Signs of Creationism vs. Atheism

As you, the reader can tell, I am touching on a very sensitive subject.  I may put my personal beliefs into this post, but I am not here to pose my belief and painstakingly defend them.  I actually have participated on numerous online debates, and actually, they were very informative.  Not on the actual arguments, but on the argument itself.  I believe at the very core of this debate, can be broken up from coincidence.  I am quoting from the movie Signs:

People break down into two groups when they experience something lucky.  Group number 1, sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence, a sign, evidence, that there is someone out there watching over them.  Group number 2, sees it as just pure luck, a happy turn of chance, sure there are people in group number 2 are looking at those 14 lights in a very suspicious way – for them this situation isn’t just 50/50.  It could be bad, it could be good.   But deep down, they feel that whatever happens they are on their own, and that, fills them with fear.

There’s a whole lot of people in group number 1.  When they see those 14 lights, they see a miracle.  And deep down they feel that whatever is going to happen, there’s going to be someone there to help them, and that fills them with hope.  You have to ask yourself, what kind of person are you?

Are you the kind that sees signs, sees miracles?  Or do you believe that people just get lucky?  Or, is it possible that there are no coincidences?

And guess what the movie title is?  It is Signs.  So the movie is making a statement that there is no coincidence, that there is some forces that watch over us.  It’s a good movie, and very thought provoking, with some constant humor that will make you chuckle.  It’s a good watch.

But what I really wanted to say, is I started a huge debate online with creationism vs. atheism, and I opened with an alternative to what Mel Gibson said.  I started with a word, that I think is the correct word, however it really ticks off atheists, and that’s the word “faith.”  Simply put, I said that in whether or not you believe in a God or not, both outcomes practice faith.  That fueled the fire, but at the very end, where they stopped responding, was when I started being more specific with what I said at the beginning.  I started talking about coincidence, and how for some people, there is never a coincidence, while others there is just coincidence.  And that is what sealed it.  We argued aspects of the big bang, the cosmos, physics, mathematics, biology, what have you.  It all doesn’t matter.  What matters is if you believe in coincidence, or do you believe if there is something more?  So what did I learn?  The Creationism vs. Atheism debate fundamentally is a philosophical debate, rather than the debate on interpretation of various facts that humanity has found.

  • Faith –>  belief that is not based on proof.
  • Belief –>  confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.


  • Do you believe in coincidence, or do you believe there is no coincidence?
  • Do you have faith in coincidence, or do you have faith that there is no coincidence?

All I did was change the word and they were okay with it.  But they literally mean the same thing in this context.

There is something I wanted to explore.  Let’s assume the entirety of Mel Gibson’s analysis.  People that just believe in luck, know that they are alone, and so they have fear.  People that believe in something more than just luck, they are filled with hope.  What would be the implications that this is the case?

The first thing that comes to mind is the life cycle of empires.  In Sir John Glubb’s essay, The Fate of Empires, he talks about societies that do not believe in a God or Gods.  Which means, that according to this analysis, many people were in the state of fear.  And in this state, it makes us make decisions and do actions that would be different if we were not scared.  Now when looking at that work, there is no doubt that the US is in the Age of Decadence.  Which means, there is an increasing amount of people that are not God fearing people, which means they are scared.  Look at our society?  Fear begets fear.  It seems like it’s a snowball effect.  The media pumps out fear, and we like it because we are scared.  I’m not really sure as to why that is.  Why is it, that when I am scared, I enjoy watching things that make me scared?  I just know from personal experience, with me as well as other loved ones – they were scared, and they expose themselves to fearful stuff.  I do not necessarily understand the psychology of that to be honest.  But it also makes me wonder, what kind of society would we be if we were not scared?  What policies would we put into place?

Personally, I do believe in a God and a spiritual realm, but I have problems with particular views, however I haven’t really put in the effort to resolve these problems in either outcome.  But I feel that’s where a lot of people lye.  They are spiritual, but they do not put effort into that spirituality.

In any case, that one scene in this entire movie, encapsulated what I have learned is the core philosophical argument with the creationism vs. atheism debate.  If someone, on a philosophical level, can refute one side and prove the other, I would argue it would be for sure the best philosophical find ever, and one of the biggest intellectual leaps humanity will have ever done.

Thanks for reading!  Post comments!




The Possible Decrease of Poverty

There are many solutions to a problem.  It just it seems to me that my idea seems sound, not just by me being biased that it is me, but I see the evidence of it around me where I live.  Poverty is a problem, and when people are faced with survival, they will break the law in order to get the things they need in order to survive.  This is not the case with all crime, but a large portion, it is the case.  I firmly believe that with the money that this country has, there should absolutely be no person living on the streets.  Not only should one consider the entire budget of The United States, but consider as well the printing power that this country has.  People don’t like the idea of paying for someone else to live; they would rather have their tax money go towards other things, especially considering how little reading people do on poverty.  People figure that you can just take things into your own hands, and just get out of poverty.  Since the majority of people in poverty stay in poverty, they are perceived to deserve to be there because they do not have the ability to get out.  The whole premise of our economy, our philosophy of it, is that people with more ability should be paid more.  So if people don’t have the ability to get out of poverty, then they should stay there.

But I just argue it is the decent thing to do, and we have the money to do it.  People don’t trust the government, as they should, but I think this would be a key point to use the power of the government.  Church’s do wonderful work, but they don’t have the capital to do what I am proposing needs to be done.  Private charities I just do not trust for the life of me.  The profit incentive is just too much with those organizations, and exploit their message to make more money for themselves at the expense of the people they were paid to help.  This is why I think the government is the only entity that can really pull this off on a national level.

I have found a basic relationship where I live.  There are extremes in income levels throughout the city and county.  What I have found, is that the neighborhoods seem to be in conditions accordance with different schools, and the better the schools create better neighborhoods.  It’s a symbiotic relationship.  Meaning, both entities influence one another in either a positive or negative way.  Considering that most schools, not all, are funded by property taxes, it makes sense that better schools create better neighborhoods and vise versa.  However, it is in my belief, that with this system comes a feedback loop in either the positive or negative way.

In regards to a positive feedback loop, good academic performance creates good test scores, good funding, and good advertisement for the school.  It puts the district or neighborhood in demand.  Raising prices, which increases funding for the school.  There is even a district where I live, that actually volunteered to raise prices for the school district.  The community recognizes the strength of education, and wants good education for their families.

On the negative side of things, poor test scores or academic performance, lowers the demand of the district in general.  This decreases the price of the real estate in the area.  With less money being funded to the schools, cuts have to be made, making learning conditions worse for the students, increasing the likelihood of poor test scores.  This makes property values go down, which further impacts the school.

There are other variables that impact property values.  The big one for me that comes to mind is crime.  The problem is crime would be alleviated if people were more educated, because they would decrease some if not most of poverty, by creating people that can land higher paying jobs, which again would decrease crime.  It’s all interconnected.

In short, by increasing the quality of education in all areas, people would be prepared to not only make better decisions, but to go to college, get a degree, and land a higher paying job.  This would create better communities to be apart of.

What is this idea?

It’s really basic.  I think what makes the most sense, if you the reader, were to read my posts on government debt, to print the money required to fund schools in need, and schools that are the center of poverty.  The funds would initially be used to modernize the facilities of the school.  Good electrical, plumping, good gyms, technological science labs, I mean the works.  There would also be money allocated, to hire better quality teachers.  Hopefully there would be enough funds available, to try and keep class size low.  With better facilities, and better teaching staff, it is up to the staff to provide favorable test scores.  I will note, that I think it would be better to teach multiple subjects, rather than just a test.  If you were to teach the kids well, the ACT or SAT would be just another test to study for.  To take the entire year to teach this test, you rob the student’s potential of learning important aspects of our world and society.

Tax payers are going to want the money to be paid back.  Essentially the school should be run like a business.  If a teacher is under performing, make warnings, but then don’t be afraid to fire.  All expenses, including the salaries of administration, should be termed “expenses.”  The profits are then sent back to the government to be paid back in full over time.  The incentive to pay back the government at a decent rate, is to have that money paid back into the school.  Once the government is paid back, (yes there will be instances where schools will fail and should be learned from) the government can take a database of statistics on the program, and ultimately can be used to learn how to attack the issue of poverty further.

It’s a really basic idea, founded upon a basic relationship I have found in my community.  At the very least, I would hope this idea could start a conversation on how to infuse government capital into education.  We spend trillions of dollars for wars, yet we refuse to educate our own people.  And honestly, I think that it is intentional.  As a Rockefellar was caught saying, “I want a nation of workers, not thinkers.”

The only thing we can really do, is express our voice to the people in power.  Honestly, I have lost hope there, but I am going to write to my representatives about this issue.  Ultimately I think what gets a voice in Washington is money, but at least I will have the ease of mind knowing I did what I could to bring an idea that I have to fruition for America.

The Book of Eli Analysis

This is an older movie so I am not too stressed out about spoiling the movie. I did want to take the time to dive into what the movie was trying to say, and at one point the writers view is the core message of The Bible. I don’t think I am even going to take time to summarize the movie.

Eli you learn later is blind. “I see by faith, not by sight,” he is quoted to saying, and he literally can see from faith. He wears sunglasses not to protect his eyes from the sun, but to not show people that he is blind. He has been given special privileges from God so to speak. He took on a task that has taken him over 30 years, surviving off of a wasteland. It isn’t just the surviving from the elements, but from gun fire. The first gun fire scene Eli was literally standing with no cover, and the audience hears bullets flying by. This maybe typical in other Hollywood movies, but this one had a purpose. It was showing that God was protecting him on a more literal level. Not to mention when he gets shot, and somehow by God’s plans, a friend comes and helps save his life.

He takes life and he hates taking it. Probably the coolest action scene is towards the beginning of the movie. He uses his blade. And after he was done protecting himself, he slams his blade with disgust. It’s to show that he follows what he reads. He knows it was to protect himself, but he hates taking the life of another.

What made the movie more interesting was the stance of the antagonist. He wanted to use The Bible as a means of power. By using their faith, they could be more righteous by building more towns, or something to that effect. He wanted to use faith as a means of expanding his power, of having his people follow him. By slanting the word of God, he could control his uneducated citizenship into doing things mainly for himself. I feel considering the statements made in his movie, the writing are showing not only what was done in the past with God, but also what should be done instead.

When I think about religion being used as a means of power, I automatically think of The Crusades and The Inquisition. As I understand it, by using what the bible says about bringing Christianity to all parts of the Earth for the second coming, this justified eliminating or saving the heathens. This created more conquest, and therefore more power. Depending on how you worship Christianity, there are some denominations that have you pay money to help loved ones pass into the after life – in the olden days, you had to pay the priest in order for your prayer to be heard by God. The Inquisition brought fear to the church, a fear that was used as a means of power. You fear the church, you do as the church says. These were once dire moments of our history, but people of God have evolved so to speak. Now through the Christian faith, there are different flavors of worship, but I believe what The Book of Eli said as to the main message of The Bible, is basic but very true.

Keep in mind Eli has been reading this book (it’s in braille) every night for 30 years. He is asked by his friend, the one who saved his life, indirectly, “what did you learn from this book?” Keep in mind she has no concept of God, of Jesus, or Creation, I mean anything. It’s the last Bible on the planet. Eli said, “Do onto others you’d want to do onto you.” The Golden Rule basically. This message is shown through love and caring throughout the entire Bible. I would argue that at some points the love is hard to see – however especially in The New Testament, love is a theme found throughout the book.

On this issue of spirituality, and faith, I think there comes to be two kinds of people that approach this phenomenon on whether or not to worship a certain religion. The first kind, take a leap of faith and believe in that God, to later find the evidence for that religion. The second, are people that require proof in order to worship whatever said God. The main difference that I can see, is for one the second group have to put forth loads more amount of effort to even come to a decision. The first group is able to put their belief into something and not require proof. This is admirable, but did they make the right decision? Only faith will tell.

Eli basically said if you were to remove knowledge of all the various characters of The Bible, and all the various stories, that the main message is the golden rule. Imagine, as John Lennon would say, what our society would be like if we treated others as we would like to be treated. It’s really difficult to be that way in our current society, with how people are vultures with our money. As they should be, because it seems if there is a financial incentive to do something, regardless of the ethics involved, you do it. As I have said before, our society is individualism. You could expand individualism to units of people, like your immediate family and friends. It’s okay to look out for the ones you love, but it is not okay to do that at the expense of others livelihood. People have forgotten that, people have forgotten the message of Eli. I wouldn’t be so against capitalism if it didn’t corrode the souls of so many people that partake in it. We seem to be taught the golden rule, but we refuse to execute that into our lives. Admittedly, that is the hard part. It is much easier to learn of a concept, rather than to incorporate that change into your life. I hope we can come together as a people, rather than be divided. We are so divided on so many levels. But class, sex, race, religion, political ideology just to name a few, we are so separated that we aren’t even an American people. What drives this conflict, is money, even where race is involved. Didn’t this book say money is the root of all evil?

When Eli prayed, he didn’t ask for anything. He thanked the Lord for everything. He will only take that of which is given to him, and what is planned for him, but he will not request it. If we all showed that humility, our world would be a much better place.

“Image no possessions,
Wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world.”

“Imagine” by John Lennon


Image result for naturalism

In this post, I will be focusing on two definitions of naturalism:

  1.  The doctrine that all religious truth is derived from a study of natural processes and not from revelation.
  2.   Adherence or attachment to what is natural.

I’m going to edit the first definition for me, in that natural processes are very important, but so is spiritual philosophy.

When I read about nature, and science, I feel that our universe is perfect.  The common denominator of all things, is energy (Plato’s Lifeforce –> Energy).  I just read that the quantum engine, or QE, is being tested in space by NASA.  Essentially this works by taking the minute energies that are found in the vacuum of space.  Then the device produces thrust, just from being in space.  Infinite fuel, infinite speeds.  Nature is a beautiful thing.

However I have a personal story that has me convinced that nature is where we were meant to be, without the conversation that our ancestors grew up completely in nature.  Growing up I was an extremely happy kid.  I spent literally the entire day being outside, riding my bike unless it was the winter.  Then I was sledding!  When there was no sunlight, I would come home, do homework, and game.  As school became more strenuous, my time outside drastically decreased and I predominately gamed at night.  Towards the end of my high school career, I was pretty depressed.  Now I know this is a basic story, and I refrained from getting very descriptive about my childhood, but multiple factors can explain why I became depressed.  The predominate reason in my opinion, was I was not spending as much time outside than when I usually did.  Part of that has to do with an increase in studies, and another, has to do with my growing attachment to video games.

I have stated this earlier in my blog, but Eric Fromm has a very interesting theory as to overall happiness of people.  Essentially what makes us happy is finding what makes us more human, by finding the essence of man.  The essence of man has no clear definition, but it is what makes us human, what makes us who we are.  Currently, society is idolizing, and gorging themselves with products, services, drugs, and sex.  Well sex is controversial, because there is actually no “disorder” of having too much sex.  Apparently it’s really good to have sex.  But that is besides the point.  We use man-made technology, to the point of worship.  I infer that living in cities, separates us from not only what makes us human, but our sustainability or I should survivability as a person.  If you were to take group A, and put them in nature from childhood to adulthood, there would be less conditions and health ailments as group B, who live in a city.  Simply put, nature is a part of who we are.  We are a part of the biosphere of this planet, we tend to separate ourselves from the animal kingdom.  Which is justified, but we forget how we are connected.  Nature is our true home, but we separate ourselves from nature to make life easier.  Maybe the best way is to hunt for our food, rather than pick up meat at the grocery store.

The planet Earth.  It strives to be in equilibrium.  Considering the vastness of chemical reactions, in both the animate and inanimate world, there is no contention that the Earth is striving for a state of equilibrium.  Not many know this, but every single chemical reaction goes into a state of equilibrium.  It is when the rate of the forward reaction equals the rate of the reverse reaction.  Reverse reaction?  What about iron and water?  Rust?  Wouldn’t that be only a forward reaction?  If you were to enclose the iron and water, theoretically iron-oxide and hydrogen would react in the reverse way to create iron and water.  This can be tested by altering the concentrations of either the products or reactants.  If the hydrogen was reacted with something else, the equilibrium would shift to the right speeding up the rate of rusting (in an enclosed system).

The point in all of this?

Since there are chemical reactions everywhere on this planet, everywhere from the ground to the sky, the result is the planet itself strives for equilibrium within the entire system.  This means, Gaia will induce conditions on the planet to re-stabilize itself in response to temperature change (regardless if it is man-made or not).  That is perfect.  Gaia will always remain until it is engulfed by the sun.

This intricate system of our universe, or reality, is a self-sufficient self-evolving system.  That is perfect.  That is our world.  If we are closer to our world, we are closer to who we are, and we are closer to finding our essence of man.

Thanks for reading!

The Double Helix of Science and Spirituality

To start off this post, I’m going to share a poem that I have written.

“Spiritual Stars”

Man travels through life
Easily distracted by immersive information
The progress of our ancestors
Rests as Man’s foundation
Planting an addiction for answers
Our understanding – blossoming flowers.

The floret never touches the sky
It can never reach the stars
(The universe expands to infinity);
No matter the sacrifices and the scars
Path to Truth has utmost affinity
For Man to rip each others’ humanity.

An honest man looks at history
The Enlightenment the most recited
Men upheld to their ideals
Dividing which once was united
The Church never allowing appeals
Ignoring reason, and what it reveals –

Men ahead of their time
Their knowledge grinds with society
Shedding assumptions of culture
Their deeds proclaimed notoriety
The Church, feeling their credibility will rupture
Men killed in response for all their glory and wonder.

It was times of blood, and the victim was reason
All to keep the established beliefs
Most people blame the irrationality on religion
As a result people suppress spirituality underneath
People strive to make a logical decision
Rather to look onto God with submission.

Humanity does not know for sure,
if there is a God or not
Logic declares each a possibility;
Usually spirituality is negated
Blamed for taking the essence of humanity
Theories constructed, for God is hated
Something at some point had to of been created.

God may not be accurately expressed in our texts,
Could not spirituality and reason co-exist?
What would unfold, with the double helix
of reason and religion?
The floret would grow past the cold mist
When we show humility and make that admission
Our understanding would only depend upon our ambition.

This post will essentially talk about this poem, and well, a specific song that talks about the same thing.  “Science” by System of a Down.  Here is the song and the lyrics:

Making two possibilities a reality
predicting the future of things we all know
fighting off the diseased programming
of centuries, centuries, centuries, centuries
Science fails to recognize the single most
potent element of human existence
letting the reigns go to the unfolding
is faith, faith, faith, faith
Science has failed our world
science has failed our mother earth
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding
is faith, faith, faith, faith
letting the reigns go to the unfolding
is faith, faith, faith, faith
Science has failed our world
Science has failed our mother earth
Science has failed our mother earth

(Sorry for the format issues.)

First, I want to talk about the song specifically.  If you notice, he takes a Platonian view of matter in this world.  “Spirit moves through all things” is like the lifeforce that Plato theorized about.  (Plato’s Lifeforce –> Energy)  Secondly, the message that is trying to be portrayed is that science has hurt mother nature, however I would add science has really benefited humanity at the expense of mother nature.  Not to get too political, but when we have the technology to not only take care of our planet but provide the needs of our society, it is usually shot down simply because of money.  An example of this is renewable technology.  Arguably, it might be that science isn’t at fault, but rather the desires of men.  The desire to maximize an electronic spreadsheet, at the expense of not only the planet, but of humanity itself.

There is a common message, between my poem and System of a Down – in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the poem was inspired by System of a Down.

It’s the idea that not only is spirituality not credible in the realms of science; not only is it obvious to see that spirituality (energy) is in all things; what of the possibility of spirituality being accepted in science?  What about that possibility?

As my poem suggested, the actual ways of the spirit realm may not be expressed in all of the world’s religious texts.  It could be expressed by one, who knows.  The point is that either possibility is an unknown, so why not study objectively with the possibility that spirituality exists?  Furthermore, I pose the possibility that aspects of the spirit realm is actually found.  Wouldn’t finding Truth behind those properties of this spiritual realm, wouldn’t that open our eyes to other aspects of our universe as well?  Thus, looking for aspects of spirituality in science, not only has the same benefit as studying science without it (IF God or Gods are not out there), but prepares humanity for finding something that could climb us ever closer to Truth.  Meaning, if we are open to the idea of a spirit realm, it could either not be true (the same as not looking for spirituality at all), or it could be true and we unlocked another world to our perception.

If we were to find a spiritual realm, the double helix of spirituality and science would be created.  One as part of the other.  And with this deeper understanding, the closer to Truth we would become, having spirituality and science being the genome of our expression.

To close, the song by System of a Down is very artistic.  When the music turns into a different beat and melody, it’s Spirit.  They’re trying to portray the strength as well as aspects of this spirit that they are talking about.  The harsh and grungy sound is science, while the pleasant and tribal sound is spirit.  It’s peaceful, no?

And with that, comes my second attempt at changing how frequently I post.  Again, I am completely open to the concept that I could be flat out wrong, and that others may disagree with me.  I just hope that my reader, that you’re actually thinking along these lines and came up with thoughts of your own.

Thanks for reading!

Plato’s Lifeforce –> Energy



The Ancient Greek philosopher Plato, theorized that there was a life force in all matter on this planet.  However, people knew through working with stone and rock, there were no living parts or systems of these materials.  Since there was nothing to be observed for this theory, there was obviously scrutiny.  Understandably, people wanted observable evidence to this theory than to accept it – which is understandable considering human nature.  Even to this day, physicists and mathematicians create theories without possibility of acquiring evidence, or in other words to test the theory.  The prime example of this is string theory.  It is a mathematical marvel, however physicists are starting to shift to other areas of thought, simply because they want to work towards something that is testable.

Is it possible that we are thinking about this in the wrong way?  After all, all matter was created from energy.  The energy that drives this planet, to make the planet’s systems sustainable, comes from the sun.  The sun is pure energy.  As we learned in elementary school, foliage consumes sunlight, which is then in turn consumed by other animals.  Either by sucking in oxygen, or by consuming the plants themselves, or by consuming other animals that consumed those plants or other animals.  Thus, the food pyramid.  The food pyramid is one of the mechanisms by which the sun’s energy is transferred.

My contention that everything has some sort of energy, and thus is the lifeforce that Plato was talking about.

What about rocks?  They act as transferring heat from itself to what is around it.  In fact, it has been theorized that when energy is transferred through the rock, and it is in a pool of hydro carbons (like pools by volcanoes), eventually the atomic structure of the rock would change.  Why?  Because the rock is becoming more efficient at transferring its flow.  (The Constructal Law)  Look at water.  The movement of water, either by potential energy or by direct energy through the sun, brings about movement to fuel the life on this planet.  Each organism consumes this energy in some way, and is used to create energy for that organism, while its waste is used as energy for other organisms.  It’s a complete cycle.  If one were to consider that the transfer of energy, that substance or organism “has” energy, then there is energy in all things.  There is a lifeforce to this universe, which means Plato was right.

But what other aspects of this lifeforce are there?  I think energy can be expressed in a wave, with a frequency and amplitude.  These different frequencies make things like heat, light, and compounds.  In fact, one could argue that matter is a certain frequency of energy.  With that said, I think anything living, are in tune to these frequencies that energy produces in them and other things.  A common example of this would be dogs.  Cesar Millan, the gentleman behind The Dog Whisperer, has a theory based upon the “energy” of the dog.  Meaning, how does it feel to be around the dog?  The reason why these dogs exert these energies, is because different states of mind metabolize its fuel differently, and changes the physiology of the dog.  The energy of the owner, or in this case Cesar Millan, interacts with one another like two waves coming into contact, creating a resultant.  This “resultant” wave, is the wave that is perceived, and thus is responded to.  In essence, the dog communicates how he or she feels to Cesar, or any owner that is in tune with their dog.  This is possible because the energy is transferred through the air, literally affecting the air molecules.

I would argue the same happens with plants.  If I were to walk in a state or national park, I would feel at ease assuming I didn’t run into predators.  That is because the energy of water, the wind, and trees and plants, provides a sense of relaxation that is not felt anywhere else but nature.  Simply because our physiology evolved from nature.  I suppose if natural selection is true, some time down the line humans would start to evolve to the conditions of the city, rather than nature herself.  I don’t think we would live to see the day.

Therefore, not only is energy in all things, as fuel, but as a means of communication and ultimately influences the perception of living things.  When you go about your day, and you are in the presence of friends and family, pay attention to what you feel like when you encounter them.  It is true, that a bad day may influence these feelings, so I suppose pay attention over time.  Each person feels different, because they metabolize energy differently, resulting in different waves, which against changes the resultant wave.

One might be able to consider that energy can act like a neural network.  It flows through all living and nonliving things, and provides a very subtle way to communicate to everything on this planet.

This is why I do not discredit Plato.  I actually think he was right, and were thousands of years ahead of his time.  It is astounding, to think at the very beginning of our universe, during the big bang, pure energy would shape, provide fuel, as well as a means of communication for the universe entirely.

Thanks for reading!  Feel free to submit questions and comments.  And thanks for sticking with me, I haven’t wrote on this blog for a long time.  I do hope to change that.

Future Contributions

I think in the end I am not going to expect to post regularly on this blog.  At some points in time I may, and some others I may not.  Things have turned to the better or worse, depending upon how you look at things.  I just have not been reading, probably because I am still recovering from my last reading binge.  But on Monday I presume, a book will come in the mail that is hopefully going to teach me adequately on the subject of mathematical proofs.  I miss math, I look forward to it, and it seems to be a new beginning because I am moving past Calculus, hopefully able to find out what next mathematical mountain I can climb.

When I was a kid, I always dreamed I would contribute someway to society.  I don’t mean by contributing to our economy, but more of human knowledge.  There was this problem that I wanted to solve when I was a kid reading about relativity.  I grew up in a Christian background, as my father was an ordained pastor and my mom’s side of the family is Christian as well.  One of the first intellectual roadblocks I had was reading about the evidence of a Big Bang, and the age of the universe.  13.7 billion years is much more than six days and seven nights.  And well, my first attempt to alleviate this conflict was applying relativity.

Basically, if there is a God he would have created the infinitely small universe and it would of been outside of Himself.  He can do this, because well, He is the creator.  Once the implosion happens, and the extreme expansion (inflation) engulfs everything while creating everything, the reference of time between God and the universe would be different.  Why?  I was going to skip this, but what the hell…

If you had a light beam traveling the speed of light, and you had an electron from an explosion traveling close to the speed of light, the original light beam would appear to be traveling the speed of light regardless of the speed of the electron.  Why?  Because the speed of light is a constant regardless of what frame of reference you are in.  Let’s say there is a Creator, who is an observer because He created the infinitely small and dense particle, the electron would be traveling slightly slower than the beam of light.  But wait a minute!  Didn’t we say that the speed of light is a constant?  Yes we did!  This means something has to change, something has to give.  And this is time.  This is the genius of Einstein.

My point, is the frame reference of time would be vastly different between the Creator and the Universe.  Especially considering the speed of the initial expansion.  There is something called Inflationary theory, and it basically says that things exploded crazy fast.  If you think about it, Space has to travel at the same speed, if not faster than the speed of light.  Because as far as we know, space is required for light.  So if space is expanding at an insane rate, time would definitely slow down.  Meaning, more units of time would pass in the universe per units of time of God.

So what does this have to do with the price of eggs?  When I was a kid, I wanted to solve this problem.  I wanted to take the best estimates of various variables, plugging in those values in an equation that I planned to derive or use an older equation for this purpose, and see how much time would of passed for God when calculating times for the total age of our Universe, to the age of the Earth, to when humans first walked on the Earth.  Just to be curious.

Then I would reverse the procedure and the equation.  I would plug in known times (six days and seven nights), to see what the value of these initial variables would have to be (matter).  If there are discrepancies, then could the procedural error of current methods account for the difference of the variables?  I’m sure things would of gotten pretty interesting…

And it is possible that things would not of gotten interesting at all.  It could very well be possible that the numbers would just not make sense, and it would of been a waste of time.  But it would not of been a complete waste.  Learning the physics and the mathematics required to do such a problem would open many doors.  And there is one door that I can hopefully walk through.  And that is theoretical economics.

What I mean by that, is basically theorizing of a system or an economy that is different than Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, and it allows for a better way of life.  It seems that the consensus is that this is not possible for some reason, and I hope to explore why people insist this is the case.

These are two core contributions I would like to make to humanity.  They may not be possible, and it maybe deadweight, but I figure I would learn something in the process regardless of the outcome, which could lead to a meaningful contribution.  The three core disciplines I would have to focus on, would be mathematics, physics, and economics.  And, since I have a new math book coming in the mail on Monday, it would be a good time to get started.

So honestly, this post was for me.  To remind me of this moment, and maybe just maybe things will change in this direction.  But I do hope I continue to push myself and educate myself so that I can one day make some sort of difference.  So I can maybe one day make some original contribution to humanity.

What Now?

So I just wanted to write a post reflecting on the state of this blog.

First I want to say I am pleased, as I am getting more consistent views.  I already have exceeded my expectations when I first started, so I know growth is the only available direction if I keep it up.  I do plan to try and be more regular with posts, it is just it is hard to get material sometimes to write about, and then I have to physically write it.  I do enjoy writing, it is just my energy is pretty limited from the medicine that I take.  That is pretty much why I crank these posts out in one sitting.  It is sort of a shame, because if I were to devote more time in preparing the post it would be at much better quality.  Maybe that is something I will strive towards.

I think I am going to remove the Mushi section.  I really wanted to do that, and I still do, it is just I do not feel like watching an anime right now, let alone an anime that I have already seen.  So, it will probably will never be written.

I have second part of a job interview coming up around the 8th of May.  Where there is money, there are more options for this blog.  It will be something that I am going to think about.  My own domain name would be a must, and there are other options to increase viewership of the blog to receive more feedback.  Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to have the experience of reading constructive criticism for my blog.  So that is something I will think about.

I just wanted to say thank you for reading my blog.  I hope you enjoy reading it regardless if you agree or disagree.  I hope it gets you to think most of all, enough that my blog might churn some very stimulating thoughts, thus leading you to liking my blog regardless of your stance.

Thank you, and I will have more coming your way pretty soon.  I just gotta read the article.  It is on how neurons actually store information!  The very thing that I hoped was found out in a previous post.  Anyways, I am excited.

Till next time.

Ramblings on Human Nature

Recently I have been participating in an interesting discussion about human nature with my father.  And well, it has inspired me to write about it.

Human nature is defined as, “the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind.”  And I suppose the first question to ask is:  Is this nature permanent? 

There are some people who think that this human nature, the essence of who we are, is the same regardless of what is presented to the individual.  That we are always self-centered, always are a part of tribalism, always value individual freedom and gain over other people, and so on.  However, there is an impression with the writer, philosopher, and psychologist Erich Fromm.  He is under the impression that the human mind from the beginning can be changed ever which way dependent upon the values of society/culture around that individual.  In other words, he leans more strongly with the environment in determining the nature of a human being.  This view compliments the view of natural selection.  If an individual is born in a certain society whose genes and environment helps produce characteristics that favors that society, they will undoubtedly produce an individual who is “successful” by the standards created by the society.  This increases the possibility that these genes will be passed down, creating individuals for the most part if their environment allows, more people who meets society’s standards.  It should be noted, that if the favored values of a society and/or culture changes, according to The Humanist and Natural Selection perspective, the values, and therefore key thinking, may change.  An interesting note, scientist did brain scans of violent prison inmates.  They found the circuit that connects the limbic system to the prefrontal cortex, is smaller and therefore weaker.  The limbic system has more to do with urges, while the prefrontal cortex has to do with suppressing those urges in a more acceptable form for the time being.  So is this circuitry created more with genes and environment?  In most cases, people would say both.

Which would mean, that if the genes were to change, as well as the environment, it would be a brewing pot for creating people with a general different perspective on life.  A little of this can be found today at different cultures and regions around the world.  The diet, to the philosophical view on life, whether it is Buddhism or Taoism, to religious views, are all shaped by environment and also genetics.  I have to say, that the theory that has to do with Natural Selection and Erich Fromm both compliment one another in one key area.  That individuals that are successful in that society create individuals who propagate values and philosophies of that society or culture.  And well through observation, that does happen.

I say all of this because it is in my belief that at some point in the future, not necessarily in my lifetime, I believe there will be a Revolution against The United States Government.  The reason why I say this, is mainly because the US Government is increasingly ignoring The United States Constitution.  It depends how The Government is going to play it.  If they are smart, they will change things that are done on Capital Hill while refusing to take certain key liberties from the people.  It could be viewed that the current debate on firearms is a removal of liberty by some, but the Government is pursuing it because there is enough people to back The Government up.  But this is most likely what The Government is doing.  And I suppose I can’t blame them to a certain extent, because the people allow these things to happen because they are content with the lives they are living.

And on this revolution, I hope humanity tries with the understanding of failure, the philosophical view of thought on human nature that suggests through genes and environment, you can create different brains so to speak, that coincides with that society’s values.  Because, I do agree that The United States was successful, it sure as hell was not perfect.  There are many things we could improve upon for humanity’s sake.  Through the nature of my writing on this blog, I do do some reading and research before I write something however probably not enough.  I wonder what scientific studies that have been done on this subject, but I doubt someone totally changed the environment and value system of a young person, as that would not be ethical.  The only way to test these theories, is to try them.  I firmly believe that.  And the possibilities that present themselves if things were changed, have to be considered.  I will share an idea on how things could be better, but a lot of that desire to change and what that change would be has already been discussed on this blog.  But I really do hope other forms of government are considered, instead of the government that was fabricated when The Puritans ran from oppressive England.  They wrote a Constitution with a segment on individual freedom.  It makes sense, because they are writing from the conditions that they were in.  All I am saying is, we should think about doing the same, and obviously, those conditions would be different.


I personally do not like it when someone says, “Scientists just deal with facts,” or something along those lines.  Sorta like stating the facts create their own paths without any effort from the scientist.  But really, there is a lot more finesse that scientists exert when they conduct their experiments.  The key word is interpretation.  So a classic example is a study that I just read about.  Using ice cores, data is showing that carbon emissions were present before a temperature shift.  Now, one interpretation is that elevated greenhouse gasses are a symptom of temperature changes to come; whereas, another might think the carbon emissions help cause the temperature shift.  Could be that the release of carbon emissions has a feedback process that increases carbon emissions.  But the bottom line is that there are multiple ways to look at data, and it is not so clear cut sometimes.

I say this, because I am reading another book on Gaia Theory.  I’ll write a post about it someday as it takes time for me to read and understand the material.

Anyways, part of this book was stating all these various evidences pointing to a sick Earth.  To me, they made sense and the logic was clear cut.  The book stated at one point that the sun is getting even warmer, which is affecting the overall heat.  I remember a person on an online forum that I go to, stated a study that concluded the same thing.  Therefore global warming doesn’t exist, even though it is very possible that there is both a warmer sun as well as green house gas emissions effecting the temperature.

And so in the past I have asked, why the difference in interpretations?

I’ve heard theories about self identity, to the obvious ones about money, to keeping our way of life, to utter denial.  But I think everything boils down to being content with our overall daily lives.  This is also apparent to people who think something should seriously be done about global warming.  Regardless of your interpretations and opinions regarding the issue, for the most part, everyone seems to be content with their overall life.  So why really change it?  That to me is why nothing has been done yet.  Until there is more interruption in the overall lifestyles, there won’t be much action or desire to enact action.  It is humanity’s accomplishment for high standards of living for certain parts of the world population that may determine the futuristic fate of the whole species.  I will be honest.  I am pretty passionate about this topic, that we owe it to our planet and our future generations, to get this Earth back healthy again.  But I’m still watching movies, television, Youtube, and playing PC games.  I’m indulging on the very electricity that is most likely made from fossil fuels, and I like it.  What could I do to get more involved?  How could I put that on my plate, when I don’t even have myself figured out?

So I guess I have reached a point, to where I have read the literature and I have come to my conclusion.  (I will write a post on Gaia Theory when I read more)  I think Global Warming is real, and it has largely to do with man’s influence.  And I think reading about all this knowledge about the Earth really has been both a great and maddening experience for me.  But I haven’t really been able to get active with this issue.  I haven’t even put in effort to find out how I could become more involved.  At the same time, I know it takes action from human beings to get something done.  And I think currently I am in this limbo, where I feel morally obligated to do something about global warming, albeit it is a very large and comprehensive issue.


Because I am content with my life right now.  Even though things aren’t perfect, there really are some nice aspects to it.  I get to enjoy a roof over my head with heating, cooling, electricity, and different modes of entertainment.  I have access to a public transportation system, and an amazing library.  This standard of living, even though it is probably low to our standards, is extremely high compared to other people.  For this I am grateful.  And for this, I think most of us dismiss global warming.  We are content with our lives, the major consequences are not going to be in my life time, so why care?

In my opinion, we owe it to ourselves, everybody on this planet, as well as the beautiful wildlife and ecosystems that encompass this Earth, to do something about global warming.  To me, it just seems the right thing to do.  And so I want to walk how I want other people to walk.  So I am going to make it a personal goal to be more involved and more aware about global warming.

And I hope I at least inspired my readers to think more about this too.