Wednesday, April 6, 2011


"Are science and religion converging? No……..
If God is a synonym for the deepest principles of physics, what word is left for a hypothetical being who answers prayers, intervenes to save cancer patients or helps evolution over difficult jumps, forgives sins or dies for them? If we are allowed to relabel scientific awe as a religious impulse, the case goes through on the nod. You have redefined science as religion, so it's hardly surprising if they turn out to "converge."

- Dr. Richard Dawkins


It’s a time proven and highly tested principle that nothing exists without a cause. Everything in reality certainly has some sort of cause why it exists and it is an irrefutable scientific and logical fact meaning it is not just a whimsical claim but a scientifically and logically TESTED fact, a kind of fact that have undergone REPETITIVE scientific procedures in order for us to derive an ACCURATE PATTERN of a certain portion, dimension or perspective of REALITY. In school we were thought of mathematical equations that looks at different magnitude perspectives that ultimately proves to be of the same value either side of the equation. One very popular equation is the classic formula by Albert Einstein about Mass–energy equivalence.

In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that any mass has an associated energy, and that any energy has an associated type of mass. In special relativity this relationship is expressed using the mass–energy equivalence formula
e = mc2 Pictures, Images and Photos
E_0 = energy
m = mass
c = the speed of light in a vacuum (celeritas), (about 3×108 m/sec)

In the above physical equation we can clearly see that either side of the equation EXPLAINS the CAUSE of either side, THERE IS NO ENERGY WITHOUT MASS OR SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM OR BOTH. In accounting if I may because I was trained as a finance professional, we have this FUNDAMENTAL equation we accountants use to EXPLAIN economic values by distinct economic entities at historical verifiable measurements which is the ACCOUNTING EQUATION.

Assets = Liabilities + (Shareholders or Owners equity)

Where the ASSETS being the economic resources owned by the company, the LIABILITIES are the financial obligations of the business firm and the SHAREHOLDERS OR OWNERS EQUITY the economic resources invested by the firms shareholders or owners. Conversely, if it so happen that a certain business firm owns a bank account with an outstanding balance of P100,000, assuming there are no other assets held by the business firm, the most logically plausible EXPLANATION for the EXISTENCE or CAUSE why there is such cash would be that it either came from borrowing or investment by the owner of the business firm or a certain mix of both borrowing and investment by its owner. As we can clearly observe by deeply examining the above given examples we can arrive at a definite conclusion that A CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE WILL NOT CHANGE THE EXPLANATORY NATURE OF MATHEMATICAL EQUATION, thus, EITHER ON THE PHYSICAL OR FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE THE PRINCIPLE OF MATHEMATICAL EQUATION IS PERVASIVELY APPLICABLE AND NOBODY CAN REFUTE MY CLAIM NOT EVEN THE WORLD RENOWNED ATHEIST DR. RICHARD DAWKINS WHO ACTUALLY SAID AND I QUOTE HIM AGAIN;

"Are science and religion converging? No……..
If God is a synonym for the deepest principles of physics, what word is left for a hypothetical being who answers prayers, intervenes to save cancer patients or helps evolution over difficult jumps, forgives sins or dies for them? If we are allowed to relabel scientific awe as a religious impulse, the case goes through on the nod. You have redefined science as religion, so it's hardly surprising if they turn out to "converge." "

I am an accountant not a scientist like Dr. Richard Dawkins but looking deeper in his VERY IRRESPONSIBLE statement we will inevitably arrive at a conclusion that THIS IS A MAN DEVOID OF SCIENTIFIC AND MATHEMATICAL REASON and let me justify my statement;

I have already proven here that the pervasiveness of applying the principle of mathematical equation in WHATEVER PERSPECTIVE, physical or financial, is IMPOSSIBLE to be contested by anybody by exposing the LOGICAL NATURE of the principle of mathematical equations even Dr. Richard Dawkins will find it IMPOSSIBLE to challenge AND I DARE HIM IF HE CAN!

Suppose we CHANGE perspectives in the application of this mathematical principle. Suppose we change the perspective on a much BROADER and COMPREHENSIVE plane of perspective. Suppose we put the UNIVERSE on the other side of the mathematical equation. REMEMBER THAT I HAVE ALREADY PROVEN HERE THAT MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS HAS THE FEATURE OF CAUSAL INTEGRITY MEANING IT TENDS TO EXPLAIN EITHER SIDE OF THE EQUATION.

If we will put the UNIVERSE on the equation then the mathematical equation will look like this on a REALITY perspective NOT on a PHYSICAL perspective for if we look only in the physical perspective we will arrive in a COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE AND UNREALISTIC mathematical result because the physical perspective looks only on the physically OBSERVED portion of the universe and will inevitably PRECLUDE the UNOBSERVED portion which is still a part of the universe; the equation, thus, will look like this;


Where Σx is the summation of all mathematical variables and functions THAT WILL CAUSE THE UNIVERSE TO ACTUALLY EXIST. This will analytically include the observed and the UNOBSERVED elementary component of the universe and it is this UNOBSERVED portion that these atheists are having problem with because of their FAILURE IN REALIZING that these unobserved portion of the universe DO EXIST the proof of which is the inherent LIMITATION of human physical senses and let me demonstrate this by a FACTUAL example;

The age of the universe has long been a scientific INTRIGUE even before the dawn of human history. There have been NUMEROUS attempts made to reasonably calculate the estimated age of the universe. Current interpretations of astronomical observation indicate that the age of the universe is 13.73 (± 0.12) billion years, and that the diameter of the observable Universe is at least 93 billion light years, or 8.80 × 1026 metres. These current ESTIMATES have been principally made possible by using observed scientific data as obtained in the HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE which is to date is one of the largest and most versatile, and is well-known as both a vital research tool and a public relations boon for astronomy. Calculating the age of the universe is only accurate if the assumptions built into the models being used to estimate it are also accurate. This is referred to as strong priors and essentially involves stripping the potential errors in other parts of the model to render the accuracy of actual observational data directly into the concluded result. Although this is not a valid procedure in all contexts (as noted in the accompanying caveat: "based on the fact we have assumed the underlying model we used is correct"), the age given is thus accurate to the specified error (since this error represents the error in the instrument used to gather the raw data input into the model).

The age of the universe based on the "best fit" to WMAP data "only" is 13.69±0.13 Gyr (the slightly higher number of 13.73 includes some other data mixed in). This number represents the first accurate "direct" measurement of the age of the universe (other methods typically involve Hubble's law and age of the oldest stars in globular clusters, etc). It is possible to use different methods for determining the same parameter (in this case – the age of the universe) and arrive at different answers with no overlap in the "errors". To best avoid the problem, it is common to show two sets of uncertainties; one related to the actual measurement and the other related to the systematic errors of the model being used.

The problem of determining the age of the universe is closely tied to the problem of determining the values of the cosmological parameters. Today this is largely carried out in the context of the ΛCDM model, where the Universe is assumed to contain normal (baryonic) matter, cold dark matter, radiation (including both photons and neutrinos), and a cosmological constant. The fractional contribution of each to the current energy density of the Universe is given by the density parameters Ωm, Ωr, and ΩΛ. The full ΛCDM model is described by a number of other parameters, but for the purpose of computing its age these three, along with the Hubble parameter H0 are the most important.

If one has accurate measurements of these parameters, then the age of the universe can be determined by using the Friedmann equation. This equation relates the rate of change in the scale factor a(t) to the matter content of the Universe. Turning this relation around, we can calculate the change in time per change in scale factor and thus calculate the total age of the universe by integrating this formula. The age t0 is then given by an expression of the form

t0 =1/Ho F( Ωm, Ωr,ΩΛ,….)

where the function F depends only on the fractional contribution to the universe's energy content that comes from various components. The first observation that one can make from this formula is that it is the Hubble parameter that controls that age of the universe, with a correction arising from the matter and energy content. So a rough estimate of the age of the universe comes from the inverse of the Hubble parameter,

1/Ho = {Ho /[72km/(s x Mpc)]} x 13.6 Gyr.

To get a more accurate number, the correction factor F must be computed. In general this must be done numerically, and the results for a range of cosmological parameter values are shown in the figure below.

The value of the age correction factor F is shown as a function of two cosmological parameters: the current fractional matter density Ωm and cosmological constant density ΩΛ. The best-fit values of these parameters are shown by the box in the upper left; the matter-dominated universe is shown by the star in the lower right.

The age of the universe can be determined by measuring the Hubble constant today and extrapolating back in time with the observed value of density parameters (Ω). Before the discovery of dark energy, it was believed that the universe was matter-dominated, and so Ω on this graph corresponds to Ωm. Note that the accelerating universe has the greatest age, while the Big Crunch universe has the smallest age.

For the WMAP values (Ωm, Ωr) = (0.266, 0.732), shown by the box in the upper left corner of the figure above. This correction factor is nearly one: F = 0.996. For a flat universe without any cosmological constant, shown by the star in the lower right corner, F = 2/3 is much smaller and thus the universe is younger for a fixed value of the Hubble parameter. To make this figure, Ωr is held constant (roughly equivalent to holding the CMB temperature constant) and the curvature density parameter is fixed by the value of the other three.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) was instrumental in establishing an accurate age of the universe, though other measurements must be folded in to gain an accurate number. CMB measurements are very good at constraining the matter content Ωm and curvature parameter Ωk. It is not as sensitive to ΩΛ directly, partly because the cosmological constant only becomes important at low redshift. The most accurate determinations of the Hubble parameter H0 come from Type Ia supernovae. Combining these measurements leads to the generally accepted value for the age of the universe quoted above.

The cosmological constant makes the universe "older" for fixed values of the other parameters. This is significant, since before the cosmological constant became generally accepted, the Big Bang model had difficulty explaining why globular clusters in the Milky Way appeared to be far older than the age of the universe as calculated from the Hubble parameter and a matter-only universe. Introducing the cosmological constant allows the universe to be older than these clusters, as well as explaining other features that the matter-only cosmological model could not.

Using these mathematical arguments above we can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that THE COMPUTED AGE OF THE UNIVERSE WOULD LOGICALLY INCLUDE THE AGE OF THE UNOBSERVED PORTION OF THE UNIVERSE. If it therefore includes the age of the UNOBSERVED portion of the universe, then, Mr. Dawkins MUST therefore be bound to accept that the UNOBSERVED portion of the universe DO EXIST, otherwise, HE WILL BE ILLOGICALLY INVALIDATING THE VALID MATHEMATICAL FORMULA;

t0 =1/Ho F( Ωm, Ωr,ΩΛ,….)

And he will also illogically invalidating its mathematical inverse;

1/Ho = {Ho /[72km/(s x Mpc)]} x 13.6 Gyr.

Mr. Dawkins MUST also be bound to accept that the computation of the age of the universe INCLUDES a COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT that will VALIDLY EXPLAIN why globular clusters in the Milky Way appeared to be far older than the age of the universe which will also logically explain why the MATTER-ONLY cosmological model would render the age of the universe mathematical equation COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE if we will EXCLUDE the age of those globular cluster WHICH IS ALSO A PART OF THE UNIVERSE. Mr. DAWKINS MUST therefore be bound to accept that a mathematically accurate cosmological constant INCLUDES a NON-MATTER cosmological model along with the matter cosmological model to render the mathematical equation MORE ACCURATE.

It is also noteworthy that BEFORE those globular clusters in the Milky Way were discovered the matter-only cosmological model rendered the computation of the age of the universe INACCURATE AFTER considering the age of the globular clusters AFTER they were discovered. IT TOOK MODERN SCIENCE THE DISCOVERY OF THOSE GLOBULAR CLUSTERS TO ARRIVE AT A MORE ACCURATE COMPUTATION OF THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE. These can only be best explained by the fact that IT REQUIRES THAT OUR MORPHOLOGICAL SENSES PERCEIVE AN OBJECT FIRST BEFORE IT CAN BE CONSIDERED TO LOGICALLY EXIST, THUS, PROVING BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HUMAN PHYSICAL SENSES REALLY HAVE INHERENT LIMITATIONS AND THAT INCLUDES DR. DAWKINS IF HE IS A HUMAN BEING. What DISTURBS me the most is that this Dr. Dawkins made an absolute declaration that according to him God is just a hypothetical being when in fact he MUST be bound to accept the HIGHLY TESTED cosmological equation that INCLUDES a NON-MATTER cosmological model! These are my reasons why I consider this PSEUDO-scientist Dr. Dawkins A MAN UTTERLY DEVOID OF SCIENTIFIC AND MATHEMATICAL REASON because of these obvious logical contradictions that must not come from a man claiming to be a man of science being a Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science in the University of Oxford.

Like Dr. Richard Dawkins I am also an atheist before. Being a handicapped person I was exposed to EXTREME SUFFERING brought about by my disability at a very young age. I contracted Poliomyelitis when I was four months old which left me paralyzed from my neck down. Growing up different from anybody including my peers was EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. I was teased heavily in school which often results in violent fights that left me in pain physically and psychologicaly. I was denied of many good things in life and was treated differently in a very bad way oftentimes. I practically grew up thinking that my life is miserable and that if there is a loving God he will not allow all this suffering to afflict my innocent being. What have I done to deserve this kind of EXTREME SUFFERING? GOD CAN CREATE A NORMALLY FUNCTIONING LIMBS FOR ME JUST LIKE ANY OTHER NORMAL HUMAN BEING THAT HE CREATED BUT HE OPTED TO GIVE ME LIMBS THAT I CANT USE INSTEAD BECAUSE ITS USELESS. IF HE REALLY EXIST AND IF HE REALLY LOVES ME THEN WHY AM I LEFT WITH THIS KIND OF MISERABLE LIFE? ITS VERY UNFAIR AND SO UNJUST!

Thinking like this before, I started to hate God. I threw bitter curses on him and even told my brother that there is no God. My hate for God has never been so intense until I stopped doing so when I was finally convinced there really is no God at all and he is just a human invention intended to curb and control social behavior for the benefit of controlling authorities back then. God is just a set of mechanism to assuage public and moral order, IT IS NECESSARY TO INVENT THE CONCEPT OF GOD FOR PUBLIC REGULATION PURPOSES BY INSTILLING GENUINE FEAR IN THE CONSCIENCE OF AS MUCH AS MANY OF ITS SUBJECTS. GOD IS JUST NECESSARY BUT THE NECESSITY FOR HIM DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN HE DO REALLY ABSOLUTELY EXIST INDEPENDENT OF ANY CONCEPTIONS HUMAN SOCIETIES HAVE FOR HIS EXISTENCE. Its all for the sake of a necessary social contract NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.

My atheistic ideologies started to turn a more progressive swing when I finally became acquainted with the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. It offered me a more scientific explanation about my morphological roots as an earthly organism.

With all these ignorant ideologies that have consumed my intellect before, I started to think that the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about existence and being are strictly confined within these ignorant bounds. I IGNORANTLY NEVER CARED WHERE LIFE CAME FROM NOR DO I CARED ABOUT WHAT REALLY IS THERE THAT CAUSES MATTER TO EXIST.

Nobody knows that I was an atheist except my brother. I continued to attend catholic mass for family and social functions and became very active in the church just because my family and friends are all into this "hypocritical cultic practices". I even officially became a parish choir member of two separate parishes in the catholic church!

I even became a choir member in the catholic church being a nominal catholic despite my being an atheist that time!

My atheistic beliefs started to be challenged heavily when I entertained questions about the origin of life. Where does life come from? Can we human beings create life out of inorganic materials? Can we make artificial life and artificial consciousness? In my quest to find out the truth about the origin of life I was compelled to undergo a very complicated series of scientific study. I read scientific books like I never read before. Good thing my favorite subjects in school were science and math subjects particularly chemistry and physics and so I was sure that I was getting somewhere in my study until I came across something that changed my perception about life forever, the Miller–Urey experiment.

The Miller-Urey Experiment was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Soviet scientist Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952 and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

BUT MUCH TO THE UTTER DISMAY OF THE ATHEIST IN ME THE EXPERIMENT FAILED SORELY IN CREATING LIFE. Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a pink stain on the sides of the flask trap. As the experiment progressed and the chemical products accumulated, the stain turned deep red, then turbid. After a week, the researchers analyzed the substances in the U-shaped water trap used to collect the reaction products. The primary substances in the gaseous phase were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). The dominant solid material was an insoluble toxic carcinogenic mixture called ‘tar’ or ‘resin’, a common product in organic reactions, including burning tobacco. This tar was analyzed by the latest available chromatographic techniques, showing that a number of substances had been produced. No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again.

In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine. The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended’(Miller, S.L., A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions, Science 117:528–529; p. 528, 1953). The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

Miller had to deal with the fact that the common cross-reactions of biochemical reaction products cause destruction or interfere with amino acid production. All compounds that interfere with bonding must be isolated or they will destroy the proteins. Therefore, Miller had to remove many contaminants and impurities to obtain pure compounds that are not normally found in life. Otherwise, his apparatus would have produced many destructive cross-reactions.

This is no small problem. Many organic compounds, such as ethanol and isopropyl alcohol, function as disinfectants by forming their own hydrogen bonds with a protein and, as a result, disrupt the proteins’ hydrophobic interactions. Alcohol swabs are used to clean wounds or to prepare skin for injections because the alcohol passes through cell walls and coagulates the proteins inside bacteria and other cells. Also, heavy metal ions such as Ag+, Pb2+ and Hg2+ must be isolated from proteins because they disrupt the protein’s disulfide bonds, causing the protein to denature. As an example, a dilute (1%) AgNO3 solution is placed in the eyes of newborn babies to destroy the bacteria that cause gonorrhea. Many heavy metal ions are very toxic if ingested because they severely disrupt protein structure, especially enzymes.


To form a protein, amino acids must link together to form a peptide bond, eliminating a water molecule. But there is a far greater tendency for the reverse to happen. This would be even more of a problem in water.

Another problem is that many of the other compounds necessary for life, such as sugar, also react strongly with amino acids and affect amino acid synthesis. For example, Miller and others had to use a sugar-free environment in their experiments. Miller stopped his experiment after just a few days, but if it had been allowed to go on, would the compounds he produced be destroyed or would they produce more complex amino acids? Research on Murchison meteorite found that natural conditions produce compounds much like Miller’s, and the result is stableindicating that further time would not produce any new products.

The Miller–Urey experiments produced many other compounds aside from amino acids, resulting in a sticky mass that was actually further from the building blocks of life than were the postulated original precursor chemicals. Toxic compounds produced include cyanides, carbon monoxide, and others—actually most of the dark matter in the solution could not be identified by the researchers in 1953.

The Miller–Urey experiment left many critical questions unanswered, even such basic ones as, ‘How did the chemicals combine to form the first molecules of living organisms?’ Chemicals do not produce life; only complex structures such as DNA and enzymes produce life. Also, even if the source of the amino acids and the many other compounds needed could be explained, how these many diverse elements became aggregated in the same area and then properly assembled themselves must still be dealt with. This problem is a major stumbling block to all abiogenesis theories because, according to a prestigious science publication;

"… no one has ever satisfactorily explained how the widely distributed ingredients linked up into proteins. Presumed conditions of primordial earth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely isolation. That’s one of the strongest reasons that Wächtershäuser, Morowitz, and other hydrothermal vent theorists want to move the kitchen [that cooked life] to the ocean floor. If the process starts down deep at discrete vents, they say, it can build amino acids—and link them up—right there." (SOURCE: Simpson, S., Life’s first scalding steps, Science News 155(2):24–26, 1999; p. 26. )

All the while the atheist in me thought that science can answer life’s basic questions but I was gravely wrong! The more I studied science rigorously the more questions I came up with and those questions just piled up like crazy! MY QUESTION IS JUST AN APPARENTLY SIMPLE QUESTION ‘WHAT CAUSES LIFE TO EXIST?’ BUT WHY CANT SCIENCE ANSWER THIS BASIC QUESTION?

DESPERATELY FRUSTRATED in my quest to answer my question ‘what causes life to exist?’ through my scientific study I started to analyze deeper by asking this analytical question,


When I encountered this question my life just figuratively turned upside down. All the while I thought I was smart enough but here I am asking this seemingly stupid question. Every time I start studying back from scratch I can’t really avoid asking this question ‘WHY DO I KNOW THERE IS LIFE?’ so I finally convinced myself right there and then that if this question is a derivative product of a repetitive logical process then THIS QUESTION MUST BE A LOGICALLY RELEVANT QUESTION AND AN IRREFUTABLY PLAUSIBLE ONE so once again I’ve gathered up my loins and embarked on a logical journey without a sure destination. I started solving this problem by identifying my LOGICAL CONSTANTS and my logical constants had led me to these analyses;

Knowing requires PERCEPTION for without perception it is impossible for any consciousness to know anything. Anything that any consciousness perceives MUST have a very ESSENTIAL quality, EXISTENCE.

During those times I still was a skeptic atheist so naturally my concept of existence is strictly confined to what is PHYSICAL or MATERIAL then all of a sudden like I was struck by a DEADLY LIGHTNING the atheist in me was SHOCKED DEVASTATINGLY by my the next derivative question;


I was really caught by a VERY SHOCKING SURPRISE that literally VIOLENTLY SHATTERED my whole intellectual being. The question posed an EXTREMELY DIFFICULT CHALLENGE for me to obligedly undertake. I did not really expect that my logical quest would brought me in a position where I am now asking the root of all basics.


The deep feeling of frustration that I encountered during my study of the Miller-Urey Experiment was even compounded tremendously by this one. All the while I thought I owe my existence to my ape ancestors through evolution because I was an atheist back then but now here I am asking a question that is even WAY BEYOND the theory of evolution and even WAY BEYOND the origin of life.

I was literally on the brink of LOSING MY SANITY. I became EXTREMELY CONFUSED and INTELLECTUALLY DISINTEGRATED. My feeling of HOPELESSNESS was starting to creep into my whole being. I FELT AS IF I WAS LEFT SO CLUELESS.

Nevertheless, I still embarked on an attempt to answer this question. I told myself I have already reached the POINT OF NO RETURN and this is the BOILING POINT. I told myself that I must find the answer to this question before I finally DIE. The sense of urgency was there and time is of the essence.

So the question was ‘WHAT CAUSES MATTER TO EXIST?

Once again I finally come face to face with an old familiar term, MATTER . In my re-study of matter I have discovered that it’s NOT the atom that is the smallest particle of matter which I formerly thought it was. It’s NOT even the dense nucleus and the electron cloud that surrounds it that comprises an atom that is the smallest particle of matter. It’s NOT even the proton, neutron, electron, neutrino, etc. that elementary composes matter because there are still smaller particles that composes them which are the leptons , quarks and gauge bosons . To date, modern advancements in physics and chemistry have NOT YET found what really the smallest particle of matter is. In fact, much complicated and advanced scientific and mathematical research has yet to be done with the discovery of a yet another SMALLER particle which is the Higgs boson .

The discovery of the Higgs boson prompted some scientist to HYPOTHETICALLY name it “the God particle” and up until now much scientific and mathematical research has yet to be done to eliminate much scientific SPECULATION surrounding this elementary particle of matter due to its scalar field nature.

The SHEER DESPERATION of the atheist in me has now turned to full blown HOPELESSNESS. The science that I initially thought would provide answers to my questions and the science that shaped my atheistic beliefs has now become a quagmire of hopeless dead-ends and an infinite compounding factor for more questions than answers. At that point I finally admitted to myself ‘IF I HAVE PERSONALLY PROVEN THROUGH ADEQUATE SCIENTIFIC STUDY THAT SCIENCE IS UNDOUBTEDLY INSUFFICIENT TO ANSWER LIFE’S BASIC QUESTIONS THEN WHAT WILL?

The boastful and confident atheist in me has now become a merger and confusion of virtual insanities. The collapse within the ego was like the wrath of a strong tempest destroying all that is to destroy within me. Its like a mind-shrinking mental asphyxia that is slowly eating me up to my bitter death. WHERE DO I GO NOW? WHAT DO I DO NOW WITH MY QUESTIONS? AM I JUST GOING TO ACCEPT THAT LIFE AND EXISTENCE AN ILLOGICAL PHASE OF RANDOM ACCIDENT? WHAT WILL HAPPEN NOW TO MY QUEST TO FIND THE ULTIMATE CAUSE? THERE MUST BE A CAUSE FOR EVERTHING THAT EXIST IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE NO CAUSE!!! THAT’S ILLOGICAL!!!

Knowing that science CANNOT answer my logical questions about existence and being at its ultimate sense I started looking for reasons OUTSIDE human science which I have already proven to be INSUFFICIENT and ESSENTIALLY SUPERFICIAL due to its obvious LIMITATION. I said to myself maybe I can find the answers to all my questions in a perspective OTHER THAN the scientific perspective so I started to look for VALID CLUES which led me to look at SUPERNATURAL perspective at an OBJECTIVE approach.

During those times I still was a nominal Roman Catholic so I started to look for those “valid clues” inside the cult that I was brought up with. I joined a Catholic Charismatic Community named “Bukas Loob sa Dios” and paid huge sums of money just to join their retreats and seminars. I joined their Singles Encounter Seminar and paid 1,000 Philippine Pesos for it and also joined their Family Encounter Seminar wherein my parents paid 4,000 Philippine Pesos because it was a package deal which includes all my family members. I also became very active in church. All of a sudden I started listening to what the Roman Catholic priest has to say during the mass in my hope to hear ANYTHING that would give me even just a minuscule clue for me to have a valid logical precedent to my questions BUT MY SEARCH PROVED TO BE VERY MUCH FUTILE. I joined the Life in the Spirit Seminar FIVE TIMES and paid relatively substantial amounts of money for it in the Roman Catholic Parish Church where I belong but ALL WERE JUST EXERCISES IN FUTILITY. ALL I GOT FOR ALL MY MONEY AND EFFORT WERE MEANINGLESS CULTIC RITUALS AND EMPTY HYPNOTIC STORIES CALLED SERMONS ALMOST AS GOOD AS SOOTHSAYING. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS JUST A BIG SYNDICATED MONEY-MAKING MACHINE CATEGORICALLY DEVOID OF AUTHENTIC BIBLICAL DOCTRINE AND IS VERY MUCH INEFFECTIVE IN EFFECTUALLY EDIFYING ITS POOR MEMBERS, THUS, IS VERY MUCH INEFFECTIVE IN PRESERVING HIGH MORAL STANDARDS OF ITS MEMBERS ONE PROOF OF WHICH IS THE HEAVY INFESTATION OF GRAFT AND CORRUPTION IN THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT DESPITE THE CLAIM THAT THE PHILIPPINES IS THE ONLY CATHOLIC NATION IN ASIA (I USED THE WORD CATHOLIC INSTEAD OF CHRISTIAN SIMPLY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS CATEGORICALLY A PAGAN RELIGION VERY MUCH NOT CONNECTED WITH THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE).

From then on I started to look at religion on a much LIBERAL approach. I started studying religion other than that of the Roman Catholic pagan religion. I started with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and enlisted in their bible study program but MUCH TO MY UTTER DISMAY they started to persuade me to buy their books even if we are not even halfway yet with my bible study so I immediately came into the inevitable conclusion that this religion is actually in substance a money-making syndicate just like the Roman Catholic pagan religion is.

I hopped from one religion to another in search of the “valid clues” that I have been searching for. From the very politically influential cult founded by Felix Manalo called Iglesia ni Cristo which I eventually found to be a BIG FAKE, to the different non-denominational anti-religion Born Again fellowships like that of the Jesus Is Lord movement of Bro. Eddie Villanueva and that of Mr. Pat Robertson of The 700 Club fame. ALL OF THEM CLAIMING TO BE THE EXCLUSIVE BASTION OF GOD’S GRACE AND SALVATION WHICH IS ACTUALLY A VERY BIG LIE!

In my search for those clues with all those religions that I have searched up with I noticed that almost all of them QUALIFYINGLY USE a common FIXTURE of faith that is also HYPOCRITICALLY being used in the pagan religion which I came from which is the Roman Catholic pagan cult. I started noticing an old familiar object that almost all of them are claiming to be the exclusive source of their religious doctrine with the exception of the Catholic Church wherein they heavily use INVENTED doctrines instead. I STARTED NOTICING THE BIBLE.

During those times my focus is more on INSTITUTIONS rather than OBJECTIVE CAUSALITIES in looking at religions. I never really thought the BIBLE has a very big “SOMEWHAT” influence with these religions so I started researching about the BIBLE.



My VERY IGNORANT thoughts about the Bible before my critical study of the Miller-Urey Experiment was that ITS JUST A MEANINGLESS PIECE OF LITERATURE WRITTEN BY AN ANCIENT ABORIGINAL TRIBE SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ITS JUST A COLLECTION OF EMPTY DELUSIONAL HYMNS AND RIDDLES ABOUT A CREATION MYTH. I never really looked at the Bible in an equal objective footing with those science references that I have been using. Maybe if I will momentarily change this kind of approach with how I look the Bible and allow objectivity in studying this book FREE FROM MIND-SHRINKING ATHEISTIC BIASES that I can get something meaningful in my quest to answer life’s basic questions.

Once again I embarked on a logical journey with the Bible as my focal point of reference with science as a corroborating supplement. I studied its history and how scholars computed the dating of the Bible. I also studied its authorship and how the Bible came in the form that we now know it to be. I started to skim through its pages trying to get a glimpse of what its contents are.

The odd thing was as I read the Bible my initial expectations regarding the Bible that it’s just a collection of PRIMITIVE DELUSIONAL HYMNS AND RIDDLES were slowly being replaced by a gradual realization that THE BIBLE IS A HIGHLY RELIABLE ARCHIVE OF HUMAN HISTORY.

All along the while I thought as I read the Bible that it was only all about human history that has yet to be archaeologically verified but as I read it further and further I slowly became drawn with how the Bible was written in a very detailed manner with a strong thematic cohesion and articulation despite the fact that the Bible took almost 3,700 years to be completely written by more than 40 different authors in different time periods with a time difference ranging from 50 years to a whopping 3,500 years!

The EXTREMELY CHILLING part was when I have read Bible passages that were PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for any human being living during those times to have known that were later discovered by modern science after thousands of years to be scientifically accurate. One very good example was that written in the book of Isaiah chapter 40 verse 22 which reads;

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:” (King James Version)


No comments: