Dear Mr. Jack Hamilton James,

Science - so called "modern science" - was conceived and hatched in willful antagonism specifically to the Christian belief. Science then waged its war against the faith on all fronts. Almost every subject of science conducts that war in its own realm. Early in school, children are subjected to a grueling competition of reading witchcraft and mystery books particularly designed to remove them from Christian way of life. With handsome payment, a legion of forces are assigned to go around shopping for stories in old idolatries that resembled stories in the Christian faith. Then specialized story tellers publish mystery books where they allege the Christian narrative to have been borrowed from some early beliefs. To this end, all other idolatries and beliefs are companions to science. In the "natural" sciences domain, the strategy of science instructions is creating senseless folk. In the "natural" science front considerable resources (earth's precious resources) are spent to ensure the Christian faith is defeated in every person's mind. The "natural" sciences instruct students to shut-off their natural senses and to follow the procedures of the science doctrine alone. A rigorous recital of the procedures create, out of children and out of college graduates, indoctrinated "zombies" fanatically hostile to Christianity. Also, since fostering competing identities are vital to diminishing the Christian faith, the science religion brings all other beliefs and idolatries to the same platform as Christianity. In fact, one of the first steps of the renaissance movement was to intervene in the Christian scripture and to declare that interpretation is personal. Then a multiplicity of feuding "christianities" emerged immediately relegating authentic Christianity to the mire of contention where science enthrones itself as the adjudicating authority hovering over the mire. The goal is, for the western science man to acquire godlike powers over earth and over all its inhabitants. It is science's standard trick to create competing identities to defeat an identity. If, for example, science wants to get rid of Mr. Jack Hamilton James, it manufactures dolls, many dolls, and calls them each "Mr. Jack Hamilton James "and it starts to elevate the "Mr. Jack Hamilton James" dolls to a platform of celebrity. Then it gradually starts to bring dishonor to them. When, by spectators, unanimity is reached as to the vileness of the many "Mr. Jack Hamilton James" attributes, science proceeds to eliminate all that is "Mr. Jack Hamilton James" and it starts doing so from the honorable authentic Mr. Jack Hamilton James since, by reason of the competing dolls, Mr. Jack Hamilton James has become just one of them. So, your expression: "...we don't, in my view, need a God to see that and nor can we blame causal information ..." is a simple derivative of the science motif. God is everything and we need Him in everything, everywhere.

In all its history, the earth has seen nothing more beautiful than Christianity. It is compassion, it is humility, it is fairness, it is love, it is peace and it is tranquility. Two major evidences distinguish Christianity from any other in authenticity. While many watched, our Lord Jesus Christ was Crucified and Buried, and He rose up in Resurrection on the Third Day and Ascended to Heaven on the fortieth day. The second is the prophecies of scripture that unfolded with remarkable truthfulness. Writing that men do that you have in mind isn't capable of prophecy. Nothing, absolutely nothing compares to Christianity. It is as much vital to us as water is to earth. It is the only hope there is that we have. On the other hand, science is an institution of subjugation and of class and of contempt and of derision. Overbearing pride and presumption drive science institutions. Hubris is the hallmark of the science culture. Humility, love and compassion are objects of ridicule in science quarters. The man of science rejects God and the morality God gave us because he wants to be god himself and intends to provide his version of morality, which he calls "ethics" to the inhabitants of the earth. When it is declared "there is no God" moral codes are given by the powerful - by the coercive force. That is what is happening now. The science capitals, America and England, are imposing on the dwellers of earth what is their version of the moral code that needs to be obeyed. So, in brief, the purpose of the "no God" science journey is to replace it with a new god.

As for who the new "god" is, we can look at one example. In his book: "The Grand Design" Mr. Stephen Hawking (along with co-author Mr. Leonard Mlodinow), citing some conjectures of Mr. Richard Feynman, which, in science quarters is known by a physics term "sum over histories," stated: "... In cosmology, in other words, one shouldn't follow the history of the universe from the bottom up because that assumes there's a single history, with a well-defined starting point and evolution. Instead, one should trace the histories from the top down, backward from the present time. Some histories will be more probable than others, and the sum will normally be dominated by a single history that starts with the creation of the universe and culminates in the state under consideration. But there will be different histories for different possible states of the universe at the present time. This leads to a radically different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. The histories that contribute to the Feynman sum don't have an independent existence, but depend on what is being measured. We create history by our observation, rather than history creating us."

By measurement and observation, Mr. Hawking and his assistant are referring to their own theorems of physics which they themselves forge. So the English and the American men of science are already openly declaring themselves "gods" who created the universe and its history by their mathematical observations. Their statements implicitly demand all tongues and tribes of the world bow down to them. In the same book Mr. Hawking also writes: "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Since he is the god (subject matter authority is the code word for it) he doesn't have to reason. His mere declaration is enough. Inspired by this god, many science minions wrote ridiculous books on how the universe created itself from nothing. The mind of man is under an awful tyranny of the science doctrine and the cruelty of it is that food and amenities are denied for failing to submit to it.

Regards,

Mulugeta

Dear Mr. Joe Fisher,

You talk of a "visible universe of infinite physical surface and infinite non-surface light" and you start from it as given. If someone takes you to the wilderness and there he provides you with a beautiful home furnished with beds, chairs, tables, light, water, food etc, would you just ignore everything and assume that such furniture is given, that it is there by itself without anyone preparing it? You don't sense some naivety in that, do you? It takes an extraordinary plunge in pretension to be rid of the overwhelming natural perception of creation and replace it with a philosophy that impresses an artificial notion such as that something happens without someone making it happen. It takes an extraordinary ritual in delusion to consider that a dull, unconscious, dead matter starts to move around without an input or instruction and begins to construct itself into sophistication of dazzling regularity and into patterns of perceptible beauty. In everything that you touch, that you see, that you smell, that you taste, that you feel, you see God. The stone that you touch is bound together as a solid unit and it doesn't have to be so. The timber shouldn't be the way it is. Any why are they side by side? Water shouldn't be liquid and all the diverse state and nature of things shouldn't be there, much less to benefit other things. It is an encouragement to dullness that science drives many to be blind and assume things as given. I advise you to think a little more.

As for science, it is a dangerous thing. The saying: 'little knowledge is dangerous' (which was modified from Mr. Alexander Pope's cliché "a little learning is a dangerous thing") impressively befits science. Any individual person is always of little knowledge and the danger that one person can cause is minimal to nothing. So 'little knowledge is dangerous' does not make sense to attribute to individual persons. But science, which commands kingdoms and nations and powerful institutions, causes immediate or delayed peril of significant scale by its evident little knowledge. With insufficient knowledge science has been, for many years now, taking disastrous steps the sum total of which has now brought the earth to serious trouble. The Fukushima nuclear disaster is a product of science's little knowledge adventure. The building of atomic and neuron bombs is a little knowledge step. You don't build bombs that you are not going to use. The toasting of the earth with fuel is a little knowledge thing and the areas of harm such little knowledge steps affect are too many to count. Science's little knowledge packages that translated into massive operations have made the earth desolate already. The problem is not that it is always wrong, but that it always acts based on little knowledge.

Regards,

Mulugeta

Dear Mulugeta ! Science has become a tool of the economic production line and most scientists are working at this tech-know-logically perfected assembly line, i.e. contemporary science is definitely not an intellectual beauty contest. About 60% of new arable land (resources) on this globe is situated in your continent and 'the economic machinery' knows this fact, i.e. science has additionally become a tool of political supremacy. The ethical corruption of science is indeed an issue; all prophets of humankind have taught us to practice an earth sharing economy.However, I will not follow your appeal, because I am applying the scientific method with an other intention and goal. Best wishes: stephen i. ternyik

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Galileo

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

Newton

The infinite God can not by us, in the present limitation of our faculties, be comprehended or conceived.

Hamilton

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

Einstein

The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.

Heisenberg

God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world.

Dirac

I do not believe that science can disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible. And if it is impossible, is not a belief in science and in a God -- an ordinary God of religion -- a consistent possibility?

Yes, it is consistent. Despite the fact that I said that more than half of the scientists don't believe in God, many scientists do believe in both science and God, in a perfectly consistent way. But this consistency, although possible, is not easy to attain, and I would like to try to discuss two things: Why it is not easy to attain, and whether it is worth attempting to attain it.

Feynman

hi all,wowww the discussion,

Mr Wudu,the personali faith is like a personal sphere of thoughts.I am persuaded that the goods are more numerous that the unconscious and that in all religions, countries.The freedom, the democracy,the tolerance is a torch of truth, a foundamental.I am persuded that a christian, a muslim, a jewish and a buddhist can discuss in dining around a table in respecting what are this universal love,this humility in front of thjis infinite entropy and altruistuic universalism.This planet Mr Wugu is not perfect.If this planet is in this state, it is not due to this or that but simply due to unconscious in all countries implying bad governances and acts of evil.In USA and in ethiopia it is the same problem, it exists good and bad persons.The capitalism or the socialism or the facts that we line in occident are not thez problem, the systems are not really thje problem.If africa is in this state it is due to a lack of security and governments, strong and laws.So the weakest persons are obliged to accept the crazzy line of reasonings of some crazzy politicians liking opulences and power.I am suggesting that africa makes its quiet governemental révolutions in sorting these persons simply.Because the firsts who pay the prize of this crazzyness is the people.Have you seen in syria ,irak...Is it a joke,??? The hormons ,the vanity ,the power,the bad like always Mr Wugu.I live in belgium here also we have these problems and don't imagine that it is easy to live here you know, it is difficult for example psychologically speaking here in wallonia.Always these bad governances in all countries.They are criminals simply and they destroy what we have created in the past.In France and in many countries Mr Wugu we have made our révolutions to stop the bad governances and change the laws for the well of people simply.I beleive that africa must make the same with the help of this ONU G20.Too much of persons suffer and it is not acceptable simply.7,3 billions Mr Mugu and the majority are good persons, a minority implies this chaos and this everwhere.I know that in ethiopia you have suffered a lot, it is a difficult country considering the water and food and jobs I am knowing.But it is complex in fact, it isn not easy to solve all our major problems.Africa needs helps quickly indeed and ONU must take its responsabilities.You imagine the psychology of children of africa ? They have forgotten the hope due to these adults having destroyed these hopes.The religions and the ideologies and systems are not really the problem.These hormonal unconscious comportments yes.the tolerance ,the democracy, the humanism,the universalism,the universal love are our foundamentals.I am personally christian and I respect all others cultures and religions with tolerance.It is not complicated in fact this universal altruistic love.

Dear Mr. William Walker,

Being from Ethiopia I can tell you firsthand that a social life of praising the Lord is a society you can't have enough of. There is love, compassion and humility and boredom has no habitation in it. The problem now around the world is that societies are polluted, living a decadent, immoral and pleasure-seeking life. So a person already shaped by a spoiled society may not be able to imagine life that doesn't have the immodesty he or she is accustomed to, the same way as a drug dealer who makes a lot of money from drug-dealing won't like a modest life as an employee of some sort.

A life of praising the Lord is not a dictatorship. The world is under a dictatorship now already. You are not aware of it maybe because you are the privileged beneficiary of the dictatorship. A new world order was established about seventy years ago when European colonialism crumbled. The new world order replaced the colonial system but the new system was just a sophisticated copy of the old. New tools like the World Bank, the IMF etc were also put in place to advance the new order. As the former World Bank President James Wolfensohn once remarked in a Stanford talk, the new world order was setup with an eighty-twenty rule, meaning eighty percent of the world's resources or wealth would be for the west and twenty percent would be for the rest of the world. To maintain this order, heavy yokes were laid on the so called "third world" countries and the focus was to ensure that these "third world" nations are incapable of extracting resources underneath the territories they occupy. The yoke on African nations was particularly cumbersome. Intelligence forces were deployed inciting upheavals and these forces were particularly effective sowing discord between brothers and they racked the continent with civil wars, disease and famine. In the hands of the west Ethiopia received the most wicked of the afflictions. If by any chance any of the "third world" nations slipped from the yoke like China did, then "all hell would break loose." China is now asserting itself in many ways and vying to extract resources not just in China but also in Africa. China is about to eat the west's "entitlement" breakfast and lunch and dinner. The west may choose to overlook China and decide to squeeze more from the Africans but the Africans are not getting any of their resources at all, therefore there is no point in that. So, America and China will have to 'duke' it out among themselves to darwin survive it. When they do, you will no longer have the delicious living that you are used to.

As for the "resource based economy" you directed me to, I want to point out to you that the world's resources are finite and speedily dwindling as we speak. The rich want those resources, not some resources but all of them. I can understand economics as an instrument of resource robbery. Other than that I don't see it making much sense.

Regards,

Mulugeta

We are after all in the same boat.The solutions exist Mr Wugu ,it is just that the global system and the unconsciousness have implied chaotical systems.We are soon 10 billions.And we have problems in many centers of interests.The poverty, the criminilaties, the food, the water, the energy, the jobs,the climate.....all these parameters are a reality indeed.It is due to many paramters if we are in this global situation.The global system has simply reached its limits.We have planted seeds ,so we have now the fruits.It is a question of quick adaptation now Mr Wugu for the well of all without exception.The climate ,it is too late, it is the adaptation now the most important.We are obliged to change this global system.It is not a question of capitalism or communism or religions or this or that in fact.It is justy that we must all accept now that we must really change the system.The richest, the persons the highest placed in governments,ONU G20 World bank must understand that if we do not change quickly,we are going to be in the chaotical exponentials.And all looses in this case, all without exception.If we want to reach the points of equilibrium,we must liberate these funds and open our earth and humanity to our universe, first this solar system.We had a problem of limits and numbers on earth, not when we see this solar system,mars, Wheel in space with an artificial gravitation due to rotation reaching g....The potential is infinite and in this case all children of africa also are educated, and their parents them have a job to live simply and hope.We have the potential to solve this planet Mr Wugu and permit to all to live with dignity and in the universalism.It is possible, all wins without exception, the richest like the poorest simply.It lacks money, space, matter,jobs...on earth, the limits and the numbers always....but not when we open our humanity to this universe.Regards and universally and altruistically...

A question if I may - have you ever used something that sprang from science? Used some medicine, a telephone, an airplane, a car?

A question if I may - have you ever used something that sprang from science? Used some medicine, a telephone, an airplane, a car?

Sorry Lee, I meant this question as a general post, not a reply. By the way - I really like the quote you cite :-)

I don't think you investigated a resource based economy - web site is the Venus Project. https://www.thevenusproject.com/ or you can watch a YouTube video called Zeitgeist Moving Forward.

This is the only economic theory that truly addresses the finite nature of resources on this planet. And it uses the brilliance of science to assure that abundance is achieved by all at the most optimum levels of efficiency. And their would be no rich and powerful because there is no money in this system. So just going back to living like cave men isn't an alternative that people will accept... so why not use science under the guide of God's consciousness (love) to make the best world we can. Prosperous, free, and most importantly balanced.

Take care and good luck in the contest... and most important... God Bless!

Dear Mulugeta Wudu,

Thank you for your excellent discussion on existence of God. Your words...

..... "Reproduction - what is it? Why do organisms need to make a copy of themselves? By observing ourselves in teenage or young life in the wilderness, we can tell that we don't plan to make copies of ourselves, but we are drawn to the opposite sex of our kind by way of an inherent desire which is not the desire of self replication, and this attraction results in the replication of ourselves." ......

Hope you will have a look in my essay also, where I discussed about reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe.

I feel reproduction is a basic property of nature or Universe. I don't know the difference between God and Universe....

We can have discussion...

Best wishes to your essay...

=snp.gupta

Mulugeta,

I think it's great to have a wide range of views. Yours may interestingly be aligned with a 'mathematical universe' view as logically some greater intelligence is then implied. I find that a more detailed view of matter and evolution can explain much but still not exclude a god.

I also have sympathy for your views ref our effect on the planet. The problem I see which you may help with is, where was mankind supposed to stop? There weren't enough caves to stop back then so we had to build shelters, so we had to from and use tools to dig and cut wood, so came the log, wheel, and oil, all around long before Jesus. Once we had the wheel it seems to me that F1 (etc) may have been an unavoidable consequence.

So where do you think we should have stopped? How? and do you think we can get back there without wiping out billions of gods innocent children?

Also; do you think a 'purpose' may be to finally travel space and find new homes?

Well done for expressing the philosophy so unequivocally.

Best wishes

Peter

    Dear Mr. Peter Jackson,

    I am glad that you asked these very important questions. To answer your question, let me quote what the Book of Truth commands man to do with earth and please notice the part in upper case letters:

    'And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to DRESS IT AND TO KEEP IT. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it, for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die' [Genesis 2:15]

    So man was given the earth to dress it and to keep it. Per the letters of the book, man is not allowed to pollute it, to deforest it, to factory fish it, to industrialize it, to engineer it, to asphalt it, to drive cars on it, to spill poison on or in it, to toast it by feaul etc. I was discussing indicators of time with Mr. Eckard Blumscheinv trying to show him when the earth truly started to be messed up. Of course I was not around to count world population before the industrial revolution, nor can I be sure the seven billion count we are being told today is true because I didn't count it myself. But if we take the publicly available population estimates for many hundred years before the advent of modern science, especially before the industrial revolution and do the conventional exponential growth projection to it, we find that the population size grew linearly and the figures would not be the way we see it now if there was no science. It would be less by close to six billion count. There was an exponential rise around the time of the industrial revolution. What that means is that science already messed up with the earth's natural circuitry (echo system to use science's parlance) that God put in place. It is clear. Either, as is claimed by many, science reduced child mortality rate, increased life expectancy, reduced epidemics, provided medicine to cure diseases and therefore take responsibility for the population explosion (and for the near complete extinction of what science calls megafauna) or if anyone denies science's messy hand in the eighteenth century exponential population explosion then that someone must also deny that science reduced child mortality rate, increased life expectancy, reduced epidemics, provided medicine to cure diseases etc. Which one is it? Men of science should choose one or the other, not both. As they say, 'science wants to have the cake and eat it too'.

    I must do justice to your pointedly purpose driven question and, with God's help, try to answer it as precisely as you asked it. When Francesco Petrarca of Italy climbed Mount Ventoux in France and declared that he accomplished that by himself and took pride in his accomplishment and when he introduced the need to turn to the self and when humanity became the center of interest, that is when the philosophy of humanism should have been stopped. The renaissance philosophy of the 'self' gave rise to the credo known as the "pursuit of happiness." Men became pleasure seeking animals and individual feats at excelling in the promotion of the self gained social currency. Extracting pleasure by destroying the natural surrounding earned celebrity and was given a prestigious name: "innovation." From there, for the pursuit of pleasure, destructive activities spread around the world like wild fire. The destruction never relented ever since. Secularism gave it a great boost too. So, the renaissance movement is what and where and when it should have been stopped. If everybody agrees to drop science and its products and, in its place, pledge allegiance to Christianity and its commandments alone - Christianity as it was before the middle ages - then I believe we will be able to regain natural conditions may be gradually. The key is moderate living, as prescribed by the bible but the question is: can a westerner agree to moderate living? He should.

    Regarding your question on finding new homes in space, my answer is no. Science cannot furnish anything at all, it only steals furniture furnished by God. But the Lord said in His Book that the earth would be befouled so bad by science [Dan, Rev.] that He will provide a new earth. I believe that will happen because the Lord's word is good and He does provide and He does furnish it too.

    Regards,

    Mulugeta

    Dear Mulugeta,

    I appreciate your points with respect to (as you say) the emerging 'culture of science'. I am not a scientist i am a philosopher. Unfortunately you are failing to distinguish between 'science' and the 'culture of science'. Science is absolutely none of the things you hold against it. It is merely to speak as correctly as one can about the causal nature of the world. That is all. Christianity may well be the best method for ethics and culture and the direction/purpose of mankind, and may well be better than any new age 'culture of science' (e.g. Sam Harris). But again, there is a difference between causes and purposes, science is only to recognise the former, any assigning of purpose to it - is not science.

    Your enemy isnt science - the simple correct observation of reality - for without it you couldnt write or think as well as you do.

    Best,

    Jack

    Malugeta,

    Well answered, though doubtless many would say cites may just be 'dressing' the earth.

    I agree that ours and ALL planets will indeed be renewed, and have (scientifically!) identified the evidence that a recycling process (also explaining re-ionization) has been undergone many times before and will likely continue. Penrose has an incomplete model similar to the 'big bounce'. I just posted a link under John Hodges essay to my joint published paper on the more consistent and complete model, also on DOI here;

    A Cyclic model of Galaxy (and universal) Evolution

    My essay is consistent with that. I hope you may read, score and comment on it.

    I'm sure you're realistic about the chances of western man giving up technology. I also agree we have a damaging homocentric view, which I wrote of here a few years ago. A New Yorker may answer 'where is the dog?' by saying "300yds to my left heading this way." An African or Asian may more likely say; "under the tall tree beside the bend in the river moving north."

    That may reveal a problem permeating present western science.

    Best wishes and thanks for your input.

    Peter

    4 days later

    An interesting essay and call to deal the mess we have made.

    In all my readings and dealings with people, I have never found a time or location where entire groups of humans lived without harming some part of nature &/or other humans. There might be short periods of time where the impact is minimal, but humans seem to have a desire to 'be more' than they are (I will not say 'better' as that requires a comparison against something few will agree on).

    I think you have placed a problem with humanity, in general, on one aspect of humanity, science. If we were to do as you suggest, I believe humans would again attempt to 'be more' and some different set of problems would occur and we would be facing devastation in another form.

    I think you are looking at a symptom of the problem and not the root cause.

    The chances of all humanity shifting to your solution is extremely small, so is there a different direction to consider with a higher chance of success?

    Best to us all addressing the mess we are in,

    Don

    Dear Mr. Donald Palmer,

    Modern Science is the root cause, not the symptom, of almost all of the major calamities the earth and its inhabitants are facing today. If a person is sick after taking poison, you don't give more of the poison to him to save him. Being the unfair beneficiary of the ways of science, the elite press for more of the poison. It is sad. The earth is expiring while we watch. There are two directions. What will save the earth is only an upright Christian life to the letters of the bible and moderation in consumption, which the Christian book commands. The other direction is science's, which is merciless and evil beyond a doubt. If what you have in mind is environmental protocols, ideas of solar panels, electric cars etc, that is too little too late. The earth is now in the hands of people who harm it. They are dark-hearted, extremely clever, powerful and dangerous. Life has no chance of not only thriving but also continuance in their hands. My part is to convey the message. Those who are wise will understand my story, but I am sorry for those who won't.

    Regards,

    Mulugeta

    a month later

    Dear Mr. Mulugeta Wudu,

    I very appreciate your words that

    "When I was a child in Ethiopia my friends and I used to go down to the rivers which were clean and used to drink from them. There were no factories, no chemicals, no deodorants, no lipsticks and no waste contaminating rivers or groundwater. ...

    It is clear that an act of murder is committed on earth by men of science and the earth is groaning of the wound it sustained and it doesn't have much longer to live."

    Albert Einstein said that

    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". And also said that

    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

    Therefore I agree with you.

    I think that there is something interesting in your essay.

    After completely reading, I will more comments on your essay.

    Ch.Bayarsaikhan