Why is there a God ?
Seeking the Truth

God is explained with science. So here is that seems sure. It’s up to you to check if you can believe in God.

Sources of my web sites :

Matthieu GIROUX
(33) (0) 2 23 46 06 54 (France)

Photos from https://commons.wikimedia.org and http://openclipart.org/

The website is under Creative Common by SA license. You can share it by redistributing the sources, citing the author or the website.

Church is the Human’s Image
Creative Common by SA License
Article published on 13 October 2018

by Matthieu Giroux

The Catholic religion has been on standstill, for various scientific reasons, historical, structural, by its lack of philosophers listened to. But it can currently make people thinking, because it has a revenge to take against liberalism. Indeed, the church is aware of the intellectual poverty and the individualism of the people.

There was a time when we had to be religious to get access to scientific knowledge. But, despite this fact, the religious, who rised science, were against religious individualisms. The one who rises science must contradict those whom are less responsible than themselves, who are responsible to judge him. In other words, when we could not convince his superior, mediocre, we could be eliminated. The religious were killing against one of the ten commandments, saying that jealousy is to be avoided.

This operation still exists in companies. The directors have, for many, no scientific thought, just knowledge. The opponents of Galileo referred to Aristotle without referring to Plato, whom described the scientific reflection that Socrates used. Nowadays we see the same functioning, between the researchers and the directors. The director had his place, because he knew the knowledge of the past, without philosophizing as Socrates would have done. He refers to Socrates without being like Socrates. The seeker is like Socrates, because he says to himself that the disciple can go beyond the master, and sees that Plato has described how to think scientifically.

The scientist refers to Plato because he knows that he can do as Plato does, and improves that his fathers did. His passion is led being Socrates as Plato writes. But the one who leads can philosophize only privately, because he has to communicate that he has been taught. Many will not philosophize and deny Socrates, because Socrates wants above all to convince him to do the same as himself. They will refer to Socrates because the scientist does not seek power, but the eternity of scientific recognition, which rarely happens. Many theologians will quickly become jealous of someone who goes beyond Socrates, because there will be a balance of power, not a philosophical and scientific debate. The reason why Galileo was killed is that his judges are executors, no noble rulers in the spirit. Religion had animals at its head, because the logic of the country was, for a long time, to execute that wanted the main beneficiaries of the system, those who owned the currency.

What connects Aristotle and the scientist? They have the same passion. They both seek to improve humanity to be remembered, as was Socrates. What connects the religious leader and Socrates? The writings of Socrates. The head of the church will therefore want writings, while the scientist philosophize to improve his writings. The church leader therefore has got an interest to search for the writings’ flaws, whereas he does not know how to philosophize, just to find a posthumous glory. Galileo, having not finished philosophizing with his fellow-men, especially to prevent numerous attacks, has been be punished because there are not enough scientists like him, really Socratic. On the other hand, he will have won the eternity of civilization. He will live through our civilization, which he wanted to improve.

Moreover, a scientist must especially fight the humanity’s lack of his peers. He must have a thorough thinking about that he sees. He can not publish his scientific discovery too soon. If he has no believer alive around him, they can not be passionate about convincing. Life is the creativity of the universe. Creativity is our humanity, because it brings us closer to the universe’s knowledge. It makes the one who allows to understand better the universe a God. This goes against monotheistic religions, saying that God is already there. All scientists who emit new theories can quickly pass as sectarians, if everyone believes that says a religious leader himself sectarian, referring to imperfections making him a human being. The more the scientist is right, the more he will pretend to be a God. If he ends up not being right about everything, it becomes a sacrilege. He is not a God and must be punished. Monotheistic religions have a flaw because many believers do not believe that we can match God, which is possible through our creativity, more important than being universe. Indeed it is more interesting to be a spirit describing the universe than not being creative enough, to grow and transform his mind.

The monotheistic religions were trapped by this fault in the nineteenth century, by the leader’s belief. Indeed, liberalism says that it is the individual whom makes society. Monotheistic monks may believe that the one whom is leader is not God because of his imperfections, and therefore the religious leader does not need to be creative facing his imperfections, since, thus, he is not a God. Liberalism will tell him that his individuality is important, while it does not allow us to understand each other. Indeed, we understand above all our sociability, not our creativity and our individuality. The religious leader may therefore find attractions to some liberal doctrines, since he is recognized as an individual without being a God. On the other hand, liberalism will constantly hide our sociability and our creativity, especially with individualism.

The liberal and the religious leader can then agree that creativity is to be banned, because it makes someone as a God, if they grow science. Science will therefore also be outlawed for the religious leader whom has fallen into the liberal individualism’s trap. Indeed, this science will be able to dethrone it at any time, because the leader will be imperfect. This is the challenge of the nineteenth century. We will try to prevent people from becoming Gods, that is to say, scientific references for humanity, so that the wealthy believe in God with the power they have had got on money. These leaders will themselves be possessed by their scam. They can become idiots. On the other hand, they will benefit from the growth’s glory demanded by the people, gifted by the weapons. So when the money economy is in place, we refer to these people without talking about them. They have the glory of having bowed to the people. On the other hand, the owners will be worse than idiots, people capable to make their fellow citizens become idiots. Thus social liberalism will only be the means to gain power by the opportune way, while the social will be hidden from the people, so that they do not understand each other. The social-liberal leader will have learned in economics schools that markets are magic, and will not do anything revolutionary when he has got power. He will do that he has learned from the monetary economy, so to disengage the state, then to destroy growth, therefore the republic, but also the nation-state rised by Mazarin. The nation-state is the necessary growth’s condition of a country. The people’s coherence is necessary to grow, therefore for the republic. Indeed, each nation-state has a culture, so a different story. Moreover, liberalism will replace the people’s history by the owners’ individuality.

On 2014, the religion’s problem is mainly that those whom are religious are not interested enough about science, because the current scientific doctrine prevents believing in life, by censorship, although it is possible to believe in life on every way. You will just have to say that Leibnizian science, itself inspired by Chinese science, allows those whom learn science to believe in life. Then you explain to them that the current school’s scientists do not learn to think scientifically, as Jules Ferry’s path. Then you explain that the physical economy makes everyone agree, whether it is on the right and on the left, the bipartisanship that citizens expect. The physical economy’s public productive credit, referring to Roosevelt, Lincoln, Hamilton, links both the growth communism and the state capitalism of the then glorious 30. Indeed, the public productive credit is public money created according to the people’s growth, which allows the universe, this beauty of life.

Thus you explain that each time it was the liberals who prevented the two models from linking, because individualism and private money lead to war, because it is only a question to command. You explain then that this was when the money’s protectionism and industries existed that the world was growing without war. You also explain that the BRICS use this model in part. They use it partly because liberalism promotes their individualist films so that the wealthy transgress the Confucianism necessary for the China’s cohesion. You explain, however, that the BRICS’ physical economy, currently in place, allows them to let the money’s belief establishing the growth’s belief, therefore Republic’s belief. Nature allows it, because life organizes atoms, so that growing minds are born. You then tell them that the spirit and the human’s autonomy make it possible to improve nature, so that more minds have their right to be humans, that is to say the right to access to creative reason, to believe in life or religion.

The liberalism’s flaw is censorship, since its culmination is the spirits’ poverty. The liberalism’s rejection therefore requires creative and philosophical minds, seeking to transcend the human, not themselves. Liberalism will seek censorship, to prevent there being enough philosophical and creative minds interested about politics. Those who defend the physical economy will have to access the creative reason themselves. Those who dare to question themselves may strengthen their ego, to sublimate their sociability, and vice versa, daring to discuss their limits, philosophizing.

Despite the happiness that will strengthen the ego questioning, people will be very grateful, because as jealous as in the nineteenth century. Indeed, the oligarchy uses polls, then social networks, to first make pessimistic or arrogant, by a career at work. It will be enough for it, then, to create artificial codes, thanks to the individualist films and the rhythmic music sensory and entertaining, then thanks to the way of game’s society, consuming instead of creating. The more are convinced accessing to creative reason is, the more it will make non-creative people silly. So there will have got many idiots but more and more people warned.
The liberals advocating entertainment will begin to think about those who dare to philosophize with them, to gain credibility, so that these philosophers dare to write and propose the physical economy to the leaders.
The fault of these philosophers will be their small number and their belief in the images of individualist films, because the human did not question himself, when his individuality is well. There will also be their social’s misunderstanding, to find benchmarks. It will be especially their spirit’s weakness, which is seen in France by an arrogance facing adversity. This arrogance will require rising. If there is no philosopher in the team, this team will struggle to dialogue with those whom must be convinced, then bloom through music, chosen for mechanical accessibility to a creative reason, by its ability to make thinking. They may not even detect certain qualities, not knowing them, but especially not communicating enough. Thus they will not know how to quickly increase their team. Indeed, some will not be passionate, just convinced, because few citizens dare to speak against politicians trapping them with the law, not knowing the Henry Charles Carey’s physical economy. Thus some may become frenzied individualists, because they will not philosophize on their limits, believing that they must hide their limits. They will be the fault of this organization’s kind, because it is indeed a psychological war, requiring to individualize the population, to make it pessimistic, censoring social and creativity.

The finance will believe then that it is necessary to install a dictatorship to kill people too difficult to control. Rights will go away because many of the workers will be pessimistic followers, but also because the unemployed will not dare to act politically, in order to find a useful job, not a rising job.

Everything will be played out with the networks convinced to grow and the right to creative reason. The creative reason will go so far as to be outlawed by leaders, whom can then lead the right people into the wall. Only those who think will see the trap where they are. Here again Henry Charles Carey will lead, because the physical economy’s bases that he teaches us will be transmitted to the others, so that they can propose to the elected officials or to their colleagues of the local banks, lending their money morally, of public buildings’ companies, to prevent the rise of real estate prices, or any other citizen creation favoring the real economy, that is to say all that we did according to the National Resistance’s Council.

The outcome will be the speculation’s liquidation by the Glass-Steagall Act, which should also save the deposits. The mutuals and cooperatives created will create a new deal, to teach the liberals that life is, so the universe is. The only alternative will be growth by the public productive currency, because it will be a question about rebuilding with scientific genius. Finance will become more and more lonely because the system will have favored only a few.

On 2014, it is for it to find more and more illusions, to satisfy people, whom will be more and more sensitive to the creative reason, because homo sapiens awakens his sensitivity when he has big problems to solve, being able to solve them, and thus to solve others mechanically, as long as he guesses and seeks solutions.

My Notes

The one who is corrupted and who knows it is worse than the one who is corrupted without knowing it. Try to distinguish between the two tendencies, through dialogue.

Also in this section

Why to Seek the Truth?
on 16 October 2018
by Matthieu Giroux
Finding Happiness
on 16 October 2018
by Matthieu Giroux
on 16 October 2018
by Matthieu Giroux
Giving Happiness
on 16 October 2018
by Matthieu Giroux
Going on a Mission
on 16 October 2018
by Matthieu Giroux