumstances of that existence as random chance.  The atheist has no purpose in life and is not constrained by any moral boundary other than one that is self imposed or culturally imposed.  To the atheist there is no such thing as a soul or an after life and it is delusional to think otherwise.  Therefore, when the atheist attempts to suppress or repudiate God, he thinks he is acting in the best interest of society, but others might think he is merely whistling past the graveyard.

The real irony of the atheist position of course is that it has no basis in fact and rests exclusively on his belief that God’s existence cannot be proven.  The irony is that he cannot prove God doesn’t exist.  So the argument is left unresolved and a matter of faith.  But what of Satan – can his existence be proven or demonstrated?  When God created man he created him in His image and gave him free will—meaning Man was given the right to choose.  Satan takes advantage of that right and tempts Man into making the wrong choice.  This is why the fundamentalist Muslims call America “The Great Satan”, because America is filled with temptations, provide in their eyes, by Satan.  Of course this doesn’t prove Satan exists but if Satan is evil personified then it should be clear, even to the most ardent atheist, that our society is increasingly corrupt.  America is a place where free choice reigns supreme where everyone is tempted every day to commit some sin or violation of the Ten Commandments, which of course is Satan’s objective.

But the relevant question is” is our tolerant and multi-cultural society becoming more or less evil?”  Of course the arguments about the answer to this question could go on endlessly because our society has become so complicated, but perhaps we could narrow the discussion to the Ten Commandments.  These are part of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity so perhaps they allow us to address the question more easily.  For example “Honor the Sabbath” is a commandment and at one time businesses were closed on the Sabbath which varies among religions but is that true today?  Certainly some businesses remain closed on their Sabbath but I submit our society at large does not honor the Sabbath. 

What about the Commandment against adultery?  Statistics show that marriage as an institution is in decline while living together is growing.  At one time living together was even called “living in sin” and viewed as fornication but it is no longer viewed as a sin but simply accepted as an alternative way of life.  Beyond that divorce is also growing with about half of all marriages ending in divorce.  The part of the marriage vow where you are joined by God has declined into mere words without meaning.  Ministers and other men of God blithely continue marrying divorced people even though they have violated the marriage vow already.  So adultery is growing in our society and is no longer condemned either morally or legally. 

What about taking the Lord’s name in vain, is this commandment being honored today?  Anyone who has been to a movie recently knows that they increasingly border on pornography with language that is embarrassing and one time would not have been tolerated in polite society.  For all intents and purposes this commandment might as well not exist.

Of course violations of the other commandments have always existed, and existed even in the time of Moses.  I don’t think any society or religion to day actually worships graven images, nor do I believe any society today condones murder or theft or perjury.  Still all of these evils exist today and are the result of individual choice – of free will.  Satan uses the free will ordained by God to influence man to make poor choices.  These poor choices lead us away from God and into the hands of Satan.  The atheist or non-believe will argue that while evil exists in our society it has nothing to do with Satan who is as much of a myth as God.  Evil is a concept and an act defined by man.

But the dichotomy between Good and Evil is ancient with good being represented by God in some form and evil represented by Satan in some form.  Yes – God and Satan exist even if it only seen as good and evil and these forces have always existed under different names in different societies but the relevant point is that good and evil exist.  The names used to describe these is irrelevant but the question remains “ is our society more or less moral?”  Do we see increases in evil in our society?  Is our society more or less evil than it was in the 1950’s?  In the 1850’s?

 

 

 

 

 

Heaven, Hell, and Sin

Where exactly is “Heaven”?  Where exactly is Hell for that matter?   We are told “Heaven” is “up there” – a place where God dwells, sitting on a throne and surrounded by angels.  We are told by the Bible that God created man in His Image, which leads many to visualize God in human form so Heaven must be tangible and filled with “many mansions” although nothing is said about HOA fees.  But isn’t this unrealistic?  Is the Bible wrong in its description of God, Man, and Heaven?  Isn’t it more logical to see God as pure energy and existing in a dimension not visible or accessible to humans?  If God is pure energy then doesn’t it follow that His image is nothing like a human being but instead it is our “souls” which are pure energy and are in His image.  We cannot see God nor can we see our Souls, but does this mean they don’t exist?  Of course for some – the ubiquitous Atheist -- the answer to that question is “yes” they don’t exist. For these people  Man is an animal evolved from hominids which were descended from pond scum and the origin of all life was a random event.  Nevertheless, if God is energy existing in a place not visible to mankind then it also follows that Heaven is indeed a place where God dwells surrounded by the souls of those not in body.

If Heaven exists not “up there” but in another energetic state or dimension that is without mass, intangible, and invisible, then what about Hell?  Where does Hell exist?  Traditionally Hell ( a state or place known by many names) is “down there” below the surface and in the underground.  I think modern geologic science has pretty much demonstrated that Hell does not exist in some huge underground cavern filled with unquenchable flame and inhabited by Satan and tortured souls.  But then Hell is a very ancient concept predating the Bible and extending far back in Man’s history and across cultures.  It is a place where souls go who have sinned and who are punished for those sins.  But then what is “sin” and given that sin seems universal and omnipresent then how much sin must a person incur in order to be sent to Hell for torture and retraining?

Technically “sin” is a violation of divine law or a violation of the relationship between Man and God.  But does this mean that Atheists cannot sin?  If you don’t believe in God then you are exempt from Hell and Damnation?  The logical response to this is that while the Atheist may not believe in God – God does believe in the Atheist and therefore any human being can – and undoubtedly does – sin.  But where does God draw the line between those destined for Heaven and those destined for Hell?   This is where things get a little murky because according to some Jesus died for mankind’s sins and in the acceptance of Jesus Christ mankind’s sins are forgiven.  But even here there are conditions because according to the Bible “every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.  Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven …”  When you stop and consider sin as described you can see that it isn’t as clear cut as some would have you believe so what condemns you to Hell and precisely where is Hell located – other than down there?

It strikes me that given everyone sins and sins come in various flavors so the punishment for those sins varies as well.  This leads to the logical conclusion that Hell is where we are and that “down there” is actually the Earth.  All of us are in Hell already and struggling to return to Heaven. The idea that Hell is a place of punishment is very old and crosses many cultures but the fire and brimstone Hell is a relatively new concept and one that has been created by man much like all of the others.  But within these there is a kernel of truth because the reality is that Earth is a place of learning – a place where each soul comes to perfect itself, to correct past mistakes, and to balance itself in order to reach a higher level of evolution.

 

 

God -- The Bible -- Science

PREFACE

What follows are my opinions.  They are not intended to prove anything and certainly not intended to offend anyone.  I view myself as a Christian but many of my Christian friends would disagree due to various doctrinal conflicts.  I don’t think God is exclusive to any specific religion and  is present in all religions.  It is not my intent to prove that God exists but rather to ask the Atheist to prove that He doesn’t.

What follows is my simple comparison of the Bible’s description of the creation to what science currently believes.  The important thing here is that while the Bible requires faith it is the same for science because neither can prove their positions.

God--the Bible – and Science

The atheist doesn’t believe in God but he believes in science and challenges those who believe in God to prove He doesn’t exist.  But when challenged to prove that God doesn’t exist the atheist cannot offer any scientific proof.  In fact Richard Dawkins – the High Priest of Darwinism – when challenged to explain how the complex DNA and RNA molecules came into existence as a random event he admitted he could not explain it.  Instead he said “it must have happened because we are here.”  The idiocy of this statement is lost on the atheist whose faith is in science.  But to believe that some random combination of chemicals could produce these complex molecules would lead to the logical conclusion that they could have just as easily combined into a birthday cake.  So it seems that science requires the same level of faith as faith in God requires.

Allowing for some poetic license it seems that the Bible describes the Big Bang or “First Cause” pretty well.  The Bible says that God created the heavens and the Earth and the Earth was without form and void..  Science tells us that all energy was created with the Big Bang and was a swirling incredibly hot cloud of particles that eventually coalesced into the stars and the earth.  Then God separated the waters from the waters and divided the waters from under the firmament from those above the firmament.   According to what science believes the energies released began to coalesce into mass laden molecules and ultimately into the stars and planets.  Given some latitude for poetic license the Biblical description of the second day seems to track science.

On the third day God gathered together the waters into one place and let the dry land appear and the seas.  This seems to track the scientific belief that the Earth was formed out of the swirling mass of particles into our planet which was  incredibly hot and surrounded by gas.  As the Earth cooled the gases cooled and formed the seas and atmosphere.  The Bible and science seem to agree up to this point but then the sequence of events begins to diverge.  The Bible claims the next step was the creation of grass and trees  but the fossil record shows no plant life of any kind in the Cambrian or Pre-Cambrian beyond something akin to pond scum.  The Cambrian fossil record shows an abundance of sea life but grasses and plant life first appear in the Ordovician period.   In fact the sequence of events between the Bible and the fossil record greatly differ from this point on, but it is the sequence not the actual events.  The Sun and the Moon are created after the Earth but science claims that the Sun was created first and the Moon after the Earth.  The first life appears in the Cambrian Seas and the Bible and science agree on this point but the Bible claims that flying fowl were created at the same time but once again the fossil record doesn’t show any flying animal until much later. 

This brings us to the sixth day which roughly equates to the Devonian period when land animals first appear.  The Bible lumps the rest of creation into this sixth day ranging from the creation of the first land animals to the creation of man.   The fossil record shows the evolutionary history of the Earth in much more detail than the Bible but roughly they parallel the development of life on Earth.    The huge difference comes with the creation of man.  The Bible is very clear that God created man in His image while the scientists point to the fossil record that shows a path from primitive apes to modern man.  This fossil record for mankind has some questionable entries and assumptions but even so the record is very clear that man did not appear fully formed as we know him today.  To accept the Biblical explanation would require God to look somewhat like Michelangelo’s version of God which would mean that God is tangible, Heaven is tangible or at least a physical place, and that Hell exists.  Furthermore, once God is accepted as real then Satan must be real as well.  

Since the Bible was written people have believed that if God created man in his image that when they look into the mirror they see an image similar to God.  But science tells us that everything in the universe is energy and that the Big Bang created all of that energy.  That would lead to the conclusion that God is energy and that when He created man he created man as an energetic image – which we know as our soul.  Our physical bodies are mere shells – containers for our souls while we serve our time on Earth.  Certainly it would be asking too much for science to accept this explanation because it would require accepting God, but viewing man ‘s soul as the image of God then the creation story in Genesis seems to closely parallel the scientific view of the creation.

As I said at the outset these are just my opinions and I have no proof of anything.  I simply looked at the Bible and compared it to various scientific articles and descriptions and found what I saw as parallels.  You may or may not agree.

Faith Based Science

The debate regarding God’s existence has been raging for centuries but recently the Atheists seem to have seized the initiative as their numbers increase.  Of course the challenge the Atheists present to the Theist is to prove that God exists.  That proof must stand the test of the scientific process in order to be proof.  What has been missing is the challenge to the Atheist to prove God doesn’t exist using the scientific method.  Naturally neither side has been able to show convincing proof so the debate rages on.  But recently this debate has become more strident as the Atheists present scientific findings on Evolution, First Cause, and the Origin of Life.  All of these theories – which is what they are – presented as facts even though the “facts” are actually presumptions, assumptions, opinions, and guesses. .  The era of Faith Based Science is upon us.

 The foundation of the debate on God is the Origin of Life.  Exactly how did life begin?  For the Theist the answer is God – in fact for the Theist God created the Heavens and the Earth and the question is answered.  For the Atheist that is no answer at all because it cannot be demonstrated (or duplicated) by science and to accept God as the answer is to avoid answering the question and represents intellectual laziness if not outright stupidity.  But the scientists are faced with this fundamental problem which fails the scientific test of being demonstrable and repeatable.  The challenge is for the scientist is to demonstrate how life evolved from inorganic matter. 

Essentially the scientific position is that life on Earth began as a random event triggered by some unknown process or combination of events resulting in self replicating molecule.  To date experiments using inorganic components have succeeded in creating organic molecules from inorganic materials but have failed to yield a living organism.  Complicating the matter is the materials used in creating the organic molecules are toxic to life or the resultant molecules are toxic to life.  But there is an even more difficult scientific hurdle to overcome and that is the fact that the probability of DNA being randomly generated is so great as to be impossible.  Recognizing that life being created as a random event or even a series of random events is so improbable the “scientists” have postulated a new theory called “Panspermia”.  Essentially this theory states that life on Earth was introduced via a meteorite that carried life to Earth.  Of course this really doesn’t answer the question because we still don’t know how life began.  The obvious conclusion is that scientists really don’t know how life began but they know God wasn’t involved.

If science can’t really offer any scientific proof about the Origin of Life what about the origin of the universe – the “First Cause” or Big Bang.  Science can trace the universe and everything in it back to the first nanosecond.—the instant of creation.  Of course the problem is what was there before the moment of creation?  For those who believe in God, the answer is God but that isn’t acceptable to the scientist because it cannot be proved via science.  The problem lies with space itself since it was the Big Bang that created space meaning there was not place for that bundle of energy to exist prior to the creation of the space in which it could exist. 

To solve this problem scientifically scientists have postulated various possibilities, none involving God.  Several theories have been postulated but none have been accepted as the probable one. Essentially the scientists agree that none of their theories can be tested or proved but they argue that that’s the best they can do.  The best answer they have come up with so far is that the universe emerged spontaneously from a random quantum fluctuation in some sort of primordial quantum vacuum.  Once you have absorbed this description and examine it critically it does raise some questions.  It assumes that this quantum vacuum that the entire world of quantum particles and interactions already exists.  Please not that the particles have mass and thus must have some space in which to exist.  All of these particles are composed of energy and a zero energy quantum state is impossible.  Scientists like Hawkings and other scientists claim that the universe emerged out of quantum nothingness. They are making a claim that does not meet the scientific test much less a logical one.  But those who deny God but believe in science accept this because they have faith in science.  And brings us to the third problem faced by science – Evolution.

Evolution is a much thornier problem because there is so much fossil evidence supporting it.  Scientists can trace life back millions of years and show the march from sea to land to the air.  They have created charts and diagrams showing how one animal or group of animals has descended from a common ancestor.  Unfortunately many of the examples used are actually simply examples of environmental adaptation and not speciation.  Commonly there are gaps of millions of years and the fossil record does not preserve these speciation events so these connections are assumed.  The major assumption is that these ‘assumed” lineages are that these intermediate fossils exist at the proper point and thus the transitions are plausible. 

The speciation events are virtually impossible to document and even within the Cenozoic these are hard to document.  In fact if the specimens are separated by more than 100,000 years the fossil record cannot show anything about how a species arose.  In effect all of the claims and charts showing the relationships between species during the Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic eras are assumptions and not demonstrable facts.  The Cenozoic is more recent but even here where the fossil record is more complete the evolutionary changes are incomplete and the transitions between species are estimated but not fully documented in the fossil record.

This almost total lack of evidence regarding speciation leads to the problem of evolution over long periods versus the problem that some species just suddenly appear in the fossil record with no precursors.  This has led to the theory of “Punctuated Equilibrium” which claims that some speciation events occur over very short periods of 20,000 years but no more than 80,000.  The problem is that there is really very little evidence to separate the adaptation of a species to its environment and the separation of one species into a totally new one.

While the scientists claim they have the answers to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and evolution, the reality is these are just claims largely unsupported by facts.  In fact the scientific answers to these questions are filled with words like, believed to be, estimated, and probably.  The logical conclusion is that science and scientists rely on faith in science but that faith is really no different than religious faith.

 

The Meaning of Life

Why are we here? What is the purpose of our life? Where did we come from? Where do we go after death? Is there life after death or is that the end? These are man’s eternal questions, questions that we all ask and can never get any definite answers. But is that true? Are there no answers or just answers we don’t like?

The Darwinists believe that we are an accident – a sort of cosmic joke – that some errant cosmic particle collided with some collection of inorganic molecules that created an organic molecule. This molecule then mutated through some equally random process and developed the ability to replicate itself. These new organic cells continued to mutate and change into pond scum and ultimately into scientists but with slightly more intelligence. In effect the Darwinists believe that while we may have more intelligence than Chimpanzees, the cousins they claim, we really are just another class of animals. Like the animals we are the product of mating, the circumstances of our lives are serendipitous, our actions have no impact outside of the boundaries of our lives. We are born, we eat, we mate, we reproduce, and we die. We live and die – like animals – with no purpose other than to reproduce the species. This line of thinking is precisely what the atheist has. There is no God, life has no meaning, no purpose, there is no life after death and to think otherwise is wishful thinking.

That brings us to the other side where some believe that we are divinely created by God. That our circumstances are pre-ordained but it is up to us to lead a good and moral life. Lucifer was and Archangel who rebelled against God, was damned to Hell where he rules as Satan, and tempts mankind away from righteousness. Both Heaven and Hell are real although whether or not they are physical places is a little vague. Within this view of life, we have souls created by God, we are born, we live, and we die. But our soul is eternal and on death we are judged by our deeds and go to Heaven or are condemned to Hell and eternal punishment.

According to this view we have one chance at eternal joy in Heaven or through actions an eternal punishment in Hell. This view holds that the circumstance of our one life is ordained by God –but how God chooses those is unknown. So some people are born into poverty or as savages living in savage lands – while others are born into wealth and blessed with physical comfort. On one hand we have people like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein who misuse power and commit great crimes. They exercised the free will given to them by God in the most evil way possible and we can imagine they ended in Hell, but what about people like Lenin who commit great crimes while thinking they are doing good? Did Lenin end in Hell or Heaven? Can these people ever redeem themselves? Are these people and their fates just a random choice? A throw of the dice by God where one person wins and another loses? That simply doesn’t sound logical so there has to be some rationale behind our lives and circumstances. God is just and undoubtedly rewards good and punishes bad but he is also forgiving so there must be a pathway out of Hell and to redemption – even for the most evil. And this brings us to reincarnation.

Virtually all religions, other than Atheism, believe in life after death as well as reincarnation. References to reincarnation were stricken from the Bible when it was canonized but some vague references still remain. But there is a growing body of evidence that there is life after death and that reincarnation is real. There has been growing interest in “Near Death Experiences” although what these represent remains controversial. The popular position among scientists is that these are nothing more than hallucinations emanating from a dying brain and prove nothing. But many scientists who study NDE’s are increasingly finding that they truly seem to support consciousness after death.

If we conclude that there is life (consciousness) after death then what does that mean? What is the purpose of our lives? The mystics in various ways tell us that our life on Earth is a form of punishment for leaving God in the first place and then not leading Godly lives. That we come to Earth to develop and educate our souls so that we may one day return to God’s grace. The circumstances of our life on Earth are determined by our actions in previous lives. The law of Karma prevails. We come to the Earth over and over in association with the same group of souls in various combinations but always with the same objective – to correct past wrongs while striving to improve our selves. What is the “Meaning of Life?” This question can only be answered by the individual because the purpose of each life is unique to that individual but over all the purpose is to return to God as his companion.

Freedom, Virtue, and Morality

The march of militant atheism continues unabated with the newest attack on God and those ignorant enough to believe in Him, resting on the mistaken belief that it is religion and God that establish the morality of a people. Of course this, like so many positions held by the glitterati rests firmly on ignorance and the absence of critical thinking. It would seem self-evident that the morals of a culture are established by the individuals that make up that culture. For example, (and I am not making this up) it is considered bad form to kill and eat your neighbor in most Western Cultures, but to the Cannibals of New Guinea, this is acceptable and indeed – expected. In some cultures it is an accepted practice for a man to have multiple wives while in most Western Countries it is frowned upon – outside of Utah. The point is that the atheists have started with a false assumption and that is that the morality of a culture is based in religion. It seems more likely that it is the religion that reflects the morality of the culture not vice versa.

Nevertheless, there does appear to be certain universal beliefs that are common to all cultures. For example, murder is not condoned by any human society but is prevalent in the animal kingdom. Adultery is another moral concept that seems to be common, even in those societies where multiple wives are permitted. So while there may be a fundamental moral code common to human society that still does not make morality and religion synonymous. The morals of a society may be related to the religion but the morality of that society is still reflected by those who do not believe in the religion. Thus the question becomes, without religion would a society degenerate into barbarism? This may be an unanswerable question since no known society exists that has no religion, even the Neanderthals seemed to have believed in a higher power. Even the most secular power today, has laws that govern that society that reflect the religious beliefs of the founders.

However, this opens the question “can a religious based society be barbaric” and act in an inhumane way. In effect, can religious people act in an immoral way in the name of God? Obviously this answer is yes, because we have many historical examples from all parts of the world. The Catholic Church persecuted Protestants, the Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed Jews as well as witches and heretics; the Protestants persecuted and killed Catholics. Even the Hindus have a violent record. Since the Western World has separated church and state, these religious persecutions have largely stopped today, except for Islam.

Islam purports to be more moral and virtuous than all other religions and has the objective of converting the world to Islam. Islam does not separate church and state, and the church is the state. Therefore, in the Muslim countries the morality of those countries is rooted directly in the religion. The most visible evidence of this is in the veil worn by women. Even in the more enlightened Islamic countries the women wear head scarves instead of the Burqua. But the question becomes does this enforced “modesty” indicate a higher level of virtue than that shown in Christendom or is it merely a reflection of the lack of freedom? The argument mounted my Muslims is that if freedom permits immodesty then freedom is wrong.

Does a woman who chooses to not wear a headscarf – as in the West – act immodestly? Does a man who chooses to shave his beard less manly or immodest? Do Draconian punishments for petty crimes, like cutting of the hands of thieves, make the Islamic countries more virtuous? Is the person who has the freedom to choose between modesty and immodesty, but chooses modesty more virtuous than the person who is forced by law to be “modest”. Is that person who is acting under duress even modest or is he simply enslaved? These radical Muslims – more accurately Islamofascists – clearly think that their opinions of what is “proper” transcend freedom of the press, speech, religion, and assembly. Clearly, in their eyes enforced “virtue” is to be desired and any person who chooses to deviate from their view of conduct must be harshly punished according to Shar’ia Law.

The reality is that morality is established by the society and while the morality of the culture can stem from religion, that religion cannot triumph over personal freedom. This means that the while the militant atheists are entitled to their opinions, they do not have the right to dominate or eliminate religions practice. It also means that the enforced modest and virtue associated with Islam is equally wrong because religion cannot overcome individual freedoms.

Does God Exist

Can anyone prove that God exists? Perhaps the question should be can anyone prove that God doesn’t exist. The atheists argue that since His existence cannot be proved scientifically then by definition He doesn’t exist, but isn’t that argument just as much of a faith based argument as those that argue for His existence? Of course the corollary to this argument is, was the creation of life spontaneous or directed? Some believe that God created life while the atheists reject that argument while believing that life was a chemical accident and that life on Earth spontaneously appeared. Of course those who believe in this “scientific” argument ignore the first rule of the scientific method which is that in order for something to be true it must be repeatable. To date the various attempts at creating life from inert forms have failed so technically the creation of life remains unproven and those who believe in the scientific explanation do so on faith because it is not based on any scientific fact. But the fundamental question remains – does God exist? Where did everything come from? There must have been a starting point, a time before the creation of the Earth and the Universe. At one time it was believed that the universe was static – that it had always existed but science has proven that to be false. The universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is slowing which leads to the obvious conclusion that like a rubber band it must stop and contract back to its starting point. This means that at some point the entire universe must have had a zero or starting point. Science answered this question with the Big Bang theory, which postulates that the entire universe at one time did not exist but came into being in one enormous explosion. That explosion – the Big Bang – created space, time, and all mass in the universe. Unfortunately this theory has this big hole which is – what created the explosion and where was all of that mass and energy prior to the explosion? The answer to that question is in hot debate so the scientific community continues to come up with theory after theory like parallel universes, multiple Big Bangs, and various other strained explanations each one intended to answer the question without resorting to God. The idea that God might have created the universe is an unacceptable explanation to scientists and atheists because God to them is a myth so there must be a scientific explanation even if no one knows what it is. The fact that this position is as faith based as is the belief that God created the universe seems to escape the atheist and scientific communities. Accepting that the Big Bang happened – whatever the cause – space was created along with every single proton, electron, and neutron in the universe. Each of these particles is exactly the same and everything in the universe from galaxies, to planets, to trees, to people are composed of these exact same particles – combined in different forms of course, but forms randomly created by chance into life according the scientific community. However, this argument relies heavily on evolution which has problems of its own revolving around speciation and adaptation. In the beginning the Earth was a far different place than it is today. Science can trace the evolution of the universe from the first nanosecond to today, but the problem starts when all of those identical atomic particles begin to collect and combine into things and some of those things somehow become self-replicating and alive. This is believed to be true but not demonstrable. Nevertheless the first living thing is believed to be something akin to pond scum and that all of mankind is descended from that pond scum. Precisely how these random particles combined into that living pond scum organism is unknown – speculated and postulated on, but not demonstrable. Theories about the creation of life abound and the scientific community is certain that God was not involved and they believe there is a scientific explanation because they have faith in science. But it isn’t just the creation of life that is in question but the creation of everything that lives. From that first pond scum we must accept that every living thing has sprung from that primordial scum – every fish, tree, bacteria, and animal. All of that may be true but of course but it really can’t be demonstrated or meet the rigors of scientific investigation in the sense that it demonstrates that God played no part in the creation of life or existence. So to those who challenge me to prove God exists, I challenge them to prove He doesn’t.

Sin In The Garden Of Science and Philosophy

When was the last time you thought about sin? Probably not recently because I think very few people think about sin on a regular basis and certainly not outside of church. I rather think that few people ever consider sin, theirs or others, much less what the ramifications would be in a world without sin. Of course sin does exist, at least for those people who believe in God, but in case you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of people around who don’t believe in God. These atheists have probably always been around but they seem to be growing in number and influence. Dr. Benjamin Wiker addressed how atheists view humanity and the ramifications of Godlessness in his book “Ten Books That Screwed Up The World”. In this book Dr Wiker deconstructs a total of 16 books which view humanity as animals without moral boundaries and the enormous harm these books have done as a result.

The first book he considers is “The Prince” by Machiavelli, who views those who seek power very objectively and without regard to whether or not his recommended actions are immoral. Machiavelli makes no judgments, he is simply offering a pragmatic description of how to achieve and keep power. But when implemented his actions lead to deceit, duplicity, lies, and even murder. In effect Machiavelli describes a world without any moral boundaries – a world where God is not a consideration. But this leads to the question “Does God Exist?” Descartes and his “Discourse on Method” starts by questioning everything and arrives at his famous conclusion “ I think, therefore I am”. Dr Wiker points out the essential flaw here is that Descartes could just as easily have said “I smell therefore I am”. In effect Descartes has ceased to view himself or man as being in the image of God and through rational analysis he concludes he exists – independently of God.

From this starting point Dr Wiker begins to build his case regarding sin, morality, materialism, and immorality through the writings of Hobbes, Rousseau, Darwin, Hitler, et al. These people all share a common thread, which is the denial of sin through the denial of God or that any moral boundary should constrain their actions. Hobbes and Rousseau build a case for materialism and the natural state of man which they see as unbounded by anything other than pleasure and pain, a world in which good and evil does not exist. If man is simply an animal that through chance happens to be more advanced that other animals, then there are no limits on actions other than those that are self-imposed through self preservation but not through any false concept of right or wrong outside of pain or pleasure. All of these proto-atheists were speaking in philosophical terms, but it was Darwin and his books that moved the discussion onto a pseudo-scientific foundation.

Darwin’s book “Origin of Species” was actually not scientific at all but merely a set of observations and some conclusions that described environmental adaptation from which others have concluded the evolution of species. But it was his companion work “The Descent of Man” that described man as an animal descended from apes. This is the work that describes evolution but it also describes man as being composed of what could be “sub-species” with European Caucasians as being the supreme evolutionary result with other races as inferior. This work of Darwin’s is virtually ignored today and when the Darwinians like Richard Dawkins are challenged regarding Darwin’s “science” the response is a facile “he was a product of his time”. This may well be true but it does not excuse his lack of scientific method or demonstrable proof of what he has concluded. Nevertheless it was Darwin’s junk science that was seized upon by Sanger and Hitler to justify their efforts to improve the human race by eliminating “defectives”.

By the 1920”s it had been well established through belief and repetition that man was an animal, descended from lower animal forms, unbounded by morality but in need of improvement. This improvement would eventually be accomplished via evolution, but with the advances of “science” it was now possible to purge the human race of those deemed sub-species, defectives, or undesirables. This idea was first postulated by Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. It was she who thought parents should be selected and individuals deemed as inferior or undesirable should be sterilized so they could not reproduce. Notice that this is not voluntary but directed by the state and there is no mention of moral boundaries, God, or sin. Her objective is to improve the human race much like you would selectively breed animals. Naturally her position and support of eugenics led inexorably to Hitler’s decision to eliminate all undesirables from the human reproductive chain. That this led to mass murder was not considered by him in moral terms – it was simply applying science to the problem of racial improvement—i.e. moving toward the superior Caucasian as described by Darwin and Nietzsche.

Following the failure of the eugenics movement, the atheists moved in a different direction but still relying on junk science. Alfred Kinsey decided that his views of human behavior were sound and employed an astounding level of junk science to demonstrate that every weird and perverse sexual preference he had was totally normal and since man was an animal there was no moral constraint that could be applied and thus no sin.

Today the atheists continue their assault on morality and sin as they deny the very existence of God. In their eyes man is an animal, descended form lower life forms, with no purpose, no future, and not obligated to recognize any moral constraint or boundary. I think the time has long past for mankind to look critically at the murders and damage done by the atheists and their denial of sin and God.

Dark Energy Darker Science

While empirical science continues to exist, it has largely been replaced by pseudo-science based on statistics. As we have dumbed down our schools and shifted our universities into centers of political correctness and indoctrination, science is under attack from the intellectually lazy who resort to writing papers that make outrageous claims with no factual basis. These have largely been restricted to the medical field where are regularly treated to claims that mayonnaise causes cancer, that poverty causes crime, and apples will kill you, all based on statistical analyses of a sample of four. As low as the medical field has sunk, it seems that other scientific areas are succumbing to the need to make ridiculous claims just to keep the public aware and the money from Washington flowing.

Carl Sagan seems to have launched this trend of stating theories as facts, with his passionate defense of evolution, the origin of life, and interstellar life. To hear Sagan you would think that evolution is an absolute fact, especially since he was successful in convincing the majority of the media. The reality is that Darwin’s book “Origin of Species” never actually addressed the origin of species and all of the examples used to substantiate the claim of evolution are in fact examples of adaptation and not speciation. Then the claim that there is life on other planets is based entirely on the statistical probability that given enough planets around enough stars, that some must be oxygen/carbon based and thus life must have evolved. Of course the a priori position here is unstated and that is that life evolved on this planet and thus must have evolved on other planets as well. Now indeed, it may have but there is no proof of that fact and many people today believe that life on this planet is unique and divinely created. Certainly there is no proof of this position either but in that case neither position should be viewed as factual. But all of these are really topics for another day, because this creeping destruction of science seems to be impacting physics and quantum physics as well.

Cosmology and Quantum Physics exist in a realm where proving anything is almost impossible so those who study these areas rely very heavily on some very esoteric mathematics to describe and substantiate their theories. At first glance this seems to be not only logical but should lead to hard answers, but does it? Do these equations actually describe reality or do they describe a reality that only exists in the equations? First you must agree that science has indeed been able to determine the weight of every object in the universe and the total amount of energy existing in that universe. Of course the assumption here is that the speed of light is a limitation and that we can see to the edges of the universe, which of course we can’t. So if the universe is expanding and accelerating objects at the edge would be invisible to an observer on Earth. Therefore, these equations must rest on assumptions that cannot be verified except through the balancing of these equations. So what’s the problem?

The problem lies in the fact that the equations require some fudging in order to balance. This means that constants (of whatever value is necessary) are required but even with these constants the scientists are left with some big problems – assuming their initial assumptions were correct. The equations indicate that only 5% of the observable universe is visible. There is not enough energy nor is there enough matter to account for what the equations need to balance. This leads to that great flaw in modern science which is to name the unknown and thus give the impression that it exists and that we know about it when in fact it only exists in the minds of these scientists and their equations. These two great unknowns have been given the names of Dark Energy (70%) and Dark Matter (25%), of course these could be called anything but the term dark was chosen because they cannot be observed. The irony here is that Dark Energy could just as easily be called the “Mind of God” and Dark Matter “the Souls of Man”. I am not saying this is the case, I am merely pointing out that the latter nomenclature is just as valid as the former because neither can be verified and the equations would work either way.

But current physics and cosmology all begin AFTER the Big Bang. The belief (it is belief and not factual) is that at some point and with no other causative factor the universe sprang from a primordial speck that contained all of the energy and matter in the universe today. Precisely where this speck was is unknown because space did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Of course there is the POSSIBILITY that God exists and that the causative factor was in fact God. But this would mean there is intelligent design to the universe and life, which is totally rejected by science even though increasingly science is faith based rather than factual.

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and God

The scientific crusade to prove the non-existence of God continues unabated with some of the most nagging questions simply ignored or explained with some very labored theories, ranging from multiple universes, multi-dimensions, to permanence and multiple big bangs and big crunches. Unfortunately while scientists feel comfortable that they can explain everything that happened from the first Pico-second AFTER the Big Bang, they cannot come to any agreement as to what existed before the Big Bang or what motivated it without incorporating some idiotic superstition like God.

Of course the first problem lies with space itself. Did space exist before the Big Bang? Some say that it did but then space is expanding and if that is so, then it must have been smaller at some point. This line of reasoning leads to the more popular position that the Big Bang created not just all energy but space itself, because no matter how small that primordial pinprick of energy was it had to have space in which to exist at all. So at some point billions of years ago, there was an enormous explosion of energy that created space, time, and energy, but did that initial burst of energy create light? After all light is composed of photons but then light itself has some mysterious properties since it behaves as both a wave and a particle, but particles did not come until later and this brings us to another serious question.

If the Big Bang consisted of an explosion of energy – precisely what type of energy was that? Apparently it was Electro-Magnetic Energy, Gravity, the Weak Force, and the Strong Force. Of course these last two are rather mysterious but in order to explain was to come these energies had to have been there at the outset. We are also told this explosion of energy was extremely hot with temperatures exceeding those of the Sun. At the precise moment of creation only energy existed but this mega-energy burst very quickly broke apart into Gravity, with the remaining three energy forms continuing for a period before splitting into their respect forms. Once freed the weak and strong forces began immediately to gather up the electro-magnetic energy and form it into atoms. Up to this point there were no electrons, neutrons, or protons, but were there sub-atomic particles? After all we are told that protons and atoms are made up of “sub-atomic” particles which imply that these existed first but precisely what are these and where do they exist? Currently scientists can only tell you where they were because all they can see are the trails they leave behind but precisely where they were before entering our reality and where they went as they exited is simply unknown. But this is where the magic begins.

In this gigantic explosion of energy everything that was ever to be was created thus establishing the laws governing the conservation of energy and mass. Everything in the universe is made up of the same protons, electrons, and neutrons but these were created by the weak and strong forces gathering energy – which had to have been in a wave form since there were no particles as yet – and forming it into various atoms and molecules which in turn formed everything else including all life forms. Somehow all of this energy coalesced into the protons, electrons, and neutrons that make up the universe today but also along the way photons, gravitons, and now the mysterious Higgs-Boson were created, with this last energy (particle?) being the explanation as to why all of these energy forms have mass. It seems that in spite of all of the science and speculation explaining how we got to where we are there remains a little problem regarding mass. It seems that weight-wise a large part of the universe is missing. Space is empty when it shouldn’t be so science has postulated that empty space isn’t really empty it is filled with invisible Jelly Donuts which for argument’s sake we can call “Dark Matter” – flavor unknown. Precisely where this dark matter is, what shape it has, where it came from, and what its purpose might be is unknown.

More than likely it is made up of some particle(s) such as the elusive sub-atomic particles that are traveling at speeds greater than light, which is why they can’t be seen. But accepting the fact that there is such a thing as dark matter, scientists have discovered that the universe is not slowing its expansion but it is actually speeding up with stars on the periphery of space traveling at speeds very near the speed of light – and accelerating. The implication is that there is some great force pulling our universe apart which is why these galaxies are accelerating but this force is also unknown and invisible, so in a burst of scientific creativity this mysterious force has been named “Dark Energy”. I prefer to call it God.

GOD, Physics, and the Hadron

The world of science is beside itself with anticipation that the new Hadron Collider will finally demonstrate the non-existence of God. This marvelous machine is intended to demonstrate the existence of the Higgs Boson which is a particle that gives mass in some magical way to all other particles. Of course the real problem is that there really are no particles at all, that is none of the particles that scientists like to play with and that are discussed and taught around the world really exist. The Hadron Collider is not only supposed to locate the Higgs Boson but it is also expected to give insight into what happened in the instant of the Big Bang. Unfortunately the real objective is to understand the “science” behind the Big Bang without having to actually come to grips with God, because the truly important questions will remain unanswered.

Prior to the Big Bang there was no space, no time, no energy, no particles, nothing – nothing at all. So what was there? Well no one knows – that is no scientist knows and certainly no atheist knows – there was nothing. So the first question if there was nothing then what triggered the Big Bang? Remember the first thing that the Big Bang had to do was to create space itself because the expanding universe had to fit into something and that was space. Once there was a space then there was a place for all of that incredible energy. So the second question must be what kind of energy was initially created? Well it must have been light (does that sound familiar), heat, and radiation plus other forms of energy but not necessarily gravity, because there was no mass because there were no particles – just energy.

Now this energy was expanding and filling space at an incredible speed, but less than the speed of light. But somehow all of this energy began to coalesce into particles – subatomic particles but precisely how this was done is mostly speculation because there were no particles so there couldn’t be any gravity, but then light has mass because it is composed of photons but were photons created as part of the Big Bang? Light has some really mysterious properties because while it has mass and can be bent by gravity it also acts as a wave so was the light emitted in the Big Bang a wave or a burst of particles? Apparently almost immediately after the Big Bang the released energy began to form particles, a process that apparently remains hidden since it is not ongoing and cannot be duplicated. So once these sub-atomic particles formed they immediately began to join together to create protons, electrons, and neutrons. These are the universal particles that make up the entire universe and everything in it, except of course dark matter—whatever that is- gravity, and the other forces and particles that remain invisible. The really important point is that everything in the universe is pure energy and why that energy has mass is unknown. Of course this what the Higgs Boson is supposed to do – it is supposed to the particle that produces mass in these energy fields called protons, photons, neutrons, and electrons.

The theory is that in the instant following the Big Bang all of this energy began to take on mass and coalesce into particles and then atoms and then molecules, which produced the various elements, which collected together under the influence of gravity which ultimately created all of the stars and planets. All of this can be explained by science even though parts remain speculative. Unfortunately some very uncomfortable questions remain, not the least of which is what caused the Bib Bang in the first place and where did that pin point of energy come from? Beyond that is why do things that are virtually invisible have mass? If every proton, electron, and neutron in the universe is identical why do some have life? Why do some think and some do not? How did life begin? These are the questions the Higgs Boson is supposed to provide the pathway to answers.

Of course it doesn’t take much of a stretch if you subscribe to the myth of God, to come up with some rather simple answers. When you read the first chapters of Genesis you get a pretty accurate, if somewhat poetic, description of the creation of the universe and life on Earth. Somehow I think the Hadron Super Collider will produce some interesting observations but no answers to any of these questions.

Intelligent Design and Modern Science

Since universities were first founded in the Renaissance they were supposed to be places of dialog and controversy, but almost from the outset the university faculties were not open to challenges or input from outsiders, they were closed societies. Nevertheless, science and learning progressed even as the minds of the scientific community quietly closed. Early in the 20th Century Physics was declared finished as a field of study because Newtonian Physics was all there was – until Einstein and Relativity, but then that in turn was replaced Quantum Physics. But the scientists didn’t seem to have learned their lesson from the debacle in physics instead they have with absolute certainty declared that all psychic phenomena, astrology, ESP, Reincarnation, and Intelligent Design are simply superstition and pseudo-sciences. They have made these statements even in the face of some rather impressive supporting observations, but these are topics that are simply out of bounds as topics for a serious discussion but the resistance to these is nothing compared to the commitment the scientific community has toward Evolution and the Big Bang.

Even though the Big Bang is widely accepted by many scientists, it carries some very unfortunate implications, which makes in unacceptable to many in the academic and scientific community. The problem stems from the fact that if all of the energy in the universe was contained in some primordial pinprick or speck of something. It could not exist in space or time because the Big Bang actually created space and time. It could not have had tangible mass because there was no space for it to occupy, so this singularity really has no scientific explanation although the scientists BELIEVE that one exists. Those who BELIEVE the creation of the universe was an act of God are scorned as yahoo’s but the fact that both beliefs are FAITH based is lost on the scientists and those who scorn anything that cannot be demonstrated except when they believe at some point in the future science will find the answer. Of course these are the same people who accept Psychology, Economics, Philosophy, and even some science without demonstrable proof or repeatability so they seem to have a double standard when it comes to Intelligent Design and God. People like Richard Dawkins and other atheists challenge religion to prove there is a God without accepting that they cannot prove there isn’t. They fail to see that their position is as much a faith based belief as the belief there is a supreme being.

The other topic that academia and many scientists reject as a topic of discussion is Evolution. Evolution is not in their view a THEORY but a FACT so no challenge is allowed and no contrary opinion or questions can be raised and to do so is to be ridiculed and exiled from the intellectual community. However, there are some significant flaws in Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, not the least of which is that his seminal work “The Origin of Species” does not address the origin of species but merely reflects how existing species adapt to their changing environmental conditions. However, it seems relatively obvious that adaptation is factual and demonstrable but precisely how a new species arise remains a mystery but even that might eventually have a scientific answer. The real problem lies with the origin of life itself and this is where Intelligent Design enters the picture and where the Darwinists get the vapors. They not only get the vapors their explanations sound like they are coming from a stand-up comic.

Richard Dawkins when challenged to explain the origin of life, stumbled and mumbled and admitted that he actually doesn’t know how life began but that he is absolutely sure it began through some scientifically explicable process, a process that was random and absolutely positively did not reflect Intelligent Design. In the Darwinian World life began as a single self-replicating molecule that led to a single cell which led to pond scum and we are direct lineal descendants of pond scum. When Dawkins was confronted with the fact that science has not been able to create a self-replicating molecule so this theory of his fails the first test of the scientific method which is that the hypothesis must be demonstrable and repeatable, he simple says that we don’t know everything but THAT is how it happened. The similarity to those who believe in Intelligent Design never even enters his head.

When Dawkins is then confronted with the mathematical fact that for the 250 proteins necessary to form the DNA strand for a simple cell to form randomly is 1 in a trillion trillion trillion or to anyone other than Darwinist – zero chance of happening, he resorts to the Theory of Pan Spermia. If this Theory were described by a stand-up comic he would have the audience laughing but the Darwinists and Dawkins really take this theory seriously. Pan Spermia is a theory that aliens from outer space came to the Earth and started life or alternatively some space debris crashed into the Earth and brought simple life with it. The fact that this does not explain the origin of life but merely turns it into a geographic problem is totally wasted on Darwinists who insist that this explains the origin of life on EARTH, ignoring the original question which was how did life originate.

As hysterically funny Pan Spermia is, there is even one that is crazier and that is that life originated on the surface of CRYSTALS. In this case man is descended from rocks, which I presume explains why some people are hard headed, others hard hearted, and some are just diamonds in the rough. Nevertheless, this is actually a serious theory being put forth by Darwinians in their efforts to avoid Intelligent Design. In this theory molecules on the surface of crystals began replicating themselves and evolved into bacteria and thus life began. Precisely how the molecules became self-replicating is attributed to – and I quote “some mysterious force” sort of like “May the Force be with you”. How this “mysterious force” is distinguished from God is not allowed as a topic of discussion because as any Darwinian knows – God does not exist and Intelligent Design is just a code word for Creationism.

The reality is that the more science explores life and the origin of life the more difficult it is to avoid Intelligent Design as an explanation. Quantum Physics as well as Molecular Biology are leading us ever closer to Intelligent Design as the only logical conclusion. Whatever the ultimate answer will be it is certainly clear even now that the Darwinians do not have the answer and that the Theory of Evolution does not have the answers.

Why Are Cavemen White ?

Science is convinced that man evolved from an ancestor shared with modern apes. This is based on a number of bone fragments found in Africa and a DNA analysis that shows chimpanzees and man have approximately 98% common DNA. Of course this is tantamount to saying that the only difference between Helium ( a gas) and Lithium ( a metal) is one electron. Everything in the universe is composed of protons, electrons, and neutrons that are precisely alike but quite obviously how these things are combined makes a great deal of difference, therefore, to conclude man and chimpanzee have a common ancestor on this evidence is really not convincing.

The Bible – given some latitude for poetic license – describes the Big Bang and subsequent development of life on Earth fairly accurately, but it is much less clear when describing the emergence of man. Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman but then there was Lilith who seems to have preceded Eve. Then there was Cain and Abel who somehow acquired wives and the source of these wives is a little mysterious but at the least indicate that there were humans in existence BEFORE Adam and Eve. So how could they be the FIRST humans? The scientific community doesn’t find this to be a problem because they don’t believe anything in the Bible anyway. To them it is just a story and even if it isn’t humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes and there were various branches of humans that simply died out with Homo sapiens being the only survivor. But neither view actually addresses why cavemen are always shown as being white when our alleged nearest relatives apes and chimpanzees are clearly black. While evolution might explain why there are different races, their origin and rationale remains a mystery, but is it?

According to the psychic Edgar Cayce the Earth – as stated in Genesis – was created in phases over billions of years and was filled with animals in various forms. The soul companions of God, given free will – began to visit the Earth and inhabit these animal forms where they could experience the physical aspects of the Earth, including sex. Although initially they could enter and leave these animal forms gradually they became entangled in the physical and this gave rise to the first human form. While this could be viewed as the first human or human-like race, they had no genetic boundaries and their intermixing with the animal kingdom gave rise to the monsters that fill our myths and legends – Satyrs, Centaurs, Nymphs, and the various mixed forms seen in Egyptian Art. So there were some human forms (hominids?) prior to the creation of the first perfect human, which answers the question of where the wives came from as well as where all of these mythical creatures came from. But these were the creatures destroyed by God when the perfect human forms – who had genetic barriers for mixing species – emerged.

Now let us consider the five races of man. Science tells us they evolved from a common ancestor and perhaps they did, but their origins were scattered across the globe according to the metaphysical sources. The White Race originated (evolved?) in what is now Turkey and Iran and spread to the Caucasus and portions of India. The Yellow Race emerged in what is now called the Gobi Desert and Indo-China but the Gobi Desert wasn’t a desert at the time and part to the original land mass where they emerged is now sunken beneath the sea. The Brown Race emerged in what is now known as the Andes region but the larger portion of their source lands is submerged beneath the Pacific Ocean. The Black Race is erroneously believed to be the first race even though only the hominids are shown as black while Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon are shown as white. However, the Black Race did emerge in what is now known as the Sudan and Upper Egypt (which is a geographic joke because Upper Egypt is actually Southern Egypt). This leaves the Red Race which has always been an anomaly for science. They are a separate and distinct race who are clearly not related to the Aleuts who are oriental in origin or the Brown Race who occupy South America and Mexico. According to the metaphysical sources the Red Race – the Amerindians – had their origins in Atlantis and migrated to North America where they completed their evolution. It must be remembered that these races did not just appear out of nowhere but evolved over a period of time, but they were always separate and distinct races with a common genetic base. The point here is that Evolution as described by Darwin is essentially correct but not totally. The Five Races of Man are in fact products of Evolution in the sense of adaptation to existing conditions. The contentious point is the creation of Man himself did we evolve from a common root with apes or are apes simply members of the animal kingdom and man was the divine creation?

The Bible says that God created Man in his image and this statement has led to centuries of confusion because man looks into the mirror, sees his reflection, and concludes that God looks like him. Of course this is an erroneous conclusion because God is not in a human form but is a spiritual or possibly even an energy form, not flesh and blood. So God created our spirits, our souls, or the indwelling spirit that fills our bodies. So the manlike form that we see is the product of creation, possibly the result of Evolution and certainly the product of adaptation, but our spirits are without doubt divinely created. The primitive men we see in illustrations are really just speculations and may or may not be true. The reality – according to the metaphysical sources – is that early man was Red, not white or black and the races sprang from the Red race.

Meta-Science and Evolution

By way of disclosure the ideas being presented here are not original with me but represent a melding of a wide variety of opinions, speculations, and beliefs, but it must be noted that the belief system is not limited to those who believe in God but encompasses much of the scientific community as well.

The battle between Evolutionists, Creationists, Darwinists, Atheists, Scientists, and religionists rages on with no quarter being asked or given. The problem seems to lie in the inflexibility of all concerned and no one seems willing to accept any compromise. You are either pro-science or pro-God and there is no middle ground. After considerable reading it seems to me that we have entered the realm of Meta-Science a place where science and God seem to meet. The Creationists believe that the Bible is revealed truth and literal and some even believe Bishop Usher was correct and the Earth is only 4000 years old. On the other hand there is a large population who believe that God or any spiritual involvement in anything is not just misguided but the height of ignorance. Then there are the Darwinists who have raised Charles Darwin to godhood, much as “Brave New World” did for Ford. However, if you actually read current theories in Quantum Physics and Cosmology and then read other theories and the Bible with an open mind, you begin to see that these things are really not that far apart and it is this area that I call “Meta-Science”.

Of course the first issue is the “First Cause” or “First Singularity” depending on your point of view. The Steady State theory that the Universe has always been as it is has been discredited by Science with the emergence of the Big Bang theory. However, the flaw in this theory is that where did all of this energy come from? Since it created space, time, and mass, all of that had to have existed somewhere and if it occurred spontaneously then how – what was the “First Cause”. The Metaphysicians believe in the beginning there was only a mind-force, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, which was the source of all. This was the “I AM THAT I AM” – the eternal God mentioned in the Bible. The “First Cause” was the self-awareness of God and the Second Cause was desire for creation.

The Book of Genesis Chapters 1 – 5 states that the Earth was without form and God created light. This essentially describes the Big Bang, which was an explosion of energy that established space, time, and mass. Genesis goes on to establish the order of things as the Earth evolved from a molten state through the various stages of evolution – from the bumping and thumping of electrons and protons to the creation of life, in the form of fishes, plants, and animals. This is poetically delivered but does not vary from the current scientific thinking if the term “day” is not taken literally but poetically. Of course the real stumbling block here is the creation of “life” those simple little microscopic collections of primitive electrons and protons that miraculously not only sub-divide and grow but procreate in the more advanced forms.

This problem of “Creation” was first addressed by Thales in 600BC who postulated that water was the source of all things which is not too far from the current position of science who postulate that life began in the seas. Then Plotinus who postulated that from a pure God came emanations or beings as light flows from the sun. This view corresponds with later metaphysical views that God created all souls before he created the universe. But then modern science maintains that the Earth is just an accident and independent of any external cause and that man emerged from some simple state through the natural evolution described by Darwin -- however progressive this idea may be viewed as it was first postulated by Epicurus in 306 BC. But alas the rub is that “simple state” from which all derived is left unexplained by all but science believes it was simply a coincidental collision of random atoms and events – with belief being the operative word. So there you have it – you can believe that God created the life force in those microscopic organisms or you can believe in the scientific view of random coincidence but both require unproven belief. The pivotal issue really seems to revolve around homo sapiens and where did he come from.

The Darwinists believe that man evolved from ape-like animals into hominids which went through various evolutionary stages culminating in homo sapiens. Most of these branches on the human evolutionary tree seem to have gone extinct and gradually mankind evolved from primitive beginnings into the five races of man today. God was never involved and everything happened by pure chance which is what is believed by the Darwinists. However, in a reading of other sources including the Bible we find a very similar description, which can be summed up as follows: God created man in his image but since God is not human that image – whatever it is can be described as “energy”. However, God also created humanity which could be viewed as these first hominids – no one knows how this happened but it is possible it was God as well as evolution. We are told that God created Adam and Eve, the first perfect humans, which means that His first try didn’t work out. The descendants of Adam and Eve mixed with these early humans, which resulted in God destroying humanity in the Great Flood. The human race today is descended from the survivors.

When examined critically these two views are truly not in great conflict, of course one is rather poetic but follows the scientific train of thought fairly closely. It certainly allows for the evolution of man from a more primitive form to the superior creature we have today. The sticking points are really rather few. First of course is what caused the Big Bang – no proof on either side but God is probably as logical as any other explanation. The second sticking point is how life was created. In Genesis 20-21 we find God brought forth the moving creatures, having earlier brought forth the dry land and vegetation. Admittedly this view skips over the actual initiation of living micro-organisms and goes directly to plants, which is contrary to the scientifically accepted sequence of events but then the Cambrian explosion of life lies unexplained so we are left with what do you believe – coincidence or God. If you accept God and intelligent design then everything falls into place but rests on belief. If you reject God then you are left with the first cause conundrum and then your position rests on belief that it can be explained independent of God --take your pick. But it seems to me that God is looking more and more like the logical choice because even police detectives don't believe in coincidence so why should scientists?

Do Atheists Fear God?

It seems that in all of the discussions regarding religion and atheism the focus has been on the defense of God and why do otherwise rational people believe in a supreme being. When challenged the atheists simply state that they are intelligent people who believe in science and would believe in God once His existence was verified by science. But what is not explored is why do these atheists go to such lengths in attacking those who believe in God? Why are they so determined to stamp out God? If God is only a figment of man’s imagination then what possible harm can come to an atheist if others persist in this “God Delusion” as stated by Richard Dawkins? Is it possible that these atheists really fear God and are compelled to erase Him because they are afraid that they – like most of mankind – cannot meet the standard of conduct established by God?

The belief in a supreme being seems to have always been inherent in man because there is evidence that even Neanderthals had some recognition of life after death and of course the Ancient Egyptian’s entire society seems to have been centered on the afterlife. But while the majority of ancient men believed in a supreme power, not all did and in fact history shows us that the atheists have always been with us. We find in the writings of Greece that Epicurus stated his goal was to “get rid of the gods, the immortal soul, and man’s longing for immortality.” This would appear to be the precise goal of atheists today. But Lucretius opposes the gods because “ the burdens they impose in the form of duty and responsibility are too heavy”. But Epicurus goes further and states that the gods seek to enforce “their” rules on man which creates anxiety in men because they threaten to punish us both in this life and in the next. So the obvious conclusion is that these early atheists simply chose to deny the existence of divine power because of their fear of that power. If the gods didn’t exist then they would not have to worry about their conduct but were free to do as they pleased. When you examine the writings of the current crop of atheists this seems to be their motivation as well.

The philosopher Thomas Nagel perhaps best describes the atheist’s point of view when he confessed that he had a fear of religion itself. He stated that “I want atheism to be true. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God – I don’t want there to be a God – I don’t want the universe to be like that.” ‘But perhaps the real motivation for atheists is the exhilaration that they feel once they are free from the encumbrance of God. Karen Armstrong in her book “A History of God” sums up this feeling of freedom that atheists enjoy in her statement:

It is wonderful not to have to cower before a vengeful deity, who threatens us with eternal damnation if we do not abide by his rules.

But not all atheists see the denial of God as liberating and exhilarating; for example Karl Marx described religion as the “opiate of the people” meaning that religion was the drug they used to numb themselves from the misery they found in their lives. The French atheist Michael Onfray speaking in a similar vein said “God is a fiction invented by men so as not to confront the reality of their condition”. But some are just cynical about God and James Haught sees religion as a vehicle where the religious leaders reap personal benefit when he wrote “... churches and holy men reap earnings and exalted status from the supernaturalism they administer to their followers”.

It should be noted that all of these denials of God start with what appears to be two premises; the existence of God must be proven by science, and; God and religion are simply wishful thinking invented by men to avoid accepting the futility of their existence. This is an interesting point because these same atheists accept many scientific theories without proof, so they have a double standard when it comes to God, therefore, this argument of theirs can simply be ignored because the existence of God is as self-evident as many of their unproven theories. So the crux of their opposition seems to be God, the soul, and life after death is simply the wishful thinking of the gullible who are afraid of death. This is a very interesting point but if man’s wish fulfillment caused him to invent heaven then why would he invent Hell? If man invented God then why is God such a terrifying force with such strict standards? Even the gods of the ancients were terrifying and vengeful so if man invented them why didn’t he invent gods that were more friendly and less demanding?

This raises the question of what benefits do atheists gain from not just denying the existence of God but from their determination to stamp out any belief in a supreme being. Superficially it appears that the atheists are Darwinian converts who wish to convert the religious to Darwinism. The similarity to this motivation to missionaries attempting to convert ignorant natives seems to be lost on them – except for the ignorant natives’ part. The reality is that Darwinism is really just a primitive form of religion similar in nature to the primitive religions of ancient man. In effect Darwinism is the law of the jungle, the world of tooth and claw, a religion that assigns man no purpose other than the animal objective of reproduction and survival. Even the Darwinists admit that Darwinism can be summed up in the phrase “survival of the fittest”. So this new religion of Darwinism draws a very negative picture of mans existence and purpose, similar to other religions but without any promise of redemption, forgiveness, or a “do over”. The fact is that atheism is a dismal ideology and any benefit to be reaped from it appears to be the ability to act without fear of retribution.

This lack of fear of retribution may be the major, if not the only, benefit of atheism. In a world without God, man is free to do as he chooses and this is liberating and exhilarating to the atheist. They are free from the constraints of religion and in their eyes they are free to practice virtue, charity, and brotherhood. Of course any priest or pastor could tell these liberated atheists that these are the central themes of Christianity. So it appears that the only benefits to be gained from atheism are those offered by religion. Perhaps they need remedial Sunday School.