Jump to content
The World News Media

About This Club

Science and Faith, are they brothers or enemies? What kind of conclusions can we draw from scientific research results? When science deals with the origins of Live and the Universe, can we find there implikations for the existens of God?
  1. What's new in this club
  2. Was Life just evolved from nonlife-matter or was it rather created by intelligence? As a reference to the best answer, it is necessary to discuss the difficulties of the research field. At first i like to give here a quote by Karl Popper on the issue of the origin of life. That's one of the tricky problems with the attempt to give a natural explanation of the origin of life.
  3. Mathemantics is the language by which God wrote the universe. Galileo Galilei
  4. Well done. Excuse my abscence so long. Next time i will anwser in some points. Your Article is a profound basis to develope the topic for further investigations.
  5. The Existence of God If a Christian, and especially a Jehovah's Witness, is asked to provide proof of the existence of God, it is very likely that he will quote verse four of the third chapter of the letter to the Hebrews, "every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God". The reasoning may be right, nothing came from nothing but everything on earth is due to the will of a designer, it is still good to note that Paul was not trying to argue about the existence of a Creator. He spoke to his Hebrew Christian companions who certainly did not question the fact that the universe was ruled by a powerful being who is behind everything. Moreover, in antiquity the problem was certainly not the non-belief in God but rather the opposite: people tended to believe in a multitude of gods. Furthermore, Paul, on one occasion, noticed that an altar dedicated to an unknown god had been made, certainly for fear of forgetting to revere a deity. As always with the Bible, but the modus operandi is valid on all occasions, everything we read must be considered in relation to its context. In this passage, the apostle is talking about the house of God. This house is composed of the "holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling". Christ "was faithful as a son over God’s house". As in the case of a building we honour the builder and not the house itself, similarly in this case the honour does not belong to those who make up the house but to its creator, God. Does this mean that we cannot take Paul's illustration as a basis for reasoning? Of course not, the idea itself is valuable. We must simply be careful not to attribute to the apostle anything other than what he intended to say, so that we cannot be accused of distorting God's Word. Although the denial of divine existence has been a particularly striking phenomenon since the second half of the nineteenth century, history tells us that atheism has always existed. Cicero had already pointed out that most philosophers said that the gods existed, but that Protagoras was in doubt while Theodore of Cyrene and Diagoras of Melos maintained that there was none. Heraclitus (535-475 BC) claims that the world was not made by any of the gods or men, but was and is and ever shall be ever-living fire. All this ends up giving birth to epicureanism, the search for individual happiness on earth in a human world without God1. The psalmist tells us that the foolish one says in his heart: "There is no Jehovah". The rejection of God finds its roots in the immediately post-diluvian world where, to protect themselves from a new flood, men began to build a tower whose summit would reach the heavens2. It is not so much the existence of God that men have rejected, but the submission that he deserves. So, the origin is in the rejection of the authority. And how to justify this desire for freedom other than by denying the existence of the one to whom we are accountable? From the rejection of Jehovah (the Pharaoh himself to say: who is Jehovah?3), it was easy to proceed with the complete negation of a creator. It was from the first half of the sixteenth century that the idea emerged that all religion is an invention of the powerful who take advantage of the ignorance of the humble (De tribus impostoribus4). Religious practice suffered a sharp decline, especially in the nobility and the bourgeoisie. In this case, it is centuries of tyranny on the part of religious leaders that generates this state. God was rebuffed, but in reality it was those who claimed to be his representatives that were rejected. While philosophy is generally seen as the antithesis of the belief in God, as we have seen above the greatest Greek philosophers were theists. Voltaire himself questioned himself: the universe embarrasses me, and I cannot think that this clock exists and has no watchmaker. Chancellor Francis Bacon said: a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. How can we convince ourselves and defend the existence of a Creator? First of all, atheism is not as widespread as one might think. For example, according to a study, more than seventy percent of the Americans would be believers. It is a fact that some of those who pretend to be atheists never really thought about it. A simple discussion will reveal that most have not given serious consideration to the issue. People often reject God because they reject organised religion. The reason may also be that the person grew up in an atheistic family, just as children often continue to believe in God once adults because that is what they taught them. For example, the sons of members of a religious community generally become members of this community; in this case too a simple discussion will often reveal that there is not a sincere reflection upstream5. This is just the perpetuation of a family tradition. We will make the same observation in various organisations, such as political movements6. Charles Darwin is often presented as the father of modern atheism. But his own writings show that he believed in the existence of a creator, an initial force at the root of everything, even if he rejected the Christian faith. If he wondered why life was full of pain, he did not see this as an argument against the existence of God. Towards the end of his life, he wrote that he has never been an atheist nor he denied the existence of God. This does not preclude Richard Dawkins, the high priest of twentieth-century atheism, from writing that he could never have been an atheist before Charles Darwin. In fact, it suits unbelievers to present Darwin as the one who opened the way to atheism, exposing his theory as a fact that put God at the forefront of the fables of dark times. By claiming that life has a chance origin, one think he can escape accountability. It should not be understood that atheists have a less developed moral sense than theists; it is the kind of affirmations we've read in the Watchtower's publications7. One could even say that sometimes it is the opposite: abuse in the name of religion have led to the rejection of God by people who have had their moral feelings shocked. However, refusing to be held accountable to God could lead a person to think that he is free from certain constraints. Now, these constraints are usually those imposed by men and not by God himself. It is undeniable that believe in God entails obligations, if only by the duty to bear witness. But if we look closely, Christianity as preached by Jesus has only two commandments: you must love your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind, and you must love your neighbour as yourself. This is not a heavy yoke, to paraphrase Christ. – Matthew 11:29, 30 So, is science necessarily in opposition to religious faith? This is what many publications on the subject would like to lead us to believe. Even if the rate of believers is lower among scientists than in the rest of the population, we should not think that all are atheists8. One can try to prove the non-existence of God by giving a rational explanation of the origin of the universe without intervention of anyone. If they did, it would not necessarily establish that God does not exist, but in any case it could be a serious blow to his defenders. However, despite decades or more of studies on the subject, we are still at the stage of hypotheses, which sometimes contradict each other and do not find consensus within the scientific community. The Big Bang, for example, still encounters oppositions (although weak, it must be recognised). It is nevertheless interesting to know that one of the initial promoters of this theory was a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. For him, there did not seem to be any conflict between the two parties, the religious party and the scientific party. Above all, the Big Bang does not explain the origin of the universe, but only the state where it would have been at a given moment. Nothing is said about what was before or what is the origin of this universe. We must admit either that it always existed, or that time did not exist, that it was initialised by this original explosion. It seems that this last explanation gains the most approval today9. If God is at the origin of everything, then who created God? In either case, whether the universe is the result of an initial explosion, whether it comes from another previous universe, or that it was created by an intelligent being, one must always admit that something had always existed. Each of the assertions only moves us one step backwards. Is it more scientific, or reasonable, to believe that for ages there existed matter, or some other substance, which a fine day gave birth to our universe, by some unknown force resulting from the most complete chance, rather to admit a designer living from eternity to eternity having intentionally done all that surrounds us? In all instances, it is a question of faith, if we want to give the word a meaning that is not its own10. – Psalm 90:2 We can read in some popular science book that with the "Big Bang" the time has come to existence. And so, that would solve the problem of what was before. Let us admit that before the beginning, time did not exist; and in this case it is wrong to say "before the beginning", since it is precisely the beginning of time, so there was no 'before'. This is exactly what the first book of the Bible tells us in his first chapter and his first verse: in the beginning God created… Yes, the Bible begins with a scientific assertion: there was a beginning, a beginning of time. God started by creating time as one of the dimensions in which we live. Does this contradict what the researchers tell us? It seems like no, since they claim that with the beginning of the universe time came to existence. If, then, our knowledge of the origin of the universe does not allow us to invalidate or confirm the existence of a creator, will we have more chances with the other fields of science? The theory of evolution may seem to have sounded the death knell for believers. Now, as we have seen previously, the father of the theory, Charles Darwin, believed in a god. Moreover, some religious denominations accept the idea of a world that has evolved under the guidance of an initial designer11. Even if one managed to prove the origin of life according to evolutionary theories, it would not call into question his existence. Even today, about one hundred and sixty years after Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species", we still use the word theory when we talk about evolution. Why? Because there is no fixed explanation of this doctrine. According to its supporters, this is the most consistent interpretation found, yet the definitive proof is yet to come. What does evolution mean? This is the transformation of living species over generations. That is to say, the fact that a form of life is modified to adapt to its living environment. Everyone may still remember the pictures posted on the walls of the science classes representing a large fish coming out of the water, which undergoes various transformations until becoming a man. And to explain to us that, one day, this fish decided to leave its aquatic environment to go on earth; and magically, legs sprouted. Later, he decided to fly, to jump in the trees, to walk on two legs, etc. We do not know why he wanted to get out of the water. We are told that this is adaptation to its environment. But what about the other fish that stayed in the water? Why did not they adapt too? If really it was a means of survival, why do we still see fish in the sea?12 If we admit that man is the most accomplished species, why in this case are there still other species that populate the earth? Why are not all individuals of one species transformed themselves? Man is certainly the species able to adapt to all terrestrial conditions. But he is still a human, whether he is an Inuit living in the extreme conditions of the north, or a Berber daily facing the heat of the desert. Everyone adapted to their environment, that is all. Take the case of the Peppered moth (biston betularia). This moth has a colour that starts from gray to go to black. For proof of the evolution, evolutionists use this example: in England, before 1850 gray individuals were preponderant. But things changed in the years that followed: there was a proliferation of black individuals. At the same time, it was observed that the bark of the birches was blackened by the soot deposited there due to the smoke of the surrounding factories. In the sixties, the gray moth revived, while at the time campaign was conducted to improve the quality of the air. It seemed to be the proof of the transformation and adaptation of a species to its environment. However, the explanation is simple, and moreover it is the one provided by the evolutionists themselves: when the bark is clear, the light moths merge with the colour of the tree and therefore the predators feed mainly on dark individuals. When the bark is black, the clear population is more visible and therefore more likely to fall into the hands, or rather into the beaks of the birds that feed on them. In one case or the other, one colour develops since less subject to pressure while the other collapses. But are these moths no longer moths? Did they turn into another species to escape their predators? No, they were moths, moths they remained. No doubt there has been natural selection but no evolution in another species. That individuals experience some variation from their environment is a proof of divine wisdom. Imagine that all men are cut out for arctic life, we would all be crammed into the far north while the tropics would be empty. Years of genetic mutation experiments, especially on the fly, have only led to failures. No mutation has proved beneficial, on the contrary. Virtually all individuals are either dead, disabled or infertile. Really, there are no profitable mutations. Each one modifies an existing structure, but in a disorderly way. Each disorganisation causes the death of the individual13. The mutations found among the victims of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, as well as their descendants, or to be closer to us, among the victims of Chernobyl, generated only handicap, malformation and death. And in no case the creation of a new and viable species distinct from the human species. The vapourware of paleontologists is obviously the famous missing link thought to be intermediate between the anthropoid apes and man. It has been missing for so long, despite regular announcements, that it is doubtful that it will ever appear. To this day, no evidence has been provided of a link between an apelike fossil and man. The proof is the controversy surrounding the discovery in Chad by Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye of Toumaï who, having all the characteristics of a chimpanzee, is undoubtedly a ... chimpanzee. Despite this, his discoverers insist to see in him the ancestor of the man14. Note that we rely on a skull, five fragments of jaw, a few teeth and a diaphysis of left femur probably having belonged to nine different individuals! With this, they reconstruct a skeleton, they give it a face (similar in any point to that of a monkey) and they decide that it is one of our ancestors. But the goal is not to denigrate the work of scientists. It is not reprehensible to dismiss God from the field of hypotheses when we seek the explanation of a natural event. For millennia men have attributed to God actions that today have quite grounded explanations. If we had persisted to think that way, we would still believe that lightning is the expression of divine wrath. It is normal to ask questions or to be curious. Otherwise, God would not have created us with the desire to learn and understand. Please do not get me wrong: there is no question of asking unbelievers to prove that God does not exist. So, I can very well argue that the laughing chicken exists. When I am asked for evidence, I can affirm that it is not up to me to provide it but up to those who refute my assertion15. Would it be honest on my part? Surely not! It is therefore our duty, as believers, to demonstrate the existence of God. On the other hand, what is valid in one direction must be valid in the other: when we are told that man is the result of an evolution from fish to all other forms of life, there so they have to be able to prove it. Otherwise, it is necessary to say that this is a hypothesis having the same validity as that of theism. Evolutionists regularly accuse creationists16 of credulity. But what should we conclude when we are told that no competent person is questioning the evolution, that all reputable biologists admit that it is an established fact, or that anyone who is free from old illusions and prejudices has no need for additional evidence? Is it not the same kind of reasoning as saying that we believe in God because the church says it, all the great religious names admit that his existence is an established fact or that belief is a matter of faith and does not require additional proof? Out of a thousand evolutionists, how many have seriously studied the subject? Out of a thousand creationists, how many have seriously studied the subject? In either camp, it is important to know what we are talking about when we support something. Is there more credulity in the assertion that God is at the origin of all than there is in the allegation that the universe appeared one day from nothing? Besides, how can it come from nothing? If I take a blackboard and ask a mathematician to write a series of zeros, multiply, add or divide them, from what point will he succeed in extracting a single unit? And yet, this is what we are asked to accept by some proponents of a universe that comes from nothing and who accuse us of believing in fairy tales17. Others will call us sweet dreamers if we maintain that God has always existed while they will have no trouble accepting that the universe, or what preceded it, had no beginning. What is the evidence about God? The fact is that atheists cannot prove that there is no God (but that is not what we ask them), and above all, they cannot prove the theories they put forward. Moreover, these theories do not necessarily demonstrate the absence of God, as we can see by observing that some religious feel that we can very well reconcile these hypotheses with a Creator18. But can we prove the existence of God? Paul tells us that "his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable". What does nature reveal to us? Nothing but intelligent design, perfect harmony. To deny the existence of God is to say that mere chance is at the origin of our environment and of mankind. That this remarkable chance has happened millions and millions of times. Is it reasonable? Let us imagine that I am on a height on a rainy day and that I haphazardly throw a million bricks and bags of cement down that mountain. Let us say that two bricks fall perfectly on each other and that the cement is impregnated with rainwater and joins in between. Let us go so far as to say that this occurrence repeats a second time. Let us be generous and go up to three! Will it ever result in a habitable house? Even recommencing the operation with a second million bricks, it is doubtful whether we could build a mere doghouse. In the meantime, two million bricks will have been reduced to nothing. If there were anything below, nothing will be left now, crushed under the pile. I could throw as many millions of bricks as I want and nothing good will come out. And would that be the case, I would have prove that it took someone to throw the bricks, they will not have thrown themselves alone! Clearly, chance never produced anything good in a sustainable way. To repeat the example above, if I ever managed to mount an embryo of wall by throwing bricks and cement, it would be immediately destroyed by the following bricks. How can one seriously argue that a causality of events spanning billions of years can engender a functioning universe and an earth capable of harbouring millions of species? For one lucky event, how many billions of disaster? It is therefore the order in the world that surrounds us that demonstrates the existence of a Creator. It is not even credible that this author simply started the process and then let chance do the rest. What kind of industrialist, wanting to manufacture a product, would rely on luck? Our environment and the way we, humans, are made denote wisdom, harmony and love. While evolutionists, on the basis of a conclusion, search for the facts that can prove it, believers take the facts and draw the only possible conclusion: there is a benevolent God who created our space. A God who loves us and proves it every day, while the majority of humans do not want to take him into account in everyday life. One is interested in him when misfortune occurs, but forget him when everything is fine. And yet, even the hairs of our head are all numbered; no sparrow will fall to the ground without his knowledge. – Matthew 10:29, 30; Psalm 52:1; Titus 3:4-7 Someone will argue that wars, diseases, famines, pollution, etc., give the lie to the statement that love rules our world. We cannot answer this objection in two words, but the Bible gives satisfactory explanations that we will have the opportunity to examine later. It is enough to take the time to read and study it seriously, while asking God to give us his spirit. If we are sincere, everything will become clear. – Romans 5:5; Psalm 52:8 Of course, with this essay I do not pretend to have convinced a single atheist. This belief is too deeply rooted for this to be done just by reading a few pages. I also did not want to do a scientific thesis, and it may be that some errors have crept into this text (I thank those who will report them). I only hope that the logic of the words strengthens the reader's faith, giving him some keys to defend his beliefs. ––– 1 Epicureanism does not deny the existence of God, but rather his involvement in the world. According to the proponents of this philosophy, God does not interfere with humans. (back) 2 The biblical text does not expressly say that this was the goal of the builders of the tower. Perhaps the desire was to rise to the level of God, in order to challenge him. (back) 3 Pharaoh did not question the existence of Jehovah. There is also a good chance that he knew his name as well as his actions. Indeed, the time of the Flood was not so remote and it would be surprising that at a distance of a few hundred years men had forgotten what was at the origin of the disaster that has left his mark on people's mind at the point that we find traces in the legends of most civilisations. Of course, he intended to demonstrate, as Nimrod and the builders of the tower did, that he had no intention of being accountable to the ruler of the universe. (back) 4https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise_of_the_Three_Impostors (back) 5 It would be interesting to count the baptismal candidates at a Jehovah's Witnesses convention and to make the proportion of people arriving from the preaching activity (usually the oldest) in relation to the young children of Witnesses. (back) 6 It is a fact that in the capitalist states, many ardent defenders of communism come from communist families. (back) 7w60 6/1 p. 324; w93 12/15 p. 16-17 (back) 8 Allan Sandage, astronomer having determined the first reasonably accurate values for the Hubble constant and the age of the universe, said: The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. (back) 9 Alongside several other theories that generally receive little favorable echo, such as a universe of grapes (the bootstrap put forward by Edgard Gunzig), in which ours is only one of the grains having the ability to give birth to other universes by means of white holes, or the rebirth of an ancient universe that would retract to form a black hole that, after reaching the critical mass, eventually explode. Note also the theory of the "primordial instanton of size zero" of Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff as well as the scenario of the "pre-Big Bang" developed by the Italian physicists Gasperini and Veneziano. (back) 10 The Apostle Paul tells us that faith is "the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen". (Hebrew 11:1) It is not about being gullible, but about trusting in someone who has proven himself worthy. The Greek word "pistis" referred to a guarantee that was given. So, if we are told that it is faith that makes us believe in God, then we can take this as an argument for his existence, since our conviction comes from the guarantee that he has given us. (back) 11 In 1996, John Paul II asserted that evolution is more than just a hypothesis. For Benedict XVI, the world comes from an evolutionary process, while being derived from God. As for Pope Francis, he said that evolution is not contradictory to the notion of creation. (back) 12 In August 2003 a living coelacanth was found off the Comoros. It has been portrayed by some newspapers as the missing link between fish and man. This statement is still subject to debate. The following question arises: why have some evolved and other not? If it were beneficial to get out of the water and let the paws grow, why are there still today coelacanths that have remained in the "primitive" state, seventy million years later? (back) 13 Paraphrase of the remarks of Pierre Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences. (back) 14 According to some researchers Toumaï is actually a female. (back) 15 For the chronicle, the laughing chicken, Ayam Ketawa in Malay, is a breed of chicken native to the Sidenreng Rappang area in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. (back) 16 In this article the term creationist applies to anyone who believes in the creation of the universe by a God, whatever the school of thought. (back) 17 Paradoxically, the agnostic Jean Rostand, while affirming that one can only believe in the evolution, said that this is a fairy tale for adults. (back) 18 See note 11 above concerning papal declarations. (back) Link to article: baruq.uk/let_us_examine_our_beliefs_the_existence_of_god.html
  6. Does the bible provide an outdated worldview or rather an proper explanation about the construction of the world? THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK, YET IT CONTAINS STATEMENTS THAT WERE WAY AHEAD OF THEIR TIME. CONSIDER A FEW EXAMPLES.
      Hello guest!
    - originally posted by the owner of this club. Moved here under topics to help him out.
  7. World-Famous Scientist: God Created the Universe ! ‘The final resolution could be, that God is a mathematician.Â’ ( GOD is much more than that !) Michio Kaku has made a name for himself as a world-leading theoretical physicist unafraid to speak his mind. Kaku, the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York, has published more than 70 articles in physics journals on topics such as supersymmetry, superstring theory, supergravity, and hadronic physics. His latest claim is likely to make waves in the world of science. “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence,” Kaku said, as quoted by the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies. “To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.” In a 2013 video produced by Big Think, Kaku described God as "cosmic music." (Big Think, a media site launched in 2007, has been described as YouTube for ideas. But itÂ’s actually more like TED.) You can watch the video and see for yourself why Kaku believes science points to an intelligent creator who formed the universe. (IÂ’m certainly not going to try to explain it.) KakuÂ’s conclusion is pretty clear. “The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” says Kaku. “The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music. The music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.” Michio Kaku says, that God could be a mathematician: "The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace. That is the mind of God." Transcript-- Some people ask the question "Of what good is math?" What is the relationship between math and physics? Well, sometimes math leads. Sometimes physics leads. Sometimes they come together because, of course, there's a use for the mathematics. For example, in the 1600s Isaac Newton asked a simple question: if an apple falls then does the moon also fall? That is perhaps one of the greatest questions ever asked by a member of Homo sapiens since the six million years since we parted ways with the apes. If an apple falls, does the moon also fall? Isaac Newton said yes, the moon falls because of the Inverse Square Law. So does an apple. He had a unified theory of the heavens, but he didn't have the mathematics to solve the falling moon problem. So what did he do? He invented calculus. So calculus is a direct consequence of solving the falling moon problem. In fact, when you learn calculus for the first time, what is the first thing you do? The first thing you do with calculus is you calculate the motion of falling bodies, which is exactly how Newton calculated the falling moon, which opened up celestial mechanics. So here is a situation where math and physics were almost conjoined like Siamese twins, born together for a very practical question, how do you calculate the motion of celestial bodies? Then here comes Einstein asking a different question and that is, what is the nature and origin of gravity? Einstein said that gravity is nothing but the byproduct of curved space. So why am I sitting in this chair? A normal person would say I'm sitting in this chair because gravity pulls me to the ground, but Einstein said no, no, no, there is no such thing as gravitational pull; the earth has curved the space over my head and around my body, so space is pushing me into my chair. So to summarize Einstein's theory, gravity does not pull; space pushes. But, you see, the pushing of the fabric of space and time requires differential calculus. That is the language of curved surfaces, differential calculus, which you learn in fourth year calculus. So again, here is a situation where math and physics were very closely combined, but this time math came first. The theory of curved surfaces came first. Einstein took that theory of curved surfaces and then imported it into physics. Now we have string theory. It turns out that 100 years ago math and physics parted ways. In fact, when Einstein proposed special relativity in 1905, that was also around the time of the birth of topology, the topology of hyper-dimensional objects, spheres in 10, 11, 12, 26, whatever dimension you want, so physics and mathematics parted ways. Math went into hyperspace and mathematicians said to themselves, aha, finally we have found an area of mathematics that has no physical application whatsoever. Mathematicians pride themselves on being useless. They love being useless. It's a badge of courage being useless, and they said the most useless thing of all is a theory of differential topology and higher dimensions. Well, physics plotted along for many decades. We worked out atomic bombs. We worked out stars. We worked out laser beams, but recently we discovered string theory, and string theory exists in 10 and 11 dimensional hyperspace. Not only that, but these dimensions are super. They're super symmetric. A new kind of numbers that mathematicians never talked about evolved within string theory. That's how we call it "super string theory." Well, the mathematicians were floored. They were shocked because all of a sudden out of physics came new mathematics, super numbers, super topology, super differential geometry. All of a sudden we had super symmetric theories coming out of physics that then revolutionized mathematics, and so the goal of physics we believe is to find an equation perhaps no more than one inch long which will allow us to unify all the forces of nature and allow us to read the mind of God. And what is the key to that one inch equation? Super symmetry, a symmetry that comes out of physics, not mathematics, and has shocked the world of mathematics. But you see, all this is pure mathematics and so the final resolution could be that God is a mathematician. And when you read the mind of God, we actually have a candidate for the mind of God. The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace. That is the mind of God. Directed / Produced by Jonathan Fowler & Elizabeth Rodd. -- Â

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Janice Lewis  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Twyla, why  is the weekly study material for December 6-12 & December 13-19, 2021 are marked Unavailable?
      · 0 replies
    • romain.eneau  »  misette

      Bonjour, serait-il possible de disposer des discours encourageants du Frère Folini ?
      Merci beaucoup.
      · 2 replies
    • misette  »  Gilles h

      Bonsoir Gilles
      S'il te plait, aurais-tu le samedi après-midi de l'assemblée régionale 2021
      Je te remercie
      · 2 replies
    • Eric Ouellet

      Soyons reconnaissant devant toutes ses oeuvres
      Le Dieu des dieux, Jéhovah, parle ;
      il convoque la terre
      depuis le soleil levant jusqu’au soleil couchant.
      De Sion, la perfection de la beauté, Dieu rayonne.
      Notre Dieu viendra et ne pourra pas garder le silence.
      Il y a un feu dévorant devant lui,
      et une violente tempête fait rage autour de lui.
      Il convoque les cieux et la terre
      pour juger son peuple :
       « Rassemblez auprès de moi mes fidèles,
      ceux qui concluent une alliance avec moi par un sacrifice. »
      Les cieux proclament sa justice,
      car Dieu lui-même est Juge. (Sèla.)
       « Écoute, ô mon peuple, je vais parler ;
      ô Israël, je vais témoigner contre toi.
      Je suis Dieu, ton Dieu.
      Ce n’est pas pour tes sacrifices que je te réprimande,
      ni pour tes holocaustes, qui sont constamment devant moi.
      Je n’ai pas besoin de prendre un taureau de ta maison
      ni des boucs de tes enclos.
      Car tous les animaux sauvages de la forêt m’appartiennent,
      même les bêtes sur mille montagnes.
      Je connais tous les oiseaux des montagnes;
      les innombrables animaux des champs sont à moi.
      Si j’avais faim, je ne te le dirais pas,
      car le sol productif m’appartient, avec tout ce qui s’y trouve.
      Vais-je manger la viande des taureaux
      et boire le sang des boucs?
      Offre en sacrifice à Dieu ta reconnaissance
      et acquitte-toi des vœux que tu as faits au Très-Haut;
      appelle-moi en temps de détresse.
      Je te secourrai, et tu me glorifieras. »
      Mais Dieu dira au méchant :
      « De quel droit récites-tu mes prescriptions
      ou parles-tu de mon alliance?
      Car tu détestes la discipline,
      et sans cesse tu tournes le dos à mes paroles.
      Quand tu vois un voleur, tu l’approuves,
      et tu fréquentes les personnes adultères.
      Avec ta bouche, tu répands le mal,
      et tu attaches la tromperie à ta langue.
      Tu t’assieds et tu parles contre ton frère;
      tu révèles les défauts du fils de ta propre mère.
      Quand tu faisais ces choses, je gardais le silence,
      alors tu t’es dit que j’étais comme toi.
      Mais, à présent, je vais te réprimander
      et exposer ce que j’ai contre toi.
      Réfléchissez à ceci, s’il vous plaît, vous qui oubliez Dieu,
      sinon je vous déchirerai et il n’y aura personne pour vous secourir.
      Celui qui offre en sacrifice sa reconnaissance me glorifie ;
      et à celui qui est déterminé à bien agir
      je ferai voir le salut de Dieu. »

      · 0 replies
    • Eric Ouellet

      Dieu aime les prières et la sincérité de ses serviteurs humbles
      Dieu aime la bonté de coeur envers autrui et non aux sacrifices et holocaustes d'animaux sauvages et domistiques.
      Dans ton amour fidèle, accorde-moi ta faveur, ô Dieu.
      Dans ta grande miséricorde, efface mes transgressions.
      Lave-moi complètement de ma faute
      et purifie-moi de mon péché.
      Car je suis bien conscient de mes transgressions,
      et mon péché est constamment devant moi.
      C’est contre toi que j'ai failli, oui j'ai fait le mal
      devant tes yeux.
      Ainsi, tu es juste quand tu parles,
      tu es droit quand tu juges.
      Vois ! Je suis né coupable
      et, depuis l’instant où ma mère m’a conçu, je suis pécheur.
      Vois ! Tu prends plaisir à la vérité dans le fond du cœur;
      enseigne-moi la vraie sagesse, au plus profond de moi.
      Purifie-moi de mon péché avec l’hysope, pour que je sois pur;
      lave-moi, pour que je sois plus blanc que la neige.
      Fais-moi entendre le son de l’allégresse et de la joie,
      pour que les os que tu as broyés se réjouissent.
      Détourne ton visage de mes péchés
      et efface toutes mes fautes.
      Crée en moi un cœur pur, ô Dieu,
      et mets en moi un esprit nouveau, ferme.
      Ne me chasse pas de ta présence ;
      ne m’enlève pas ton esprit saint.
      Redonne-moi la joie d’être sauvé par toi;
      éveille en moi la volonté de t’obéir.
      Je veux enseigner tes chemins aux transgresseurs,
      pour que les pécheurs reviennent à toi.
      Libère-moi de la culpabilité de meurtre, ô Dieu, mon Dieu sauveur,
      pour que ma langue puisse proclamer joyeusement ta justice.
      Ô Jéhovah, ouvre mes lèvres
      pour que ma bouche proclame ta louange.
      Car tu ne veux pas de sacrifices — autrement, j’en donnerais ;
      tu ne prends pas plaisir aux holocaustes.
      Le sacrifice qui plaît à Dieu, c’est un esprit brisé ;
      un cœur brisé et broyé, ô Dieu, tu ne le rejetteras pas.
      Dans ta bienveillance, agis pour le bien de Sion ;
      bâtis les murailles de Jérusalem.
      Alors tu prendras plaisir aux sacrifices de justice,
      aux holocaustes et aux offrandes totales ;
      alors on offrira des taureaux sur ton autel.

      · 0 replies
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.