Friday, January 15, 2016

Can the God particle save Science? - Science rules the world, but it contains serious Math mistakes.

You may ask why I stated this question: Can the God particle save Science? Yes, Science rules the world, but it contains serious Math mistakes which allow for the "God of the Gaps" to rise again.

It is common today to deny the existence of God, by using Science. In fact, Science is so secure in its primacy that only the orthodox Muslim religion denies it outright. If God wanted to keep his flock from questioning Him, He should have given them smart phones! Religion still tries to convince their dwindling followers that God can fill the gaps of Science.

Inexplicably, Science already knows that the whole universe was created 13.82 billion years from a point which they name a Singularity. This word is just a disguise to explain how an impossibly massive point with no dimensions could create the whole universe in a matter of seconds. After giving up their unsupportable 6000 year old Genesis, the Judeo-Christian Church has jumped at the chance of calling this science-gap: God.

In 1964 Peter Higgs rides into the fray with his God Particle. Due to the mistakes of QED and QCD, there needed to be a particle that would give matter to other particles. In that same year, Murray Gell-Mann had supplied the other patch to the defects of Quantum theory by inventing still smaller particles that are purely theoretical by taking the name "quark" from Finnegan's Wake which itself is a neologism.

The Cern LHC had to justify its expensive existence, and the God Particle needed to be found. This deus ex machina saved the day! The God Particle has no charge or spin; and it is not the last of more weird particles that are needed to fill up the Standard Model. The still elusive graviton, which imparts gravity, is still expected to be another God-like particle that keeps us from floating into space like the Rapture.

But Science is flawed. There are math mistakes of Euclid, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, and Heisenberg. It turns out that all these smug Masters of Science could not do simple Math! They never took the time out from pontificating about the power of Science to review their own Math or those before them. Their erroneous Math has caused rockets to miss their expected orbits and created an absurd Quantum world that is like Alice through the Looking Glass. They made up myths to make the world conform to the Math errors and then when the Math rules needed to be violated, they used "renormalization" to cover up the mistakes and conform with their misguided experiments, like "double slit."

I recommend visiting the site http://www.godparticle.xyz/ that was set up for Miles Mathis which corrects the math mistakes of the Masters. Perhaps the corrected equations can throw more light on how "Nothing came from Something."

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Child Blessed by Pope Dies - Good God, cannot the Pope even heal a child!

Thoughts on our belief in Jesus' healings.

The headline tells it all: "Young Pennsylvania Boy Who Was Blessed By Pope Francis Dies -
Landon Vargas, 9 - battled cancer for five years." Pope Francis blessed him in September 2014. Should this not be enough of a proof that the Catholic Church is a sham, when even the representative on earth of Jesus Christ, the beloved Pope, could not save him!

Think about how the concept of Jesus' healings is one of the main reasons that we believe that Jesus is the Son of God (or God depending on your Christian belief).

Here is the count for the 26 healings by Jesus in all:

  • Peculiar to Matthew: 2 
  • Peculiar to Mark: 2
  • Peculiar to Luke: 5
  • Peculiar to John: 4
  • Common to Matthew and Mark: 1
  • Common to Matthew and Luke: 2
  • Common to Mark and Luke: 1
  • Common to Matthew, Mark. and Luke: 9

It is important to note that there is no healing that can be corroborated by all four Gospels.

I must digress for a moment to talk about the only miracle common to all four Gospels, which is not a healing at all:

The "Feeding of the Five Thousand" is precise on the amounts, namely 5 loaves and 2 fishes

  • using the world's population in 2015 which is 3.5 billion and divide it by 5 and 2 
  • (thus 7,300,000,000/5 = 1,460,000,000 and 7,300,000,000/2 = 3,650,000,000)
  • which means that we would need 1.5 billion loaves and 3.7 billion fishes to feed the world for a day. 

Of course, you make the objection that this figure is wrong because it includes non-Christians, so reworking the figures:
  • using 2.18 billion Christians divided by 5 and 2
  • (2,180,000,000/5 =  436,000,000 and 2,180,000,000/2 = 1,090,000,000) 
  • which means that we would need 436 million loaves and 1.1 billion fishes to feed the Christians for a day.
(The "Feeding of the Four Thousand" is only corroborated by Matthew and Mark there it took 7 loaves and a few fishes, so this would would be a less effective method to feed the world.)

You may laugh at me for the precision, but ask yourself why all four Gospels would be so precise in these figures. It must be either literal or a metaphor. (Actually it is indeed the latter describing the precise structure of the Christian organization.)

So do you believe that, if Jesus Christ was here today, he could feed the world for a day if we offer to give him 1.5 billion loaves and 3.7 billion fishes? In Genesis, God ejected Adam and Eve from the Garden for eating one apple (fruit) perhaps because he knew that, after his creation of Eve, that his Garden would have run out of food too quickly.

So is it not true that you believe the "Feeding of the Five Thousand" to be a metaphor to back up the saying in the Sermon on the Mount: "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them." (continuing to quote Jesus' rhetorical question) "Are ye not much better than they?" Matthew 6:26?

You must admit that you do not expect God to make the crops grow because, contrary to the ancient peoples who prayed to their gods for a good harvest from a few seeds stuck in the ground, you know that it is the factors of rain, sun, good soil, machinery, and hard work that fills the barns with grain. In fact all you have to do now is go to the grocery store to get your food; for the rich it is even delivered, cooked, and served! God has no part of this anymore.

After my digression, it is only Christians like the Christian Science Church who expect healing to come from belief in God. Christian Scientists believe categorically that Jesus Christ did heal, even though many, like my grandmother, do not mind giving it a little help with doctors and medicine. Christian Science practitioners are paid like doctors to heal people, but tax free! Jehovah Witnesses and certain Evangelicals have their own concepts.

I believe that it is wishful thinking that makes us hold on to Jesus' healings because it allows us to live in a world beset by many errors in our DNA makeup and a Pharmaceutical industry that believes that the poor are not entitled to medicines.

Let us suppose that you give up the belief that Jesus healed and to presume that these healings were a metaphor like the "Feeding of the Multitudes". (The healings are in fact metaphors as the Pesher of Christ  proves.) Would you still believe that Jesus' death on the cross made sense? Note the contradiction that if Jesus could raise Lazarus, who was dead for four days, why he could he not just walk away from the cross after they took him down? (He was in fact still alive, but that is not important to this conjecture.) Jesus' atonement for our sins would be accomplished and he could continue teaching his disciples. One year of teaching according to Synoptic Gospels or three years in John's Gospels is not really enough to properly found a new religion!

Oh, I guess, I forgot his one last miracle: his Resurrection, which he did while he was dead! So does our belief in Jesus' miracles and Resurrection not speak to our fear of death. Does God or Jesus Christ save us from death? No, we all die and Jesus did not prove to us that there is a Heaven.

Sorry I woke you, you can go back to sleep now; but if you are troubled by nightmares of dying from a painful death, try learning about the Pesher of Christ. It will not save you, but it will allow you to step out of the Matrix; or, at least, its detailed inductive reasonings will help you get to sleep quicker.

Friday, September 25, 2015

Pontifex - the new mask of the corrupt Church - Thoughts on the visit of Pope Francis to the USA

Pope Francis is all the rave. He speaks like a Pope should. He lives like a Pope should. He is the representative of the Catholic Church, but has his Church changed? No! It is big business. People donate money and it pays the salaries of men who are still allowed to molest children, it still opposes condoms, which would raise women out of poverty and prevent the spread of AIDS, it insists that not only must a girl accept her rape, but be forced to have the child of that rape, it denies the LGBTQ community, it supports the misogyny of Paul and Peter by not allowing women to be priests, and so on. Are these the purposes that Jesus intended for his Church? Of course not!

The reality is that Pontifex has no more power than the President of the United States: his Congress opposes him also. This just another example of Democracy in action. He was made Pope to pretend that the Church cares at a time when Catholics are fleeing the Church. I suspect that he will be assassinated at the appropriate time (easy to do, like with JFK with an open car). Then he will be sainted and all will be well with the Church again.

Meanwhile, I applaud him because he is willing to set a standard for what the Church should be, even if it is not. Sometimes it is important to accept the hypocrisy and not try, like Elizabeth Warren to believe that it can be changed, but to be a Bernie Sanders and accept the role of figurehead i.e. President of the World. Change comes only from a paradigm shift, which is larger than any individual, even Jesus.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

God is not the Creator: Lobsters, Starfish, and Terns prove it

So many apologists for God, try to make the case for Intelligent Design to try to coopt Science, but the proof that God the Creator does not exist can be found in lobsters, starfish and terns. Lobsters may be able to live forever, starfish can regenerate themselves, and terns don't even demonstrate diminished physical abilities as they age.
If God were able to create organisms that can live forever and not suffer from old age, why would He neglect to endow these abilities to his premium creation: Man?
Clearly the writer of Genesis was bothered by this fact of short lives and pretended that Adam lived to 930 and Noah beat him out with 950. After Noah, when we reached real historical people, the life spans went down drastically. In the Bronze Age, the average life span was 26 years, in 1900 the average was 31 years, in 1950 the world average rose to 48 years, and now it is almost 80, with 120 years being the limit.
Using biological science, we know that humans grow old because of telomere-shortening. Telomeres are "the caps at the end of each strand of DNA that protect our chromosomes, like the plastic tips at the end of shoelaces." At some point the telomeres are so short that the DNA strand dies. There is an opposite process called "telomerase" which adds to the telomere. The creatures that have telomerase live longer and do not age.
Of course, there is now a rush to discover how to manipulate telomeres and telomerase to increase the human age, but it appears that lobsters, starfish, and terns have figured this out already. One can predict that by the next century, Science will be able to outdo God the Creator.
If God created man "in his image and likeness" (Genesis 1:27) then he must have died long ago. Think about it!
References to: LobstersStarfishTerns

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Thoughts on the Arguments for the Existence of God

After reading Arguments for the Existence of God at the site: "The Basics of Philosophy", these are my thoughts on the pros and cons of proving whether God exists or not:

The Ontological Argument (Attempts to prove the existence of God through a priori abstract reasoning alone)
I thought that this should be posited as rather a goal of higher morality or a higher society but not God. A person can only make a moral judgement if they have the intelligence to foresee its outcome in an altruist way. Unfortunately, the person is subconsciously acting from morals that were taught to him/her and therefore they may not be perfect. These teachings may be nationalistic or ethnic, but the worse offender is religion that contains so-called sacred writings that can justify every immoral act in the name of God. Therefore it is imperative to set the goal of of higher morality or a higher society. Such a goal would be like a God, but it would vary as our understanding of what is right evolved.

An example of the need to readjust our moral views is on "recycling". We used to think we could just pile it into a landfill or barge it into the ocean, but this is now morally wrong because it would contribute to a quicker destruction of our planet. Since the Ten Commandments and the rules in Leviticus do not address this issue, there would be a need for another Moses to get this written down from God.

The Cosmological Argument: (The argument that the existence of the world or universe implies the existence of a being that brought it into existence (and keeps it in existence)
Although it is true that current theory cannot explain how the universe began, it can specify a possible point in time. The same is true for organic life. Both may just have occurred according to probability. Clearly, probability is the norm in quantum mechanics.

I would not agree that a beginning and possibility an end is a God-like concept because why must we not live forever? There are possibly an infinite amount of planets that can support an infinite amount of people, so population control cannot be the reason for why we die. In fact in another hundred years, we will accomplish what God has failed to do and allow us to live forever. To this I would say, "God help us, if the rich will be the survivors!"

The Teleological Argument (Intelligent Design) (Suggests that the order in the world implies a being that created it with a specific purpose (the creation of life) in mind.)
I cannot agree more with the cons!

The Moral Argument: (Argues that the existence or nature of morality implies the existence of God)
The Kantian Moral Argument is an important consideration because without a reward for being good in the next life, why should we be good now. This is what I personally think is the problem with atheism. However, I do not think that the presence of a God is necessary for an afterlife. I believe that the quality of one's emotional life and one's mental life has the possibility of creating a Soul that can survive death.

The proof for survival does not come from Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. The problem with this story is: why did Jesus ascend if he still had his physical body? It would have made more sense to stick around and direct Peter and Paul. (Instead it is more logical, as the Pesher of Christ proves, that Jesus survived the crucifixion and did exactly that. The Gospel of Mark ends with him being seen alive in the burial cave!) The Eastern religious belief that you exist from reincarnation seems more feasible, but it does not appear, at least for ordinary people, that the soul being transmigrated is the real you.

The philosopher G.I. Gurdjieff, although having a strong belief in God, suggested that an astral body and a Soul can be built inside. The only proof to this is to measure one's growth from moral decisions in the creation of an Emotional Body (astral) and the growth of the thought processes that lead to an Objective Understanding (soul). The Emotional body does die eventually after the death of the physical body, the the Soul is eternal. Such a possibilty does not require a God, but rather a construct of what a perfected Soul would be if it were God. This belief, at least, gives hope that life has a purpose beyond producing other life. The scientific concept of multiverse (or meta-universe) does alow for this possibility.

As to the rest of the Arguments, I dismiss them because Religion as preached to today is built on lies and exclusion. If there were a God of Christianity why would he allow there to be so many Christian sects?

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Nones-Dones: the new non-religion

Hello Nones-Dones (Religion checked None or Done with Religion) and those who are joining us,

Let me tell you a story of the non-God. A Googolplex ((10**(10**100)) is the highest number that we can imagine that is less than Infinity, and you might say that is the replacement for God. (Google would like that!) The evidence of science conjectures that once upon a time a point the size of a fraction with a Googolplex as a denominator suddenly became our universe consisting of matter and energy (light and dark matter) in an event that had a probability of occurring equal to a number like a Googolplex. (Note: It is important that we do not use the term Infinity because in Infinity, nothing exists: the "chicken" or the "egg" cancel each other out.)

Perhaps the existence of our organic life shares a similar probability of occurring, unless we find that aliens exist. Then we would have a Googolplex of alien cousins!

Like Einstein we desperately believe that "God does not play dice with the universe," but is there any proof that shows this to be true? On the other hand, Quantum mechanics proves that probability rules. Religious Faith, that requires 'the purposeful suspension of critical thinking', is not going to save us from annihilation and neither will probability.

Clearly, the statement that God does not exist has to be the first step towards positive action. Thus, rather than relying on God to save us from our self-inflicted destruction, we would have the freedom to imagine a society that works together for a common good. Perhaps God would be embodied in such a society, if it were not entangled by laws, money, and selfish actions.

To do so, requires the answers to such questions as: Is the will-to-do-good innate within us? Is it possible to have faith in humankind? Is it possible for the rule of law to be just? Can love be separated from self-love?

Now is the time to grow up and leave 'the house of many mansions' of our Father-Mother in the sky that has trapped us. The 'free will of God' is just a license to commit all sorts of atrocities in His/Her Name. It is time to be accountable to yourself and your own conscience!

We have to stop empowering a few narcissistic personalities, who have used our apathy and the desire of future riches to enslave us. Yet, we must avoid being carried away by those 'isms', like communism or socialism or populism that have failed before. Blind religious belief, technological mind control (commercials) and the fear of physical punishment is so yesterday.

Do we dare to imagine a world where peace and love prevail? Can we restore hope in a future? Let's try!