Scientific Proof of God, A New and Modern Bible, and Coexisting Relations of God and the Universe

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

For a Short Time, My Blogging Effort Has Been Replaced By Research

After completing by last blog, I concluded that I need to do some resesrch on the current knowledge of prime numbers. A prime number is a number that cannot be reduced and can be divided only by 1 and itself. Primes, as they are called, are subjects in the field of mathematics.

I had not discussed the prine numbers in my book on The First Scientific Proof of God and will discuss them on this blog because they are important to God's Intelligent Design and my modern creation theory.(The clerver pic is by Reynolds.)

Saturday, October 28, 2006

A System Approach to God and the Universe

My proof of the existence of God is not the only breakthrough in my recent book ---The First Scientific Proof of God. In this book I also show how a finite universe is connected to an infinite God. This connection is shown in Part IIb. This connection is scientific and is made with logic that allows the coexistence of an infinite God and a finite universe. Logic shows us the simultaneous realities of both the infinite God and His finite universe. Deism and a godless universe must thus be rejected. This connection is made possible with a new kind of atom that physical scientists could not find with physical laws. But, this connection could not have been made without this new atom. The new atom is spiritual and cannot be destroyed by Nature. I discuss these spiritual atoms in Part IV. With these atoms, God and our universe are clearly seen to coexist forever. This connection also shows us that God and the universe have no beginning (or end) as many scientists and religions say.

Accordingly, a system approach to knowing God and the universe is now possible through science and mathematics. It will only be through the physical sciences that God reveals the infrastructure that He created to support all life. And, it will be only through the life sciences that God reveals life of all kinds. But, it will only be through human life the God reveals knowledge of life and its supporting infrastructure. So, this special gift of knowing from God implies that in this system all humans have major responsibilities to God.

In this system approach, God is active. This does not mean that God simply appears in our world as Christ and comes a second time to judge people and places them either into a Heaven or Hell, as some Western religions say. Since human knowledge is incomparable with God’s wisdom, the belief that God judges humans is irrational. God is active in a system approach for two reasons. One reason is that God must be assured continually that human knowledge is growing. If it is not growing, it is necessary that God appears in our world as a teacher. The other reason is that God must move all life to another planet when our sun begins to die and planet earth is attracted by the sun as fuel. A system approach will cause change in the world because all religions all sciences will become one. And, life on planet earth will become very beautiful in the near future.

Friday, October 27, 2006

The Sciences Helped the US Supreme Court and the ACLU to Remove God and the Union from the USA

In my ‘October 24' blog, I said that the Laws of Nature govern the infrastructure of life and the Laws of Nature’s God govern life. These two distinct laws were expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Both the physical sciences and life sciences can be blamed for losing God and the Union. The physical sciences lost God because they did not recognize God as the determinate infinite (qua infinite); they did not recognize God as a scientific trinity; and they did not find an atomic system for the universe. The life sciences lost the Union because they did not recognize that God gives natural rights to humans. They did not recognize these rights because they did not accept the Declaration of Independence as a law of the land and thus did not even consider the natural right --- all Men are created equal.

However, a life science, the field of economics, made a critical error when economists interpreted ‘all Men are created equal.’ with the new statement, ‘an equal right to choose.’ This interpretation is a poor improvement. . To improve this poor interpretation, one must realize that life has no end. So, all natural rights of humans must be treated as goals of human life. I argue that the statement ‘all Men are created equal’ in the Declaration can be improved. I improve it with the following statement: ‘all Men are created equal and different.’ Here, I add the pair of opposites, equal and different, to all Men. We see the concept ‘difference’ among all humans because no two humans have the same bodily structure.’ We also see the concept ‘equal’ among all humans because all humans can see, hear, walk, run, think, make identical choices, .etc.

God makes opposites and so does man..But economists destroyed the Union when they interpreted the statement ‘all Men are created equal’ and changed its meaning to ‘All Men have an equal right to choose.’ This interpretation has rationalized the wealth of the rich class, which becomes a reality only if a poor class becomes a reality. Pairs of opposites become a reality only if the coexist. To explain their wealth, most members of the rich class say ‘that’s the way the system works.’ But, this way is not God’s way. Since the human mind lives only in the future, the future must always be made a reality for our minds. Shut down the future and a nation creates highly irrational people. So, I believe that national goals must always exist in a nation. I also believe that the future will become a reality only if economic classes exist. With economic classes, human goals can be established and achieved. But, I believe that the wealthy of today have gone too far with respect to incomes. It is time to limit incomes and destroy the castles.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

In the USA, the Union and God Were Lost About 150 Years Ago

Today, many citizens speak of the USA as a free country rather than a Union. In a free country, they believe that ‘anything goes.’ They also believe that laws made by Congress and the Constitution limit their freedom. The engraved statement --- LAW ALONE CAN GIVE US FREEDOM — on the US Department of Justice in Washington seems to agree with their belief. However, the laws defined by this statement are not arbitrary because the US colonists fought for their independence after England’s parliament imposed arbitrary laws on them.

With the freedom we get from God and the freedom we get from the US founding documents, our freedom comes, not from arbitrary laws, but from ‘natural laws.’ Few people realize that two general natural laws govern all particular natural laws. These two laws were included in the Declaration of Independence and are defined by 'Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.' These two laws can be extracted from God through the things God created. The Laws of Nature are in the infrastructure that supports life. And, the Laws of Nature’s God are in all living things found in the universe. The only way we can know these laws is through science, the field of thoughts that seeks truths.

The pic above shows a mountain that has coal. This coal surround the valley of a town in Pennsylvania named Lykens. I was born In Pine Grove, a town about 15 miles from this beautiful valley. One can see this beautiful valley at a look-out on Interstate 81. The world's richest coal was extracted from this mountain for the people of the Union. Coal was extracted until oil became cheaper than coal. Many coal mines were closed, many miners became unemployed, and many families were broken. The US government did not say thanks to the coal miners for extracting the coal. Instead, the government quietly watched the coal miners become unemployed where they would eventually become a member of the poor class. A quiet government should be a bad sign to all US citizens because government does not always function properly by not securing unemployed people.

Should new ideas or new discoveries in a godly nation cause unemployment and increase the members of the poor class? No, because new ideas and new discoveries are pursued only to produce progress for all people. Those people who support today's US economy are ungodly. So, wake up Americans because atheists are stealing your nation. The US government is not what our founders made.

Within 75 years after its founding, the USA began to become an ungodly nation because it was slowly losing God and the Union. Because of these losses, the USA slowly became a nation in which ‘anything goes’ and 'two-party rulers.' With Lincoln’s assassination, this degeneration accelerated and a laissez-faire economy was promoted. With such an economy, the Union was eliminated completely. Further, Congress never sought the truths needed to identify the Laws of Nature's God or the Laws of Nature. Today, Congress has become an ungodly organization. On Thursday, the Congress shuts-down to go home to seek more money to support his or her party. Power, not serving people, is the primary goal of the US government. Without a Union, two parties control our nation. These two parties destroyed the free nation that our founders built and turned our nation backwards where the people would lose their freedom and again become‘ruled.'

Interestingly, only a portion of the people of a nation is needed to destroy a Union and turn it away from God. This portion is the rich group and the group of atheists. When asked how they feel about their wealth and the poverty of the poor class, they usually say, “That’s the way the system works.” Hummmmm. Obviously, these people haven't thought about God lately.

Monday, October 23, 2006

The American Dream of Making the Current Version of the USA Into a Free Nation Is Over

In yesterday’s blog, I conclude that the development of the first free nation in America failed. So, the development the second free nation in Iraq, with the help of the USA, can also be expected to fail. This is an awful outcome because many Americans have lost their life in the Iraq War. . The primary cause of the failure in America was the removal of God from the US government. However, the cause of failure in Iraq will be different because God was not removed from the Iraq government. The primary cause of failure in Iraq will be the imposition of three religions into Iraq, that is, by dividing Iraq unto three distinct territories (like the States divided the people of the USA).

Clearly, the White House and the Iraq leaders have closed their eyes. Otherwise, they would understand the difference between God and the religions that man make. Creating a nation under God is simple because God never changes. Thus, the people of the new nation can agree that God exists. However, creating a nation under one or more religions is very difficult, if not even possible, because religions have differences. They are not open to change easily because they use scriptures and ‘cast them into concrete,’ often saying that they are ‘words of God.’ God’s words cannot exist anywhere in our world unless God appears in our world dualistic, as a creator and creature. Further, God’s non-discursive language is unknown to us..

When people create a new nation under God, a majority of people can decide to build a natural religion of God that can serve the people, just a military system serve the people. For instance, if the US majority agree with the statement--- all Men are created equally by God --- the US government can legislate all necessary laws needed to govern the people according to the agreement of this statement. The natural religion would consist of agreed statements about an existing monotheistic God.

The religious majority at the time of the founding of the USA was Christianity. This majority became differentiated when Christians built new churches. This division of Christianity, the freedom of religion given to Americans by the Supreme Court, which lures other religions into the USA, and the removal of God from the US government by the US Supreme Court are unquestionably the joint causes of the failure of the USA to build a free nation under a one and infinite God. Unless the US Supreme Court’s removes the separation of the US government and God, ‘the people’ of the USA seek the truths about a one and infinite God together, I believe that Americans can look forward to a continually increasing number of irrational social problems in the future. The recent rise of pornography, from the earlier adult book stores to today’s molestation of children, sex in movies, and Internet sex, are only a few examples of how a nation will degenerate if its people and government are separated from God

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Creating a Free Nation

The USA became the first free nation in 1776 after American colonists found it necessary to separate their godly natural powers from England’s power. Their equal power would build the United States of America based on the social contract theory developed by John Locke. Click. Locke’s theory has two components, society and government. So, the founders created the society first by preparing the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. By July 12, 1776, the Dickinson Draft of the Articles of Confederation was presented. This confederation was defined by Ben Franklin as a perpetual Union. In 1781, the Second Continental Congress began to solve commerce problems among the States until 1788 when the Constitution created a new government. Since the people in Locke’s society must give some of their God given rights to their government, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as its first ten amendments in 1791.

The first free nation in the world developed some very important questions. First, should the US trade, as free traders think, manufacture as Hamilton thought, or farm as Jefferson thought? Free traders won. Hamilton’s federal credit for manufactures lost, and Jefferson farming lost. Second, should the USA have slaves? Lincoln freed all slaves based on God’s given rights but had to create a civil war and was then assassinated. Third, should laissez-faire apply to all socioeconomic affairs? Laissez-faire won and Ben Franklin’s perpetual Union lost. Fourth, should the Supreme Court make social laws? The Supreme Court won and God lost. Fifth, should the US Congress make arbitrary laws? Congress won and God lost again. Sixth, should God and State be separated? Atheists won and believers in God lost.

The history of the USA shows that free traders, bankers, industrialists, judges, and politicians are winners whereas God, believers, and the ‘little people’ throughout the USA are the losers. Free traders and bankers make some US citizens rich and other people poor and make foreign people citizens of a third-world nation. Industrialists make people in other nations slave labor. Judges are making the USA a nation of atheists. And, politicians make US citizens ignorant. Under these conditions, the USA cannot live in the future because no long term national goals exist in the USA. The USA is not a free nation. Don't these winners realize that God did not create humans unequally. God created all men equal and this equality was recognized by the founders when the made the Declaration of Independence. Thus, there is good reasons to conclude that the creation of the first free nation in America failed.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

National Cancer Institute

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) opened in 1937. It is one of the 27 Institutes and Centers of the National Institutes of Health. Its FY 2006 budget is about $6 billion. Click. Its responsibility is the problem of cancer, which is a disease of uncontrolled cell growth. Normally developing cells become specialized and perform functions for living things. Once it is specializing, a normal cell stops its division. Thus, abnormal cells do not specialize. Instead, they continue to divide and rob energy from normal cells.

But, what is the cause of cancer? NCI’s theory is that impaired genes cause cancer. The impaired genes are caused either (1) by internal structural damages of a gene or (2) by external factors such as inheritance, environment, and human behaviors (e.g., smoking, alcohol, radiations of the sun, viruses, or hormone imbalances). However, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski of Houston, TX has a different theory. His theory says that our biochemical defense system, when impaired, causes cancer. The biochemical defense system includes our immune system. The NCI theory is clearly aligned to Darwin’s evolutionary theory. It is also clear that the Burzynski theory is aligned to God’s Intelligent Design of things in the universe. Interestingly, the NCI theory has not been proven. But, Burzynski’s plasteoplastons have destroyed cancer cells. One must thus ask, ‘Why is most of the NCI budget going to the NCI theory?’

One must also ask, ‘Why is NCI developing a theory aligned to Darwin’s godless theory of evolution when I have recently proven scientifically that God exists? At the same time, I also found that God is active in the universe. This activity does not mean that God merely appears in the universe to teach us. In my book, The First Scientific Proof of God, I show that God and the universe are connected permanently through the spiritual atoms I am proposing. So, every cell, normal or abnormal, are connected to God who gives these cells their specialization — structure, function, and energy. Since God must make both cells possible, it seems as though cancer has its origin in the absence of some necessary specialization.

I do not expect NCI to be successful with DNA or the evolutionary theory of Darwin. No two things in the universe are identical. So, DNA coding is a general language and cannot identify things as if proteins are identical. New thoughts on cell theory might begin with an infinite set of functionally related spiritual atoms. All things in the universe must thus begin and grow with another infinite set of subsets (of the set of spiritual atoms). A spiritual atom can be modeled with a geometrical point and no two spiritual atoms are identical.

Friday, October 20, 2006

National Institute of Mental Health

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) was opened in 1949. It is one of the 27 Institutes and Centers of the National Institutes of Health. Click. NIMH deals with health problems such as stress, depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, suicide, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity. Many of these problems occur in the age group 14-45. These mental problems cause other medical problems. For instance, stress and depression can cause heart disease. In its strategic plans and priorities, NIMH speaks of the Decade of the Brain. This decade occurred in the 1990s and developed considerable knowledge about the brain. In the Decade of Translation in the 2000s, with a $1.4 billion yearly budget, great progress is expected by NIMH with the use of genomics, neuroscience, and behavioral science. Click.

Like all other National Institutes of Health, NIMH assumes that Darwin’s evolutionary theory is a reality. Thus, NIMH assumes that the brain is formed of mechanisms, that the mind is a metaphysical form of our brains, and that the brain was formed out of the physical things, which are governed by physical laws. So, God and God’s Intelligent Design is not considered in any NIMH research project. So, I do not expect NIMH to produce anything useful in the decade of Translation.

In my resent book, The First Scientific Proof of God, the human mind is a dominant spiritual atom among an infinite set of spiritual atoms. All spiritual atoms form an infinite number of subsets and form the bodies of all dominate spirits. The brain is thus a spirit with a body. The brain thus functions as an organ for the human mind.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Social Science

The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857) named the field of sociology when sociologists separated themselves from moral philosophy. Sociologists study human societies, their interactions, the processes of change, social status, and social disorders such as crime, deviance, and revolution. Social life creates institutions such as economies, religions, educational systems, and political parties. Social life also creates special institutions such as the family, the community, the military, peer groups, clubs, and volunteer associations.

The early sociologists aligned their thoughts to Darwin’s evolutionary theory. This alignment introduces one to concepts such as variance, natural selection, and inheritance. Accordingly, social science began as an atheistic field of thought when the early sociologists separated themselves from moral philosophy. This godless path of thought continued in the USA and lured many federally-funded students to our colleges and universities after the US Supreme Court and the ACLU began to separate God from State. So, there is a reason why sociologists have not served the people of the USA well. To serve the people well, sociologists must study the Declaration of Independence and recognize in the Declaration that the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle all humans that life which God gave them. God, not Nature, gives life. By separating themselves from moral philosophy, sociologists separated themselves from the Laws of God’s Nature. With my new book on The First Scientific Proof of God on their side, sociologists could turn their minds onto God and the path of man’s future. They could also conclude that their work has not been lost. In fact, their findings of social conflicts could move the USA into a new political science and fairer economy quickly.

Below, I have extracted from Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 deluxe CD a summary story of sociology. I include this extraction so the reader can become aware of how much waste a nation can accumulate if ‘the people’ turn away from God and do not accept their personal and social responsibilities to God. Instead of thinking about the self development of humans through the growth of intelligence and freedom and accepting their responsibilities to God, the early sociologists thought that evolutionary factors, such as the survival of the fittest, changed societies from stages of savagery and barbarism to civilization.

Thus, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, social Darwinism promoted unrestricted competition and laissez-faire. However, prior to WWI, other social theories were sought. But, instead of seeking God, the new social theories considered social factors such as geography (climates, ecology, etc.), social psychology (human instincts, drives, motives, temperament, intelligence, etc.), and cultures (human ability to innovate, accumulate, and diffuse culture).

To become more scientific and distinguish social science from biology and psychology, the French sociologist, Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), argued that human interactions develop new “social facts” such as sentiments, customs, institutions, and nations. Durkheim’s research on suicide was aligned to the standards of scientific inquiry. He considered the social characteristics of individuals (e.g., religious affiliation, rural-urban residence) that reflected the degree of their social integration in the community. Then, he related these variables statistically. Such social facts gave birth to “functionalism.” So, like a physical scientist, Durkheim predicted that specialization and social contracts would develop and maintain societies. Functionalists even thought that a single personality could produce a general disturbance in the whole society.

After World War II, universities developed advances in survey research application, measurement, and social statistics. At the forefront were Columbia University and the University of Chicago. But, a gap developed between empirical research and theory. To become like the physical sciences, societies had to be given a structure on the basis of their functions. This structural-functional emphasis views a society as a ‘system.’ This system survives based on institutional practices such as selecting the most talented and meritorious individuals to meet society's needs. But, this ‘social system’ was viewed as a conservative ideology that represses the weaker groups. This system thus causes conflicts such as the civil right movement. Conflicts were also found in families, an economy, politics, and education. Accordingly, sociologists saw the need to destroy such conflicts. By 1975, growth and optimism in sociology came to an end because the functionalist-conflict debate was dividing the field of sociology. In time, these divisions were institutionalized with the result that the debate was never solved. So, social theory building declined.

Stratification of people in a society is a central concern of sociology. Unlike Europe, sociologists viewed the USA as a classless society with a high degree of upward mobility. However, during the Great Depression, the working people and business people became divided. Further, in 1941, researchers applied anthropological methods and found six distinct subcultures: upper upper and lower upper, upper middle and lower middle, and upper lower and lower lower classes. Furthermore, in Atlanta in 1953, researchers found that a community power structure controlled the agenda of urban politics. And, in 1956, researchers found that a “power elite” dominated the national agenda in Washington, a cabal comprising business, government, and the military.

In 1966, Gerhard Lenski found that the structures the societies of hunting and gathering, horticulture, agriculture, and industry were associated with stratification. In 1960, Marion Levy found that underdeveloped nations would inevitably develop institutions that paralleled those of the more economically advanced nations. But, in 1974, Immanuel Wallerstein proposed that advanced industrial nations would develop most rapidly and thereby widen global inequality and hold developing nations in a state of dependency. Further, gender and racial inequalities and segregation was found to exist in all societies.

On the method of doing social science, 19th-century sociology had no system for gathering and analyzing data. Early exploitation of statistical materials, such as official records of birth, death, crime, and suicide, provided only moderate advances in knowledge. Unfortunately, data were easily manipulated, often to support preconceived ideas. Significant advances in scientific methodology occurred at the University of Chicago in the 1920s when studies were made on the metropolis and its subareas. But, hypotheses were developed during the research rather than being imposed a priori. This nonscientific practice was corrected by theoretically guided research.

Research techniques vary depending on the social phenomena studied. Data-collection techniques differ from participant observation, content analysis, interviewing, and documentary analysis. In this approach each problem studied requires a specific unit of observation, be it an individual, an organization, a city, a relationship between units, or a statistical rate. Even the way a concept is defined can affect data collection. For instance, when measuring occupational mobility, the definition of occupation is critical. But, sociologists still use Aristotle’s method of defining concepts. Apparently, sociologists either did not know that sense data are primarily symbolic or knew it but did not develop a symbolic language for sociology.

Steps must be taken to collect valid social data. Many obstacles can arise, especially on sensitive subjects such as alcohol consumption in a community that prohibits or looks down upon it. In this instance the problem of gathering valid data might be circumvented by counting liquor bottles in trash receptacles or in the town dump. Similarly, a decline in the number of fictional works checked out of libraries has been used to estimate television-watching habits. Unfortunately, questionnaires, while useful for gathering information from large numbers of respondents, are marked by methodological problems. The wording of questions must be intelligible to the uneducated or uninterested as well as to the sophisticated respondent. Topics that provoke resistance must be presented in a way that yields a complete and unbiased response while keeping the interviewee engaged with the questions.

In face-to-face interviewing, it may be necessary to consider the interviewer's sex or race, appearance, manner, and approach. Questions must be posed in a way that does not influence the response. Interviewers must have steps for handling resistance or refusal. Indirect questioning, for example, may yield information that respondents would hesitate to provide in answers to direct questioning. Because of this, information collected through “canned” telephone interviews often leads to lower-quality data and poorer response rates.

Sampling errors and bias both constitute a continuing concern, especially since so much sociological knowledge is derived from samples of a larger universe. Where bias cannot be controlled, its extent may sometimes be estimated by various methods, including intensive analysis of smaller samples. For example, the population undercount in the United States is well known, as are the methods to estimate its extent, but political obstacles prevent the U.S. Bureau of the Census from revealing the undercount. Possibilities for errors arise in every stage of research, and the methods for reducing them constitute a continuing program of study in sociology.

The divide between mainstream sociologists and those devoted to qualitative analysis seems deep and unbridgeable. Qualitative sociologists feel that their work is under recognized and marginalized, even though it deals more with social reality than does standard sociology. Classical sociologists, in turn, feel that qualitative work can be trivial, philosophical, ideologically driven, or difficult to research. In addition, some members of groups who feel exploited (women, blacks, homosexuals, and the working class) assert that social observations cannot be made by outsiders; they believe that only victims have true insight into other victims and that they alone are equipped to do meaningful research in these areas. Minorities and other groups that locate themselves at the margins of society sometimes come together—often by organizing movements within professional societies—to challenge “establishment sociologists.” This results in the direction of more attention, funding, and research to the more highly focused topics.

Finally, since World War II, sociology has exported much of its theory, methodology, and findings to other divisions of our colleges and universities. For instance, the study of human relations and formal organizations was transferred to business schools. And, the study of socialization, institutions, and stratification was absorbed by departments of education. Outside the university, the empirical methods and sociological theory prompted government agencies to adopt a behavioral perspective. Economists widened the scope of their research by introducing social variables to the analysis of economic behavior. In short, although contemporary sociology is divided, it remains a vibrant field whose innovations contribute to its own development and that of social science in general.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

The National Institutes of Health

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has 27 Institutes and Centers. Click. As seen, the first opening was the National Cancer Institute in 1937. Since the NIH has not been very successful on certain medical problems, two new special Institutes were opened. In 1989, the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) was opened to further develop the DNA double helix found by James Watson and Francis Crick. And, in 1999's the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) was opened.. Both seek the answer to medical problems in Nature. The NHGRI seeks the DNA flaws that have occurred as a result of evolution whereas the NCCAM seeks natural medicines in the plants and animals of Nature.

The National Institutes of Health have not been very successful because their common research methodology is the same that physical sciences use. The physical science methodology works with nonliving things in a local area. However, a physical science methodology cannot be used to conduct research on living things or on the universe as a whole. I challenge the methodology used in DNA by NHGRI and the methodology used on plants and animals by NCCAM. I present this challenge because God exists. I prove God’s existence in Chapter 1 of The First Scientific Proof of God. Click. The existence of God changes the way science must view the universe and all things in it. See these different views in yesterday’s blog.

Lots of money has already been wasted by the Institutes. And, more waste will occur if the existence of God is not considered by them. It appears that a created universe can be researched only with set theory, an infinite set of perceiving spiritual atoms, and an infinite set of holistic things. I believe that the failure of the NIH is real and is a problem that must be corrected by Congress. Otherwise, more generations must pass before US medical care improves. The side effects of today's medicines is a sign of NIH's failure. NIH's assumption that living things are formed of mechanisms and that mind and brain is an identity are wrong. Since we now know God scientifically, now is the time for all governmental research units to shift their research methodology.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Both the NSF Scientists and I Cannot Be Correct on the Question, Does God Exist?

Yesterday, I showed that most scientists, who receive research funds from the National Science Foundation, assume that God does not exist. This assumption originates in the schools of physical sciences, mathematics, and biology and the Big Bang and evolutionary theories. My recent book, The First Scientific Proof of God, proves scientifically that God does exist. Who is right, these scientists or me? Below, I show our differences.

1. My universe has indivisible atoms called spiritual atoms. The number of spiritual atoms is unlimited and can thus form an endless number of holistic things forever. They must be studied with set theory where the subsets of spiritual atoms are 2 to the nth, where n = the number of spiritual atoms. Their universe has no known physical atom and, if found, must be limited in number.

2. My universe has no vacuums. They have vacuums.

3. My universe has changing things, which are wholes and have relations. The environment of each thing is thus ‘all other things.’ The NSF scientists have objects, processes, and an environment such as temperature, and pressure..

4. My universe and the life created by God have no ends. Their universe and the life made by Nature have ends.

5. My universe has an active God who appears in the universe. Their universe has no God.

6. My universe is connected to God and His spiritual world. Their universe is purely physical and is not connected to anything.

7. My universe has an unlimited amount of energy from God. Their universe has a limited amount of energy.

8. In my universe, two species are created by God based on His Intelligent Design of the universe. The two species are nonliving and living. The nonliving things are created as an infrastructure for all living things. The only knowledge-building species is the human species. Their universe also has two species, nonliving and living. They are formed by the Big Bang theory. The nonliving species are formed by laws of physics whereas living things are formed by nonliving things and live based on laws of physics and Darwin’s evolutionary theory.

From my perspective, the US Supreme Court and the ACLU have forced the NSF into a castle where it can only produce pseudosciences.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

The Funding of National Science Foundation(NSF)Is Based Only on Atheism

The founding of the USA was based on the existence of God. This truth is found in the Declaration of Independence. This founding of the USA was not an irrational thought because (1) at that time, the proof of God’s existence has not been offered outside of scriptures and (2) at all times, the nonexistence of God or anything else cannot be proven by science. Thus, my recent scientific proof of God is significant.

Since its beginning in 1950, the NSF expended considerable funds to conduct research on those sciences that were not already funded by other governmental agencies. These projects were not based on God’s existence because government’s agencies thought that the separation of State and Church meant that State and God must also be separated. This is a major error in government because separating State and God negates the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, this error forced the NSF to turn away from theological research. However, turning away from all theologies turns one into atheism. This forced turn caused NSF’s funds to be distributed only to any scientist who did not use the terms ‘theology’ or ‘God’ in the funding application. So, in our nation under God, the NSF is expanding atheism.

This governmental error is horrible, primarily because a horrible government and horrible sciences are being built at our colleges and universities. Today, funds from the NSF for biological research projects are in the thousands. Thousands of scientists, colleges, and universities are receiving NSF funds. And note. All biological research projects must connect to the godless evolution framework of Darwin. See synopsis. With these projects, the NSF hopes to show that all humans have physical, biological and behavioral factors, but no spiritual factors. It appears that our scientists must become nonbelievers in God to win funds from NSF. Alarming to the US believers in God should be the NSF project on Human Origins. Click. My scientific proof of God shows that all things in the universe originate in God. It seems as though NSF is wasting huge amounts of taxpayers’ funds.

It is time for people to inform their political leaders of this horrible error. The people must also inform these leaders about how this error is turning the USA away from God.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

The Problems of US Government Investments in Science

The US government became involved in science for the first time in 1862 when Abe Lincoln signed the Morrill Act. The Act gave 30,000 acres to every State for the development of agriculture and related sciences at a state college. After WWII, Congress recognized the importance of finding new sciences. Today, the US government has funded 27 national Institutes of Health, a general science research unit, the National Science Foundation, and many research units at the other federal agencies such as the National Institute of Justice at the Justice Department. Many billions of dollars are spent every year.

Today, this US government investments in these sciences must be challenged. All of these sciences use the scientific method that has been used by physical scientists to develop knowledge of nonliving things. Yet, many of these investments by government are dealing with living things. Can knowledge of living things be developed using the same way that we develop knowledge of nonliving things? My answer is a definite ‘no’ after I discovered the first scientific proof of God and concluded that the National Institutes of Health have many scientific problems and many scientific questions that are not being answered. My proof of God told me that ‘doing science without knowing what God is doing’ is an irrational human act. Further, I conclude that the method used to develop knowledge of nonliving things is not a complete system of thought. So, the investments of the US government in science are troublesome and should be restudied by Congress.

Beyond these challenges some governmental sciences seem to be unlawful. Specifically, the USA is a nation under God. The Declaration of Independence states this fact. What is God doing? is thus a legitimate question for the US government-funded scientists to answer. My proof of God told me that evolutionary theory is a godless theory. Yet, the National Science Foundation, which doubled its budget for five years beginning in 2002, is spending huge amounts of money on the theory of evolution. Click and scan. Also, under God, a systematic biology is useless. click. And, under God, a tree of life is also useless. click. Importantly, any lawlessness in science through the funding of the National Science Foundation is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, many scientists are atheists and might not know that they are acting against the laws of the USA.

Clearly, the Congress must clean up the nation’s effort on science for God’s sake.

Friday, October 13, 2006

Do Science and Theology Form a Single Field of Thought?

Yesterday, I identified a new major world problem. This problem began when scientists agreed to maintain Science and Theology as separate fields of thoughts. In the USA, this separation is supported by two US government agencies – the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences. By maintaining this separation, these agencies divide US citizens in many different social ways. However, as I show in Chapter 1 of my book — The First Scientific Proof of God --- that God exists. This proof is grounded in the philosophy of Not-other/other, which I discussed in six blogs ending on October 11, 2006. This proof shows that Science and Theology form a single field of thought.

One could ask these two agencies to determine whether Science and Theology do or do not form one field of thought. But, the US government is too political to make such a determination. In Part III of my book, I discuss the dishonesty of the National Academy of Science when it biased its recent report on evolutionary theory. So, I believe that only a well balanced and independent Committee of US citizens should make this determination.

I view this world-level problem as important as other world problems such as third-world poverty, terrorism, the production of killer chemical medicines, HIV, drug using, the Iraq War, the development of nuclear bombs in North Korea, the development of police states, the development of rich/poor nations, the national maintenance of criminal rates, the no-solution cancer research effort, and science and technology only for the rich.

Please inform your representatives of this newly developing world problem.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

A Major World Problem

A major world-level problem has been identified by me after my book was published in late June 2006. I detected this problem when I noticed that no comments have been presented by buyers of my book on the and Barnes & Noble Internet book stores. At first, I thought that my book was too different and too difficult. But, I now conclude that this thought was wrong. Today, I conclude that most of the buyers of my book are theologians who desire to unify Science and Theology. Unfortunately, many theologians are not trained in science and might find it hard to understand the scientific parts of my book. I noticed this trend of buying when the and Barnes & Noble book stores reported on those buyers who purchased my book and also purchased other related books. I noticed that these related books deal with theological subjects. The purchases of my book are thus telling me that atheists such as physical scientists, mathematicians, and evolutionists have no desire to read a book that unifies Science and Theology. This desire was noticed by me when a number of atheists attacked me and my book after I opened this Google blog to teach the difficult aspects of The First Scientific Proof of God.

I believe that atheists do not want to hear about my proof of God because all past proofs of God have been based only on scriptures. Thus, these atheists are separating themselves greater and greater from theologies and are thus separating themselves from God. This separation has a bad consequence because the atheists have already lured many life scientists into their camp of thought and into a worldwide market of atheistic ideas. However, my book shows that a science must be based on God. Without God, the atheists can turn any science into an irrational pseudoscience. Such pseudosciences are already found on TV productions and on other forms of media. And, they are found in the increasing irrationalities we observe in the daily life of common people. Examples are as follows: irrational economic activities, irrational social relations, irrational sexual deviations, irrational drug use, irrational killer medicines, irrational political debates, and irrational wars, war preparations, and terrorism.

This world-level problem is agitated by the higher educational institutions of a free nation such as the USA. This agitation becomes real when our public colleges and universities claim to be nonsectarian. To them, nonsectarian means that Science and Theology must be separated just as Church and State are separated by the US Constitution. This ignorant meaning prevents our highest schools of thought from evaluating any book like mine that unifies Science and Theology. The recent closing of Science and Theology News might have run into the same problem with these higher educational institutions. So, US Supreme Court rulings and the atheism of ACLU are transforming the USA into a dysfunctional nation. Since the higher schools of thought in the USA cannot evaluate any material on God legally, I conclude that they are already developing many psudosciences.

Since any rational scientific proof of God will be too strong to be opposed without a military force, the continued efforts of the atheists to separate Science and Theology will eventually lead to jungle-like civil wars in the USA and other free nations. Obviously, a theocracy might be the only secure nation of the future.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Summary of God as Not-other

The writings of Nicholas of Cusa on the symbols ‘Not other’ and ‘other’ develop one of the most powerful scientific methods of identifying God’s created things and building knowledge of them. Aside from studying the teaching of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, I say that the next best knowledge about God will come from this powerful scientific method. Atheistic readers who develop knowledge of things in Nature without this method are only wasting time and money.

Since my discussion of Nicholas of Cusa in my book on The First Scientific Proof of God had to be limited, I teach this powerful scientific method in this blog on this blog and the six previous blogs. In support of this teaching, I recommend that computer-based student act to print Nicholas’ ‘De Li Non Aliud’ from the Internet website of Dr. Jasper Hopkins of the Department of philosophy, University of Minnesota. Click. Further, I recommend that the twenty propositions at the end be mastered.

A few interesting examples of these propositions are presented below.

Proposition 1. The definition, which defines itself and all created things, is the definition that every mind seeks. (This definition rejects Aristotle’s concept definition, which is used today by all sciences.).

Proposition 12. ...Therefore, the creature is the manifestation of the Creator defining Himself ... (So, the universe has no end because God is unlimited.).

Proposition 15. If anyone sees that in an other Not-other is the other, then he sees that in something hot What-is-not-hot is the hot thing. (This means that Not-other is in all things and in a rational way.)

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Not-other, Other, and Science

In the last five blogs, I discussed God as the symbol, Not-other, and God’s creation as the symbol, Other. I did not discuss Science and its use of these two symbols. However, to my knowledge no science has ever used these symbols the way Nicholas of Cusa did. By not using these symbols, I learned why today’s physical sciences are merely polishing current knowledge and why life scientists are no longer real scientists. What has happened to Science?

In the US over the last 35 years, man has reduced real science and increased technology. This technology would be applied to many other fields of thought. For instance, today technology entertains people with computer games as well making food and clothing for them. This cultural change helps individuals who seek riches but do not help most of ‘the people.’ The increased technology reminds me of the increasing inflation of the late 1960s, after the USA landed on the moon. Under political pressure for increased economic activity, President Nixon promoted technological developments saying ‘Americans have always been able to make better mousetraps.’

No science would be in trouble today if they had studied the implication of the symbols, Not-other and Other. They appeared just before Nicholas of Cusa passed on in 1464. At hist time, people did not know that modern science would soon emerge and that these symbols would become the basis of the two-step ‘scientific method of proof.’ This method developed during the Renaissance.

In this method, all inquiries into the unknown begin with a discovery by the senses. This is the first step. Then, the second step must explain the discovery. So, reasoning must be put to work. Today’s scientists assume that this reasoning can be found in ‘other’ rather than in Not-other (or God). For instance, to explain all things in the universe, physicists reasoned that ‘other’ explains them. This ‘other’ thing is a physical particle (the Big Bang). Since the Big Bang is finite, all things in the universe must end due to limited energy. Had they sought the reasoning in Not-other, they would have found God, the Rational Principle of all rational principles and thus God’s Intelligent Design of the universe. There, they would have found that God is unlimited and that all knowing comes from God’s light, the Light of all light. This ‘other ‘light is Christ who appears in our world.

Monday, October 09, 2006

God Originates and Cares For All Created Things

Over the last few blogs, I have introduced the writings of Nicholas of Cusa and the modern symbol, Not-other. This scientific symbol signifies God closely and separates God from the created world in which we exist. Thus, in a created world, all created things are ‘other’ whereas God is viewed as Not-other. Compared with the symbols found in scriptures, these two symbols present God and the creation excellently and as eternal partners. Thus, if Not-other ceases, no ‘other’ things will exist..

Since Nicholas views God as Not-other, Not-other must define itself and all ‘other’ things in the universe. Definition is thus the critical subject. To define itself, Not-other is defined as ‘not-other is not other than not-other. This definition presents the Trinity in its basic form.. To define any ‘other, other is defined generally as ‘other is not other than other.’ All symbols, even contradictions, are defined this way. Different definitions, for example, are as follows: (1) one is not other than one; (2) light is not other than light; (3) eternal is not other than eternal; and (4) good is not other than good. Since God exists in a world beyond the symbols we use in our world, we must say, for instance, that God is (1) the One of all ones, (2) the Light of all light, (3) the Eternity of all eternities, (4) the Good of all goods, and (5) the Contradiction of all contradictions.

Since God’s Intelligent Design requires ‘other’ things for the universe, all ‘other’ things are initially enfolded in Not-other. There, the ‘others’ are unified because God is one and infinite and has no parts. Not-other also unfolds them as many different and related spiritual atoms, which I discuss in Part IV of my book. In this partnership we can say that in Not-other, other is Not-other and in other, Not-other is other. As you can see, God can change every thing in the universe.

Note. The symbolic language of Not-other and other is scientific. So, one must become more scientific if he or she wants to understand God and the creation. One understands if the following statement is rational: in a hot thing, what is not-hot is the hot thing. Also note. The Light of all light begins with God, not our senses. The teachings of Jesus Christ are thus very important to every human.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

God As Not-other V. the Big Bang and Evolutionary Theories and the Theology of Deism

When Not-other is used to signify God, Not-other is seen by Nicholas of Cusa as the origin of all ‘other’ things in the universe. The ‘other’ things exist eternally and cease only if Not-other ceases. Since this God is infinite and is not an 'other' thing, there is no reason for an infinite God to cease.

Not-other can be compared with the God of deism. Its God also originates all ‘other’ things in the universe. But, after originating these things, this God becomes inactive. Thus, the ‘other’ created things exist only temporarily.

Not-other can also be compared with the Big Bang theory in which all ‘other’ things are originated by an ‘other’ thing called a physical particle. These ‘other’ things also exist only temporarily because the physical particle was energized only with a finite amount of energy.

Finally, Not-other can be compared with Darwin’s evolutionary theory in which the origin of ‘other’ living things is originated by ‘other’ living things called ancestors. These ‘other’ living things said to be originated by ‘other’ nonliving things that are originated by the Big Bang physical particle. Since the amount of energy for all ‘other’ living things is limited, they also exist only temporarily.

As seen, Not-other is the only God who can originate all ‘other’ things and maintain them eternally. It is thus clear that today’s politicians are not leading their people to the truth properly. And it is also clear that religions are also not leading their people to the truth properly. Only Jesus Christ and some Christians are leading people properly to the truth.

Note. I do not compare God as Not-other with the religious teaching that the universe ends so that God can judge people and place them either into Heaven or Hell. I view this teaching as a poor ancient interpretation of the Bible in Matthew, Chapter 24. This teaching is inappropriate under an infinite God. Heaven and Hell merely signify the status of the development of our consciousness.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

The Writings of Nicholas of Cusa On Not-other

I discuss Nicholas of Cusa in Part IIa of my book --- The First Scientific Proof of God. At the end of this Part, I list many of his writings. Many of these writings can be copied at the website of Jasper Hopkins, who is the major translator of Nicholas’ works. Nicholas’ work ‘On Not-other’ is found on this website. In the Latin language its title is De Li Non Aliud. Click.

The First Scientific Proof of God is a comprehensive book about the world. Since I am using the thoughts of some of the biggest thinkers in history in this book, I had to limit my coverage of each of them. Nicholas of Cusa is one of the big thinkers. In my book on Nicholas of Cusa, I focused on his first book, On Learned Ignorance. But, Nicholas’ writings on De Li Non Aliud and de Possest, are also great. Currently, I am expanding my teaching of Nicholas’ thoughts On Not-other on this blog. With access to Jasper Hopkins website, you can read Nicholas’ writings yourself.

Friday, October 06, 2006

Not-other Defines Itself and All Other Things

Yesterday, I discussed the symbols, not-other and other, and how they give us a sign of God and signs of those things that God creates. No two ‘other’ things are the same and can be defined by the same definition. ‘Other’ things are defined by ‘not-other, which is something that is neither God nor any ‘other’ thing. Thus, not-other does not define God. But, ‘not-other’ is a unique symbol because it defines itself and all ‘other’ things. The symbol, not-other, thus gives us the clearest view of God that man has developed with our words or numbers.

In this dialogue, Nicholas of Cusa says that all things are ‘not other’ than they are. Thus, for example, the sky is defined by saying, the sky is not other than the sky; a cloud is not other than a cloud; a human is not other than a human; a tree is not other than a tree; ... etc.. Not-other defines itself with the same method --- not-other is not other than not-other. When not-other is defined this way. not-other becomes trine and identifies a new Trinity The new Trinity is one in three and three in one. With this definition, the first and third ‘not-others’ form an identity whereas the middle symbol, ‘not other than,’ unifies the other two not-others absolutely. I discussed the earlier versions of the Trinity in my post dated September 16, 2006.

This new version of the Trinity confirms the symbols, one-equality-union, which are used in the above September post. It shows that the mystery of the Trinity far exceeds and precedes all of our sensual abilities. This new version of the Trinity approaches God more precisely than the earliest Christian Trinity --- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When combined with the latest Christian Trinity --- one, equality, and union --- the way God creates is becoming much clearer. For instance, it now seems clear that God begins to create ‘other’ things by unfolding essential stuff through not-other.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

How You Can Become a Believer in God or Help Others to Become Believers

Most atheists find it difficult to believe in God because they do not believe that anything is invisible and beyond the ability of our senses and powerful instruments. Thus, they want to see, hear, feel, smell, or taste everything. Other atheists are made, for instance, by institutions such as mathematics, physical science, and logical reasoning. These institutions view the universe as a purely physical thing. Thus, they reject the existence of anything spiritual beyond the physical bodies of the universe. And, logicians do not accept the coexistence of opposing symbols. Let me show how you can become a believer or how you might help a friend overcome the rejection of God.

Just before his death, Nicholas of Cusa sought an answer to the question, ‘what is that most of all gives us knowledge? His answer is ‘definition’ because it defines everything including itself. He says, “that which defines everything is ‘not other than what is defined.” Thus, ‘the sky’ is not other than the sky; ‘other’ is not other than other; and ‘not-other’ is not other than not-other. As seen, not-other is defining itself and everything else. But, he does not say that not-other is the name of God. He merely says that not-other is the most accurate way to direct our sight to God, who is named often in history as the First or Beginning. Thus, when atheists direct their sight only to ‘other’ things, they do not recognize not-other and the origin of all beings.

If we see that ‘not-other’ and ‘other’ coexist, then we see that God is the Beginning of all beginnings, the First of all firsts, the Good of all goods, the Other of all others, ... etc. If we see these relations between not-other and other, we also see that all ‘other’ things have a beginning, middle, and end, that ‘other’ is the terminal end of vision and knowledge, and that ‘other’ is thus not the beginning of seeing because ‘other’ things are changing continuously. Since not-other and other always coexist, they are eternal and tell us that God is creating ‘others’ continuously, just as a flower grows from a seed is put into soil and given light, water, and nutrients. So, when the atheists rely on sensual data about ‘other’ things, they remain ignorant of the Beginning of all beginnings, the Essence of all essences, ... etc. And, they remains ignorant of human life, which is constructed by free humans with symbols that coexist. So, teach potential believers how to drink from the living water that Jesus Christ gave us.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

My 25-year Life As an Eclectic

My general scientific research life was abnormal because I spent half of my working career in the physical sciences such as mathematics, electrical, telemetry, and radio communications. The other half was in the life sciences such as crime, justice, linguistics, theologies, cosmology, reincarnation, UFOs, Medical care, and socioeconomic relations. This multiple career thus required me to think about a wide range of subjects, which usually have also been studied by history’s ‘big thinkers’ So, developing an eclectic mind was quite normal by me over the past 25 years.

I believe that only the mind of an eclectic could have found what I found ---the scientific proof of God, the way God and His universe are connected, and a new and modern creation theory. The difficulty and time I had to take to develop these truths are now being confirmed by the long time experts are taking to review my new book on, The First Scientific Proof of God, which is sold on Amazon Internet book store after it was published in late June. But, I don’t expect the experts to review my research effort in a few days. This is a book of 304 pages with material that was accumulated over 25 years. So, if you are not an expert, be patient because the material is broad and very new. But, please do not repeat the earlier way mathematicians and evolutionists reviewed my new book, by not even reading the book because it opposes their ideology.

To decrease the time that it takes for a new important book to pass through the experts and to the rest of the people, I teach the material in this book on this blog. I have no teaching plan. I usually post a new teaching in the morning when I think of a subject that is teachable and important. Since this book, if widely accepted, will cause a big change in human life, the material in my book allows you to peek into the new future. On this change, it is your natural choice to be at the back of the line or at the front.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Returning to the Freedom That God Gave to All Humans

In the last two blogs, I show that all people in the world are divided by an economic spiritual sword. This dividing sword is the same kind of sword that Jesus Christ used to divide His audiences into believers and nonbelievers. The economic spiritual sword also divides people into believers and nonbelievers. This sword was formed naturally by our minds and is the American System and the British System (of economics). The American System creates believers and is based on the godly principle ‘that all men are created equal.’ This principle is found in the Declaration of Independence. The British System creates nonbelievers and is based on the principle ‘that all men are created with equal choices.’ This principle was created by the economists of the British System. These two principles have different meanings and produce different results because the equal choice principle divides the people of a nation into classes such as poor V. rich, unsocial V. social, uneducated V. educated, criminal V. noncriminal, nonbelievers V. believers, . . . , etc.

If people want to achieve the freedom that is natural to all men, people must recognize that man’s true freedom comes only from God. Once this truth is recognized, the people might want to consider the following seven necessary actions. One, they need to declare their independence, as the USA colonists did, and make this declaration the highest law of the nation. Two, they need to create a single worldwide political party. This could be the ‘Union Party.’ Three, they need to replace the British System of economics with the American System of economics, which improves continually. Four, they need to develop a Declaration of Human Rights, which is based on scientific proofs rather than arbitrariness. Five, they need to elect many scientists into the legislative branch of government who can seek these scientific proofs. Six, they need to develop national goals that apply to all people. And seven, all land needs to become something being governed and properly utilized, rather than something owned.

Monday, October 02, 2006

It Is Time to Eliminate the New US Rulers and Then to Return to God-given Freedoms

Yesterday’s blog shows that the USA has become a nation of rulers who rule ‘the people.’ These rulers began to appear after Lincoln was assassinated and the American System of economics was replaced by the British System of economics. The initial rulers were the Big Families. They were followed by the Big Businesses, the Big Industrialists, the Big Landowners, the Big Entertainers, the Big Hollywood Celebrities, etc. These rulers became legal when the US Supreme Court ruled that Church and State must be separated. These Biggies earn big money, much more than they will ever need. Today, their wealth has become embarrassing. So, they are beginning to redistribute some of their money for poverty projects

The American System is a national economy, which was initiated by the thoughts of Alexander Hamilton. And, the British System is a laissez-faire economy, which was initiated by the thoughts of England’s Adam Smith. The shift to the British System removed the national banking system of the American System. For the American System, Congress had to coin money for big national and common interest projects. The British System uses a private banking system in which money value is based on a gold standard. This standard is expected to stabilize an economy. Yet, the private banking systems can freely coin money by issuing banking notes, stocks, etc. To my knowledge, only President Nixon freed money from a gold standard.

‘The people’ of the USA must think about these two very different economic systems because the American System is consistent with God whereas the British System is consistent with atheism. The people must know that the Democratic and Republican parties support the British System and the new rulers, Thus, the people must think politically as well as economically. I favor the American System because it deals with all people, their social activities, the future, our developing minds, and the future of my children my grandchildren. On the other hand, the British System deals only with individuals and the time we speak of as the ‘here and now.’ I also do not like the idea of wealthy individuals determining my future when I know how well the US Department of Agriculture and the farmers worked together on food production and how well the federal, State, and local Departments of Transportation worked together to build our great highways. Thus, I conclude that it is time for change politically and economially and for people to reconsider God.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

New Rulers in the USA Are Reducing Our God-given Freedoms

In 1776, the colonists of the American colony sought their God-given freedoms from England’s rulers. To secure these natural freedoms, they implemented the social contract theory of England’s John Locke. The first step of this contract unifies the colonists. This unification occurred on July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. It created a whole consisting of ‘the people’ and ‘God.’ The second step creates another whole of, by, and for ‘the people.’ In this step, ‘the people’ thus create a ‘limited government’ by reducing some of their God-given freedoms. This new kind of government was formed when a constitution was prepared in the autumn of 1787. It was ratified by representatives of ‘the people’ by June 21, 1788. This first social contract is known as ‘the first experiment of democracy.’

Today, more and more people are calling the US experiment in democracy a failure because the US economy divides Americans spiritually and materially. Further, some people are saying that the USA democracy is not ready to be promoted in the world. For instance, they ask, “Is Operation Freedom in Iraq a wise military decision when our nation has many social problems and when terrorism is growing and is preparing to kill many US citizens?”

I argue that the USA experiment in democracy has failed drastically. This failure has occurred because the limited government of the USA has extended its activities well beyond the freedoms that any human receives from God. This extension was made possible by US Supreme Court when it eliminated God from government. This Supreme Court act was undeclarational because the Declaration of Independence is the highest law of the land. With this extension and elimination, government gains sovereignty, ‘the people’ lose sovereignty, and God becomes a concern only of ‘the people.’ But, something else happened. This extension and elimination destroyed Locke’s social contract and turned the USA back into a ruler-ruled nation. So, Americans are governed today like the colonists were governed prior to 1776. Further, the wholeness of ‘government’ and ‘the people’ was also destroyed. The division of the people and government destroyed this first world experiment on freedom.

I go further and argue that government failed because it was influenced by new forms of rulers. These new rulers are landowners, moneyed interests, free traders, title sellers, etc These new rulers view money as an end rather than a means. This view allows any American, not only Congress, to create money. Without means, the US economy turned into laissez-faire, the most ungodly economy to implement. With an end, money becomes the only purpose of life. Without means, ‘the people’ have no desired hopes and do not live in the future. And, their children and grandchildren learn to live without accepting responsibilities to God and helping other people. Essentially, the USA changed to the old ruler-ruled politics. The only change is the way rulers rule and use their powers.