SCIENTIFIC MANIPULATIONS

 

DENIAL OF SELF AND EXPERIENCE (logic and knowledge)

Let’s consider that I ate. Based on my experience, I can claim what I ate and how the food tasted.

Some people will ask me for proof that I ate.

There are probably methods that can prove what I ate, but those methods cannot prove for sure how the food was prepared, how I ate it and what it tasted like, etc…

Also, that evidence can be planted and processed arbitrarily.

Many people realize that there are evidences and facts in nature. However, the processing and understanding of the facts themselves can be biased and inaccurate. This is best reflected in the assumptions of evolution, the big bang theory or abiogenesis. These are all theories themselves based on some selected evidence and facts that are processed based on human limited knowledge and bias, and produce wrong theories.

The statement reads:

No matter how well you analyze the sand in the desert and no matter how precisely you count the grains of sand in the desert, it will still be a desert.

Here we come to a better variant.

In order for someone to believe that we ate, that someone can witness how we prepare food and how we eat. However, there is no evidence here. The man attended our meal through subjective experience and he does not believe based on evidence but personal experience that we ate.

However, even this is not enough because the observer does not have the experience of the taste of the food, he did not eat it. To have the full experience he must eat.

What is the conclusion here?

Looking for evidence does not solve the problem of ignorance. To believe in the theories of scientists is to believe in the minds of other people. Many people claim that there is evidence for some theories, but this is not true. Those people do not have a conscious knowledge of the theories of scientists, nor do they have knowledge or understanding of these evidences (as with many scientists). These people only believe in the theories of scientists and believe in “evidence” that they have not assimilated experientially.

What am I explaining here?

Looking for evidence is ignorance and lack of experience, and therefore the belief that the truth can be reached through circumstantial evidence, which is a denial of one’s own life and experience. It is the same as when a person believes that with the help of a calculator he will find the truth contained in Creation.

You can claim something based on experience and not evidence.

To say that subjective experience is unreliable is insecurity. In reality, there is no better and more reliable proof.

Do you need someone to prove and explain to you how you live, what you think, what you do and what you experience?

Conclusion: people look for proof when they do not value their life and their experiences and when they do not realize that they are capable of doing everything on their own.

Simply put: Can “evidence” or looking for evidence convince you that you haven’t ate?

 

 

 

FAITH IN EVIDENCE

The situation is very simple.

God created the Cosmos and the laws by which the Universe exists.

Atheists try to call these laws evolution.

The modern theory of evolution presented to us by scientists is not correct.

It is only imagination of the mind based on limited evidence and facts.

The theory of evolution is a belief system, because belief is really necessary for facts and evidence that are circumstantial and variable in nature.

Conclusion:

Much more faith is required in the theory of evolution than in God.

You can experience God experientially, but not the invented theory of evolution.

 

 

WHAT IS EVOLUTION AND WHAT IS CREATIONISM?

Evolution has nothing to do with creationism except for two things.

If it claims to know the origin of creation (which it certainly will never know) and if it claims the development of life from a single cell (which is pure nonsense).

So the whole theory of evolution (fictional and real) has nothing to do with creationism.

Creationism is valid because God is the Creator of everything. Changes in Creation are not a problem of creationism but of evolution.

However, keep in mind that evolution deals with the past, so many theories will be wrong and are mere belief systems.

Why?

Statements without subjective experience are not certain knowledge. It can never be proven or confirmed.

That is why you can recognize a man who does not know by the fact that he is looking for evidence, not subjective confirmation.

 

 

EVOLUTION AGAINST THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

The fact is that the word evolution means positive progress. The word evolution has its place and meaning.

One of the main meanings is the evolution of consciousness. With the evolution of consciousness comes the evolution of society, the evolution of knowledge, the progress of technology, science, etc…

To say that evolution exists is true, but to say that the modern scientific theory of evolution is true is an outright lie.

This is very easy to explain.

A man may kill for love, but the murder will not be love but murder.

There is an evolution of something, but the theory of evolution (today) does not exist and has never happened because the evidence is not reliable.

Conclusion:

The only evolution that certainly exists is the evolution of consciousness. God created the world so that every soul could attain perfect consciousness. If scientists knew this, then they would come to better conclusions.

Therefore, all species created by God have a task for a certain development of soul consciousness. Accordingly, many things evolve in the Cosmos.

The materialistic theory of evolution is pure mind numbing and falsification of the past because spiritual laws follow God, matter follows spiritual laws, so material changes are the least important and impossible to prove for the past.

 

 

SIMPLE MATH

When we go out into the world and see dinosaurs and live with them, it is direct experience and knowledge. It may not be complete but it is real.

On the other hand, a billion fossils found do not prove a single dinosaur, because any experiential processing of the evidence is a fiction of the mind based on the belief in circumstantial evidence, method  and a limited mind.

 

 

WHICH IS BETTER?

If you take a little time and pay attention, you will see that there are countless evidences of God, either through perfect logic, or through perfect love, or through a series of paradoxes of creation that no scientist will ever explain.

Therefore, ignorance and failure to recognize that evidence are not arguments.

If the world claims that there is no proof of God, it only means that the whole world is in the dark. However, I argue that it is not so. Many people know God, but there are too many who have abandoned the Self and knowledge because of belief in evidence.

So what is better, to know the Self or to explore the Cosmos?