God – A Deducible Approach

One thing I’ve noticed about atheists is that they seem to use the principles of science to dismiss the existence of god. Instead however, I believe science supports the existence of god.

The numerous discoveries in physics, chemistry and in other sciences have demonstrated that our universe obeys laws: the laws of nature. For example, the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, rather it can only be transformed from one form of energy to another. Moreover, in chemical reactions, to conform with the law of conservation of mass, there must be the same number of each type of atom on both sides of the arrow. Human beings, for example, are created according to the makeup of their DNA. Our brains are simply a medley of electrical signals and biochemical reactions behaving in accordance with the laws of physics. If we accept these concepts, we are able to conclude therefore that the universe does indeed have order. Science in general seems to be a method of accounting for the phenomenon in the universe.

Furthermore, Newton’s third law of physics states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If this is true, it leads to the following conclusion: every action is a reaction to another prior action. This substantiates the notion that the universe is ruled by cause and effect or causality, which in turn lends credence to the fact that we are, in the present moment, defined by our past. This also means our future can be hypothetically predicted based on our past.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system is always increasing. Accordingly, our universe will reach a point in time when there can be no more disorder. Either that or the universe will reach point in time very close to a state of ultimate disorder. This would be the hypothetical death of the universe. If in fact, this will happen, that our universe is destined for some sort of theoretical death, then logically our universe must have also had a beginning. Isn’t the idea of an eternal universe contradictory to the reality of the present in which change does exist? If I drop a ball onto the floor from my hand, there is change. That is, the ball moves from my hand to the floor. So if we were destined to become a sea of photons as some scientists say we are, then shouldn’t we have already arrived at that stage an eternity ago? Why, if the universe is eternal, is there change? If the natural tendency of our universe is going toward a state of ultimate disorder and in times past, our universe was, by nature, less disordered, that means that whatever the opposite of a sea of photons is was the initial state of our universe. It then begs the question: what forces and powers brought about this primary state of the universe? If you line up a series of dominoes and push the first one over, it therefore necessitates that the line of dominoes had to have been set up at some point beforehand. If I empty a bag of marbles onto the floor from a certain height, the marbles will hit the floor and disburse and go in multiple directions. This therefore implies that, in the beginning, I had to gather the marbles together and put them into the bag. I had to raise the bag to the starting height from where I dropped them.

The crucial point to understand is that the timeline of our universe is a sequence of unfolding events in which one event gives rise to a subsequent event, which in turn, gives rise to another event and so on. This leads one to wonder that if events of times past have engendered the events of the present, what produced the first event to begin with? What tipped over the first domino? What came before cause? Although the answer seems irrational, it is the only rational answer. If we predicate our argument on the premise that our universe does indeed have a beginning, that means that some force must have engendered the progression of events of the universe in the first place. How can such a chain of events originate from nothing? Well, it can’t. That would defy the laws of nature. Therefore, the answer must point to the existence of a force that, in fact, defies the laws of nature. This evinces the existence of the supernatural. As what is the supernatural creator of the universe customarily known? God.

“The Stranger” – A Poem by Rudyard Kipling

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control–
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf–
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

Fate of the Furious – Movie Review

So overall, this film was great! Seriously. Unfortunately however, because I’m writing a movie review, I’m obliged to say a bit more than that. Thus, this brings me to talk about the things in the movie that I didn’t like. I know. I know. The negative things in a film, or the negative things in anything in general shouldn’t get more attention then the positive things. I hate being a cynic and bringing up the negative side. I totally understand that but I felt the following topics were the things in the film that stood out the most. Caution: the parts I’m about to describe contain spoilers.

I’ll start by saying that the acting in this film was satisfactory and convincing, with the exception of Chris “Ludacris” bridges.

I felt the story itself was rather trite. The female villain in the film, Cipher, seemed more preoccupied with destroying the protagonist, Dom than achieving her main goal of international terrorism. Dom caught up with one of the Cipher’s henchman in an alley in a city. The henchman was pointing a gun directly at Dom’s wife. Dom then pointed his gun at the henchman’s head at which point the henchman lowered his gun and walked away. Dom followed, leaving his wife behind, and the two men finished their heist by escaping with a briefcase containing nuclear codes. Later, on Cipher’s airplane headquarters, Cipher decided to punish Dom for defending his wife by having her henchman shoot his Dom’ son’s mother in the head (a different woman), an act which is although predictable for a stereotypical villain in a movie, made no practical sense. It did not seem to bring Cipher any closer to achieving her ultimate goal.

Her ultimate goal, by the way, was rather vague. Cipher wanted nuclear codes, but she didn’t explain exactly why she wanted them other than for the reason that she wanted to “hold governments accountable” assumingly by devastating national capitals with retaliatory nuclear strikes, a line of logic that is neither immediately clear nor relatable to the audience.  It was your quintessential movie plot where the villain just wants to take over the world for reasons not really imparted to the audience other than she’s evil. This part of the movie surprisingly stood out because in recent years, Hollywood actually has done a very convincing job of conveying the rational of the motives of the antagonist, not only the motives of the protagonist.

I have to admit also: the special effects in this movie are sublime with one small exception which probably only I could notice. I could plainly tell that the high speed car chase scenes in this movie were shot while the cars were going relatively slowly. It stole a sense of reality from the film.

Finally, Fate of the Furious is a totally entertaining film which I give a “yes.” Definitely worth the price of admission. The escape factor in this movie is huge.

State of Mind

I believe that I and others are conditioned to think in a certain way that is never talked about in North America. From an early age to the present time, the omnipresence in our schools and on the internet and on the TV of the promotion of the party line is an ocean that one can drown in. The goal is to condition us to have metaphorical handicaps on our minds within a very rigid mindset. We are basically taught about we can think about and what we cannot and how we should and shouldn’t think about those things. Seemingly, all individuals in North America want to get you, the individual, to think in a certain way. Their way. However, the status quo in North America is politically correct, one that is precisely opposite to abstract thought. All of the great minds of our ancestors and history have created such things like the automobile, toaster, or airplane in a sheer and pure state of abstract thought. Those minds were the peak form of abstract and free thought.

North Americans are involved in a vicious war of the mind. I find that my battle isn’t so much thinking about ground-breaking things and things that would progress our society, but rather mentally fighting simply for the right to do so. We in north America, I believe, are engaged in a war of the mind where in which our goal is simply to have the freedom to think in a free and abstract way, let alone to think about material progression and how we can progress our lives and our nation and our people and our purpose.  We’re not even at that stage yet, because as we all know, first we must be born and enveloped in a mindset of abstract and independent and enlightened and free thought to make any progress whatsoever.