Tuesday, October 23, 2012


I am writing this text without providing my true identity however at some point I may chose to do so.  Also, I am not a professional writer or editor and chose not to use one in order to protect my identity, as long as I chose, so please understand that some of my grammar and sentence structure may be lacking.  If that means I lose credibility then so be it but I would urge you to read a manuscript or an original draft of a paper and/or book from any known and revered scientist; it isn’t pretty.  I might also add that this could in fact be a 500-page document however I chose to break this heavily debated topic down to its simplistic core.  I am not the ultimate authority nor will be anyone who reads this conclusion.

Let me first address the atheist; those that scientifically and logically reject the existence of God (god, gods, deity, etc.).  If you are already convinced, undoubtedly, that there could never and will never be a god of any type and/or are prepared and even enthusiastic to defend this without having read my words then you are not a person of science, truth and logic.  Those that love, revere, thirst after and work towards bettering science and truth are willing, and thoroughly expect, to learn daily.  Here is one of those opportunities.  Let me also add that not once will I defend or proselytize any specific god of the old, modern or any world.  Very few things frustrate me more then when a militant atheist uses logic and science to disprove a god with the statement, “the burden of proof is on you (speaking to the theist)…” When moments later that same individual (atheist) uses the very human and emotional thought: “What perfect god will allow all these terrible things to occur? (insert every horrible thing that has occurred since the dawn of man and/or brought about by a specific religion).”  How can you even define perfection without using a belief, of which you do not hold, against that theist?  The most brilliant minds of human existence could hardly keep their own homes and affairs in order, what makes anyone logically deduce that if there were in fact a brilliant being overseeing this world, that he/she could manage billions at once “perfectly” or without giving those millions 100% freedom?   If your thought is “that’s my point!” then you are fighting against a specific religion not the possibility of a god.  There is your overall contradiction.  Don’t be absurd! While it is logical and even moral to despise heinous actions and events, it is erroneous to use them in scientifically disproving something.  In these cases or arguments you clearly do not believe in something (god); using your human emotion (no matter how “logical” your hatred is) is not a credible way of adding to a scientific conclusion.  I am not your enemy.  Thus far I am only seeking to strip away the silliness that exists in theological debate.

Let me now address the theist, anyone who believes or has faith in a higher being.  I am not (as stated above) defending your specific religion.  I am not going to give you credence or proof that can be used as a means to bring others into your specific “fold” or congregation.  I am not your enemy either.  I do not wish to take away from your beliefs or even add to them.  I will only state how science shows a god (or gods) exists.  Many people within religion have done terrible things in the name of their religion and beliefs.  That is something I will never defend and in fact it is a disgrace to humanity.  If you believe (in a god or any deities) because it is in your heart, like love that you cannot deny, and it drives you in a positive fashion then you have my sincere respect.  However, if you do it, live it and push it on others because it is your duty and obligation without sincere and loving emotion then you are a coward and have no respect for yourself.   If your sincere emotion leads you to push your beliefs on those who do not share them then you are simply ignorant.   It’s extremely embarrassing so please cease this ridiculousness for the sake of generations to come. If you expect others to award you the freedom to practice religion then you should award that same respect to opposing views, beliefs and lack thereof.  Do you not see how absolutely preposterous it is when you tear down someone of an opposing religion?  You both believe in things that cannot be seen or proven, correct? So if you believe in a bearded man in the sky that you’ve never met in this life, why is it absurd or unfounded for another to believe in a alien deity who lives in a spaceship or a flying, 3 headed rhinoceros in the clouds?  What sounds crazy to you is faith for another.  All theists have a belief in something they cannot see.  Faith, like love, can be a beautiful thing.  Don’t allow it, as it has been in the past, to be used to promote hatred or intolerance. 

Now, as for a god or some sort of being that oversees earth (in some fashion) and had part in the creation of this world (possibly others); it is simply the deduction of what we as finite yet advanced beings have already determined.  Let us first look at every scientific truth, which has been tested through theory, and all possible (and available) denominators/resources.  None of these things, not one, has been proven without a being ‘s (human in this instance) involvement through trail and extensive analysis.  That is not to say these things could and would not be/exist without human involvement it is only to say that all scientific truths have been proven and/or made into absolutes with someone or a group learning of the particular/applicable elements and concluding through unmistakable results (of which, in many cases, has been adjusted upon further studies and more advanced technology)…even something as fundamental as gravity was tested to further our understanding.  Yes, of course much analysis has conclusively shown that many scientific absolutes predate even our human existence however as I stated before, the proof was compiled, studied, retained and brought to fruition by intelligent beings (again, humans in this case).  Consider the fact that no one has ever watched human or any form of living evolution occur; That is not to say it isn’t accurate, it truly (by the laws of science) is however a human being did not watch it happen with physical analysis (our own eyes) at any point.  Theists please do not make the mistake of concluding that evolution is an inaccuracy or flawed.  You may deny it until your dying day however it is a scientific fact and in my opinion it does NOT exclude the existence of your potential god; if that is your sole reason for the disbelief in evolution’s existence (a god existing) then you are just being blindly ignorant (deep sigh).  Going hand and hand with this line of thought, let us also understand that all experiments in their many forms, that create new discoveries and an array of things that hadn’t existed prior (technology, medical advances), were completed by intelligent beings.

Lastly, science has NEVER at any point, with any amount of technology or known advances, proven or determined a physical origin of any living being without the process of procreation and/or origin of creation (I am not referring to “The Creation” from the bible).  Let me put this simply, there is not a scientific answer to “the chicken or the egg?”  Science can only prove and deduce that a physical being has an immediate predecessor of creation that continues to go backward (thus evolution).  Many conclusions go as far back to determine a being evolutionarily advanced from a microscopic organism however there is no answer to that organisms origin other than “it became…somehow.”  Science has, in this case, proven the infinity of being.  Science cannot, has not and to my current understanding will not prove that something just became or simply was.  At some point, in every case every living being was created by some other living being (through a reproductive process).  By the same token, an occurrence such as the “big bang” is relevant.  Science does not commit to the fact that the “big bang” occurred without an origin only that it did in fact occur.  In this case, scientific deduction infers that the “big bang” occurred however it did so at the hand (lets call it that for the sake of our temporal understanding) of an intelligent being(s) (not necessarily human or the gods many revere) in what we could realistically call a universal science experiment; maybe one that had been done before many times, maybe not.  Remember that even science is not perfect however it is a step closer every day; it is truer each day with each new study and test.  Science constantly evolves and proves things of the past incorrect or more accurately.  The most brilliant men on the earth once believed it was flat as well as not being able to cure what can now me cured.  The simple point here is that science has without a doubt proven that every being has some creator and that nothing has been proven, deduced or manifest to mankind without a being bringing it to fruition.  By scientific definition, there is a creator of this world and it’s inhabitants.  Who he, she or it is?  We will have to wait until we are either dead or science has the answer.

*I am the sole author and reader of this document prior to the Internet release. I will not at all be surprised if some of my writing expression or point presentation is plausibly broken down or apart but please remember that it the overall scientific deduction that must be considered.  Has science proven a living beings existence without creation or procreation?  Has anything been proven and/or brought to fruition without an intelligent being’s analysis?  Based upon scientific deduction is it more plausible and absolute that there is or is not a creator of this world and it’s inhabitants? (Keep in mind that much of science is based upon plausibility through tests and deduction).

-Abraham of Glenmoorper (8166-09088785)


  1. Hi, I am from Australia.
    But what about Consciousness and Light which is the Energy of Consciousness?
    Or more simply Conscious Light!

    Please find a completely different Understanding of the relation between science and religion via these related references.







  2. The question is not, 'Do you beieve in God?' The question is, 'What is God?'
    The theological description of God is the same as the scientific description of energy.
    I believe in God. That is to say that I believe there is an energy which comprises the universe and everything in it. That energy is the God or Allah that believers talk about.
    See soapybubble-weslam.blogspot.com for more info...