José Rodríguez S

Bogotá, Colombia, 14/III/2020



Complexity is an eternal and ubiquitous issue that generates and sustains theologies. Here we use it to interpret two of them, the first Chinese and the second Babylonian. Then we see their interrelation with the Evolutionary Theory and with Science. Let's start with the first one.


A great Chinese master of handicrafts carved a door on wood and without adding anything, by pure emptying, adorned it with a network of rectangular motifs interspersed with various figures. Something typical in his culture. But since this teacher had set out to do something great, he inserted an upside down symbol between the figures, perhaps that of good luck. For what? So that when the gods came down to look at the door, they would notice that it was imperfect, and thus they would calm their envy and not punish him or his patron for wanting to be equal to the gods.

Our complexity based interpretation of this myth is the following: The story deals with the usual problem that one finds in the pursuit of perfection: in serious projects one always gets something wrong. It doesn't matter who is to blame. On the part of the craftsman, he needed an absolute concentration and to be a design genius. What usually happens is that one damages the design because of a slip. It ends in something too symmetrical or repetitive, or perhaps a great void, a stupid thing. Let's highlight the lesson:

Chinese Theology: in every project something always goes wrong. And in difficult projects, many things go wrong.

That is usual:

Last Sunday I took a bus to a nearby town and carried with me the folding bike. Since its wheels are small, the saddle and handlebar are high. There I unfolded it and rode on the bike path that was enabled. In the only descent inside the town, some 30 meters long, the saddle collapsed, fell about 20 cms and, thinking of solving my confusion, I pressed the two brakes tightly. The bike stopped dead and I was immediately projected in a forward turn. By reflexes I put my hands on the floor and turned a full 360º. I got up to straighten the cycle and in a second I found myself surrounded by about 6 boys, between the ages of 12 and 17, who came to help me. One of them corrected the front train that got rotated 180º. And they advised me that in a descent I would give preference to the rear brake over the frontal one. Then they directed me to the street bike workshop that was about 50 meters away. I did not broke my neck, nor hurt my head, nor did I scratch my face or hands, nor did anyone run over me, but after a while I noticed some scratches on my left knee. And further, arriving at another town, a dog bit me in the right twins, but it did so with such elegant delicacy that I felt a huge grip but no teeth were buried. I think it was because the owner lady did not stop scolding it throughout the attack.

Let us consider now a second incident.


A great technological revolution reported in the Babel incident concerned construction techniques: using bricks instead of stones and asphalt instead of mixing. The bricks allow the construction of predefined geometries, they were easy to build and transport, of simple agglomeration, they are very resistant and durable. The asphalt was found in heavy oil wells, it came out very cheap, it is a magnificent material to make mortars with good stability and water is not required. The new technique gave so much encouragement to their inventors that they thought it would allow them to make skyscrapers. And set to work. But it was not so easy and the resulting complexity drove them crazy and they had to leave their work unfinished. Why? In addition to logistics problems, say with scaffolding and cranes, it is plausible that they have suddenly collided with thermodynamic problems.

We know and apply thermodynamics at all hours. For example, if you want to know how hot a pot or motor is, you hit it with a finger and immediately remove it. Because one knows that if it takes a long time, it burns. Officially: our body can withstand and process strong but rapidly transient temperatures, but it cannot tolerate high temperatures permanently: heat waves in the summer always cause deaths. Well, what happened in the Babel incident could have been similar:

The asphalt is resistant to strong transient pressures, such as those that a truck exerts when passing on the road. But its viscosity decreases when the temperature and constant pressure increase, such as when a super-heavy truck is parked on hot ground or in the summer. That's why heavy-duty highways are not made of asphalt but of reinforced concrete. Therefore, what could have happened was the following:

As they had thought, the technique allowed them to rise to the sky. Its tower under construction was seen from afar and everyone was admired. The builders were happy. And well, they had a little smoke on the head because greatness swells one's brain. But nobody cared because it was something sensational and gladly everyone helped them. But a noticeable increase in the temperature of a particularly hot day coupled with the strong pressure due to the increasing number of floors caused the asphalt to flow and, due to the lateral force that one or more people created when walking in the same direction, everything misaligned from the vertical and the collapse was imminent. We know something similar: the impacts of 2 planes and the subsequent joint action of the heat of the fire and the continuous pressure also knocked down a September 11, in a process that lasted an hour, the Twin Towers that were made of steel and concrete.

From the point of view of complexity, the Babel incident is classified as a problem of scaling or extrapolation: if a 7-story building can be done, can one do another with 70? The lesson can be summarized as follows:

Babylonian Theology: escalations are generally accompanied by major problems of complexity, so that solutions for simple cases can be a deadly trap for complicated cases.


Illustrate with experiences of your own life the permanent and challenging reality of the complexity of escalation problems.


Scaling problems have been assiduously studied. It is a whole discipline known under the name of Algorithmic Complexity. Research on it and take careful note that some solutions scale well, with manageable difficulties (for problems that we can call easy), but others very bad (for problems that we can call difficult).

We have discussed the operational part of the mentioned theological incidents. But we are not done because we are intrigued:


There is an agreement between anthropological testimonies of very diverse origin: the gods exist, have some power over nature and interfere with the human mind, and thus intertwine with everyday life. Let's look at it in the aforementioned biblical incident:

There was a great fever at the time to colonize new lands, which can create geographic isolation, which is known to create linguistic diversification. This requires a source of linguistic variability and a situation that does not destroy it but amplifies it. The source of variability is innate to the human being. In fact, in almost every family there are words and linguistic turns that children invent and that eventually can become popular. But in addition, inventing words is something that people who suffer from schizophrenia also do. And as every patient knows, this disease allows evil spirits, demons, to interfere with the human mind. I met a patient who defended his behavior because it was what "the goblin" told him to do. So what the narrators of the Babel incident tell us is that the natural process of linguistic diversification was accelerated by spiritual beings. The inventions were conserved by isolation and then were amplified by the growth of the population.

Now, why do gods interfere negatively with the human mind? The passage gives us the ground to think that there is a justification here: it is a punishment against vainglory, a very human stupidity that consists in boasting of something forgetting that we are dust from the earth. On the other hand, in the Chinese story there is a different accusation: the gods are bad, as much as we are, and they let themselves be driven by envy as a pretext to harm us. But then, why do we mess with them being that they are bad?

Many anthropological testimonies clearly say that the gods are important to us because we learn to manipulate them to have them on our side and be able to obtain what we seek, namely, survive, be happy, rich, powerful, educated, wise, feared, admired. Difficult: How does one make the rain to fall on time, during the sowing and also while the fruits and grains grow? Very complex: What is the secret to always win in war? And to overcome every problem? A usual way out is to have specialized gods, one for every need. This is how the Catholic Church has been so successful in inventing 20,000 saints to help us, each in their specialty. For example, for girls to get a husband is San Antonio. And to manipulate him, to make him help, the girl in my culture puts him on his head. And so on for every type of need. Manipulation is everything to solve our complexity problems. At any price: killing children in sacred rituals was usual everywhere, although the variability in the degree of torture that kills was very large.

That is why the Biblical message is so strange: But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things (those that are so needed day after day) will be added to you. That is not easy given that everyday problems are so complex and intense that the believer does not always have a reason to think that God is good and not bad or oppressive. In fact, the entire Bible is a great effort to reconcile the idea of ​​an intrinsically good God with our life that is so difficult, so complicated. The proposed solution is that God is Holy, disciplined. Another important element to take into account in the front row is that much of our suffering is generated by ourselves: the brother oppressing the brother, the man to his wife, the employer to his employee, the corrupt to the homeless, and those that are holy to the poor through the socioeconomic system. For example, all the poor in the world are strongly trained to find in the liquor a relief to their sorrows, a relief that numbs and blurs the vision. Similarly, there is a very strong current that teaches that by paying the tithe one stops stealing what belongs to God. And therefore one is at peace with Him so that blessings will rain, something very necessary in this valley of tears.

But, well, we are not always doing badly. On the contrary, we are doing so well that we still have time and desire to worry about issues as terribly abstract as where we come from and where we are going. Or, in more operational terms, how did life come about and what will happen after death.


The Bible agrees with the verdict of common sense, made religion almost universally, which says that the tremendous complexity of living beings linked to a fluid style and that pursues beauty has only one explanation: we were created directly by a being similar to us, a spirit whom we call God the Creator, who enjoys art and great complexity, only that much more wise and powerful or perhaps with much more time.

In contrast to the instinct and the Bible, Modern Science teaches that we appeared by evolution, we and all living beings.


The idea of ​​evolution is simple and powerful: all living beings resemble each other, and in many cases, we differ only by small changes. So, to reinvent the Evolutionary Theory, all that has to be proposed is that by adding small changes, the species are transformed one into another. In particular, some monkey very similar to us, perhaps the chimpanzee or the bonobo, gave rise to man. But to remove the Creator from the path we must argue that sequences of small changes can cause wonders, like you and your cat, in such a way that inert matter produced the first group of living beings and from them, evolution created all species and for now it goes in us. But we don't know what will it give from itself in the future.

The Evolutionary Theory has lots and lots of reasons that support it. One that I love is that the monkeys are very sentimental, just like us, or put another way, a monkey is already humanized and, in that aspect, there was no evolution of the monkey to man. To illustrate it, let's think about the following narrative: somewhere in Vaupés, a hunter reached a large, leafy tree full of monkeys and shot one. All the monkeys came out terrified but the wounded one fell to the ground, and when it could get up, it realized that blood was bubbling from its trunk. It ran his hand over the wound, looked how it was smeared with blood and in the middle of sweet moans, it showed it to the hunter. The monkey bled and died. The hunter took it home, cooked and ate it. But his companion, who told me his experience, was not able to taste a bite. It is clear that he could not deny our brotherhood with the monkey.


The evolution we have presented allows perfection to emerge but does not assure it. Research the mechanism proposed by Darwin to guarantee it.


Show that if evolution is true then the species must be organized in a tree, the evolutionary tree, which describes the process of their formation when leaving one from another. Inquire about that tree and look to see where you and your dog are.


Research on DNA, the material that allows inheritance and that makes the child resemble the father. Show that the DNA predicts that there is usual evolution by small changes but also by large ones, although they are less likely.


Research the horizontal transfer of genetic information and how it destroys the claim that evolution must be described by a tree. So, what is the correct description?


Applying a theology of those two mentioned, destroy the following argument: Artificial evolution is a clear demonstration of how sensible and powerful evolution is. Indeed, those who work in the breeding of dogs, horses, cats, chickens, and in the improvement of agricultural strains continually verify that a new breed can be done swiftly. Therefore, how much more can evolution achieve given that it has billions of years and the resources of the whole earth to do experiments. So there is no reason to deny the Evolutionary Theory.

Evolution is for Science the cause and reason for our existence. But the legacy of the ancients allows us to refute it immediately.


We hurry to emphasize that evolution is a natural, real and, moreover, fearsome process.


Research about pandemics and how they are a product of evolution. This shows us that evolution is a crude reality.

Since evolution is real and is operating just now, can we extrapolate that evolution created the complexity and excellence of all species of living beings? No, not at all. It would be the same as believing a gangster that because he has an emerald shop that gives him good money, that's how he got all his almost infinite wealth. So let's see why the Evolutionary Theory is obviously false.

Indeed, the Chinese Theology is enough to prove it: making a human being is not easy. Neither a hummingbird, nor a snake, nor an amoeba. And all are excellent. Therefore, in each case, something must be wrong, very bad, with many, many defects. But when we look at ourselves and all kinds of living beings, we see that this is false. Therefore, the Evolutionary Theory is false too.

But, one moment! Just a moment! There is a very powerful objection:

The work of great teachers are error-free because having gone through so many failures they have put all their effort into learning from their mistakes and with the passing of the years, of the many years, perhaps of generations, they have stacked the knowledge, the technique to make great projects and without making mistakes. Well, it happens that evolution also has its learning method. Therefore, the perfection of living beings says that evolution has been very stubborn to learn and in nothing is less than the schools of great teachers.


Research the learning mechanism of evolution.

Let's resolve the objection.

One learns when one gradually stops making mistakes. For complex projects, this takes time. And when the complexity is high, time is a lot and mistakes fill everything although they can diminish over time. It is the case of living beings because only until now we begin to make live machines, which are self-replicating and self-repairing and that serve for something. That is, making a living being is very, very difficult. And similarly, taking a living being and doing a very different one is equally difficult. I know it because masons have taught it to me: they restore houses and, when it is intelligent, they remodel them but refuse to do complicated remodeling, and instead, they advise to destroy everything in order to start anew. I see it every day: around here near my house they buy houses, destroy everything and start a new and great project from zeros. That is, masons and engineers do not believe that evolution is an appropriate method to solve all creativity problems: starting from scratch is better in many cases.

We have said what we all know: making a living being must be very, very difficult, no matter the method, and in some cases, evolution may be the worst way out. So what is said about evolution must be proved. Or refuted: if evolution was the one who made life on earth, there must be a fossil record of their learning process: Where are those mistakes, many at first and then less and less? In your cat, they are not. Nor in the monkey. Not even in dinosaur skeletons. Not in corona-viruses. They are not anywhere. Therefore, the Evolutionary Theory is nonsense.


We have applied the common sense that captures our usual struggle against complexity as it has been embodied by ancient cultures in their theologies, and we have shown that the Evolutionary Theory is false. What does Science have to say about it? What Science has to do is simulate evolution on a computer and prove or refute that evolution obeys the common sense captured by mentioned theologies. So, investigate the simulations of evolution, officially called genetic algorithms, and test or refute the two proposed theologies.


By falsifying the Evolutionary Theory we have assumed that complexity is something transcultural, in the sense that it is hard for us, as well as for evolution and for any problem-solving method. So much generality can only be a postulate that specialists call the Church Thesis. Inquire about it.

Let us now discuss the other question that so much torments us.


When someone died, the custom was to make an altar, decorate it with flowers and images of idols and pray for 9 nights so that the soul of the deceased had eternal rest. And to quench his or her thirst, they placed a glass full of water under the altar. As a child, I checked to see if it was true that they drank the water and it proved false. The same has happened to Science, which, having done its best, has not found any soul. There is nothing after death, a great physics teacher, a lady, taught me. And instead of souls, materialism, the methodological directive that says that matter is all to the universe, has produced and continues to produce constant advances in technology and in the ability to control all aspects of the matter and the human body.

As a consequence, believing in the soul is something that is left for very sentimental and psycho-rigid women, who do not admit to being contradicted. In other words, Science has no other way but to conclude that we Christians believe falsehoods without any argument. Within the established materialism, that accusation is correct and with difficulty some objection could be interesting. However, Christians deny materialism and instead accept the anthropological experience of thousands of years in all cultures including the present one that ensures we have an immortal soul. That is, we believe that there is an objective reality larger than that recognized by Science. If scientists wonder why their detectors have not been able to capture it, we say firstly that a human being has sensors for spiritual beings, a fact that every baby knows because they all fear those spirits who like to live in the darkness. Secondly, there are many people working on the detection of spirits and they will certainly do something skeptical-proof. Why? Because spirits exist.

Now, Dear Reader, allow me to present an argument in neurology in favor of the existence of the soul, to see how it seems to you. That is, if you don't like it, invent something better. Yes sir, something much better. With time and wise work, you will be able.


Let's start by citing a fact that is amazing to me: one dies and died forever. It has been investigated what it means to die and it has been discovered that it is such an extensive process that it even gives rise to resurrections, something that was already known but that is now about to become a profession. But still, one dies and died forever. The ancestral explanation to this fact, and the one I accept, is that death occurs when the connection between the immortal soul and the body is broken. But, well, if the soul is that important, the body-soul communication must also use a lot of machinery from our body, which occupies a lot of space and consumes many resources. Is that right? Well, it must be obviously right. Is it? In my opinion, yes:

Contrary to what they have taught me, the brain is not a thinking machine. Instead, the brain is an antenna, but not of any kind, but an intelligent one, or better, meta-intelligent. As an antenna, it has a structure to receive and transmit signals, but also acquires and processes them. Where does it get signals from? From the body and the soul. Where does it transmit signals? To body and soul. Where does it communicate with the soul? In an area of ​​the brain called the neocortex. This area is similar to a hood that covers the brain and its neuroanatomy is precisely that of an antenna. And the brain does everything sensationally.


Research the neuroanatomy of the human eye, and show that it is a receiving antenna of light signals. Verify that it does not have the possibility to emit signals so it cannot be a transmitting antenna. However, cats' eyes accustomed to darkness can radiate light by being strongly illuminated. Realize how absurd is the design of the light reception system in the retina of humans. Show that thanks to this design we have a vision that produces amazingly sharp images. Help: check the web for retinal neuroanatomy.


To demonstrate that the neocortex is a bidirectional antenna proceed as follows:

  1. Research the neuroanatomy of the neocortex, its extent, and functional complexity.
  2. Show that the neocortex contains receptor antenna fields with the same neuronal structure as the retina. For example, the motor zone consists of a field of neurons that, if activated, produce effects throughout the body and all the functionality of the brain but do not receive synaptic connections that activate them. Activation comes from the soul.
  3. Show that the neocortex contains emitting antenna fields: take the visual or auditory cortex, and show that it is full of nerve terminals that receive signals from within the brain but do not follow anywhere. There they die. They transmit signals for the soul to read.
  4. Verify that the neocortex is made up of fields of structures that are shaped like a column. These are the Columnar Connectomes. Each column would be an antenna in itself.

The soul is a mystery but many people from varied cultures teach very specific things. It is common to hear that the spiritual part of the human being is extensive and subdivided by functions. For example, in the Bible, the spirit, soul, and breath of life are mentioned and I adhere to the interpretation that they are rather separate things: the spirit has consciousness, the soul is responsible for feelings, and the breath of life exchanges life with the body. By such an exchange the soul is living and happy when it is associated with a body and, on the other hand, the body is healed in the disease when the soul activates and strengthens it, say, in prayer to the gods. That is why many cultures teach healing prayer as part of their usual routines to deal with the disease.


In trying to decipher the communication channel between the breath of life and the body, the only thing that occurs to me is the cell membrane with its electric field and its many ion channels. Study the matter and look to see if you propose something better.


To demonstrate that the Evolutionary Theory is false is Basic Science. It's already done rigorously out there somewhere. However, if you think not, study what you need and propose a stronger falsification. Or, will you risk being considered by future generations as an idiot savant who, knowing much, was not able to look beyond your nose?

To decide whether the rest of what we have said is Science or not, we should have a clear picture of the scientific method, which can be described as:

  1. Prepare an object to have certain initial properties.
  2. Subject it to clearly specified and consequently controlled stimuli to see how it reacts to previously predetermined and totally objective variables. Objectivity ensures that the experiment can be repeated and replicated at will, that is, that the same initial and boundary or maintenance conditions can be mounted at any time and place, and that the same stimuli produce the same results already reported.
  3. Compare the observed results with the predictions of a theory or an assumption or with the results of another experiment.
  4. Accept or reject the assumption. If it is rejected, invent another more robust and repeat.

We have a machinery thanks to which we do Science by instinct. For example, every baby quickly discovers that the mother can be disobeyed more than the father. How? For the hundreds of experiments that he or she has done disobeying and looking to see what happens.

Experimenting is the basis of Science, testable, verifiable, solid knowledge. To see it, let's think about the story of the sleepy dog ZZZ. His residence was next to the airport and as soon as it could run, it barked and chased the planes until they were out of sight: I have to protect our dome from those great flying monsters, it repeated to itself. And after each race his satisfaction was noted for his duty: his dome had never been destroyed thanks to his readiness to defend it against the continued threats of the monsters. Only when it was old and could no longer run at all hours after the airplanes, it realized that if it ran, then the airplanes fled away, and the same if it did not run, but in no case, they landed to attack the dome. That is, Z3 did an experiment: to see the result of running vs. not running on the behavior of the great monsters. The result of its experiment was clear: running or not running had nothing to do with their behavior. But while its ethics did not allow it to do experiments, it had to believe its own prejudices that in the long run were false: they were falsified by an experiment done with a protocol not very official but equally effective for the advancement of Science.

Who is the Z3? It is all of us: no matter in which area of ​​Science or non-science we work, we will always find ourselves with important beliefs that we cannot test and thus we will be forced to impose them as dogmas. For example, we do not know what the elementary structure of matter is because we cannot produce energy levels high enough to do the relevant experiments. Nor have we been able to develop the mathematics to create a clear, elegant and unified understanding that explains everything observed. We are, therefore, obliged to represent the universe by pieces, one the Standard Model that describes the behavior of the usual elementary particles and the other the General Theory of Relativity to describe gravitation.

In contrast, we can make sure that the evolutionary theory is obviously false. But how is that possible if we haven't done a single experiment?

We have done it by applying a theology, which is the dogmatizing of something that is seen every day and at all hours in our lives, namely: in all renowned projects, something goes wrong and it is necessary to mend it. Or you have to study hard, test extrapolations and plan things too well for them to go smoothly. And yet there are problems: bridges and buildings that have just been opened or under construction are falling all over the world. Many dead, many widows, many orphaned children, many losses, many bankruptcies.


The scientific method has two phases. In the first, one begins to investigate an object and in the second, one raises a theory about its behavior and the objective is to test it. Research the protocols of both phases. Decide if the philosophy of the first phase can be summarized as: something is scientific when it can be manipulated. And that of the second: what is manipulable is understandable and its behavior can be embodied in a model, in a theory.


Decide whether or not the following disciplines are Science: astrology, astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology. How important are these disciplines for Science and for its teachings with which it fights Christianity, accusing it of being a string of deceptions?


Can it be said that from a scientific reading of the anthropological testimony it follows that demons exist? Is this different from the universal belief that electrons exist? Clearly explain your opinion.


Many people say that they feel the spirits and as proof, they show their goosebumps when they arrive. And so on with many things. Is all that a scientific proof of the existence of spirits? No? Then, what is it?


Almost all women know they have a soul and use it in their daily lives. For example, they know where in the body a man looks at from behind. And one of them teaches the others: if you want to know if your husband is unfaithful, let yourself be guided by the energy because it does not lie. This teacher wants to say two things. First: if souls are full of love, they polarize in a way that is very different from the polarization when there is rejection. Second: women can correctly perceive and interpret the difference. Is this all scientific? Not? So, what is this?


Medicinal potions in all ancestral cultures are administered and taken in the midst of rituals and prayers. Consequently, prove else refute: medicinal plants are practically useless to heal but together with the prayer for healing they form a strong coalition, which is much more effective than each factor separately and also without dangerous side effects.


Research about the tremendous struggle between those who believe that homeopathy is scientific and those who do not.


Show or refute: If someone could objectively prove that spirits and soul exist, and that prayer + plants are effective in healing, that would prove that God is good and hence that He is the Creator and Judge and, of course, that He exists.


Decide whether or not the following story contains Science:

Once I went from the university to my home and I crossed an important public square and in its center, there was a man playing with a boa that was one and a half or two meters long, already quite thick. He was in front of a huge pile of coins that at that time were worthier than now, and further back there was a large briefcase, where he certainly carried them. He spoke to the public, about 70 people in a circle of some 7 meters in diameter. It seemed to me that in his words and attitude there was a lot of arrogance and in response, I began to imagine that someone strong would come and take their coins to see how he ended. Being in those thoughts, I got blind, and instead of light I saw darkness and felt in my eyes like crystals larger than those of salt but I did not feel pain or burning, only the impression. Automatically I began to pray Our Father in Heaven and, when I was in the middle, I saw again the light and the world that it illuminated, and the hallucination of salt in the eyes passed. Next to me there was a young woman, who was not there when I arrived. She looked at me for no reason because in the whole incident I did absolutely nothing. I didn't wait much longer and resumed my way.

Given my Christian context, I can summarize my experience as follows: I cried to the Lord and He delivered me from the power of Satan and his sorcerers, his darkness and his hallucinations. Now, many people from all over the world and from all times have similar testimonies with which we teach that God and his Christ deliver us, if it is His will, from serving the Devil in the form of alien gods, from a direct attack from him, from illness, from financial calamity, from the merciless oppression of passions and vices. Is this science? For my part, on that occasion, my Christian beliefs were verified and also strengthened until eternity.


Now, is the falsification of Evolutionary Theory a demonstration that we were created by God?

By expecting an immediate and definitive answer to that question, we are assuming that one can reason about God using Aristotelian logic. But this does not seem true because, to begin with, the concept of God is a contradiction in itself. This was taught to us by Nietzsche about a century and a half ago. In my words: God cannot exist because if he were He would be almighty, therefore He could make a stone that He Himself could not lift. However, if He existed, He would make heavier and heavier stones looking to see when He gets one too heavy for Him. And as none comes out so heavy, He could not prove that He is Almighty. Then, it would not be worth believing in Him more than in any demon that is the god of some people or family. This contradiction is academic but below we will ventilate another one that is very popular in our days and that may come in diverse flavors.

An illusion arises: Can we purify the concept of God to cleanse it from all contradictions? We could say for example God cannot deny himself. Thus we would remedy some problems but not all. In general, that debugging task is in my opinion useless. Ancient people came to the same conclusion: they already clung to the task of understanding God and abandoned it because of the bitterness it produces preferring to teach a doctrine that is saturated with problems of logic, ethics, and morals. His reason was explicitly given: Secret things belong to the LORD our God but revealed things belong to us and our children forever so that we keep all the words of this law. That is, before God it is better to keep a low profile and not pretend to be too wise, so the solution is to be practical and not think too much. Unless it is very necessary.


Investigate if Science believes in things whose description contains contradictions. Help: Research on Gödel's Theorems and its applications to Epistemic Theories. Also investigate the contradiction in Quantum Mechanics about the description of elementary particles, as a wave and as a corpuscle. How is this contradiction resolved?

Now, I agree with those who accept that the problem of Creation is within a sector of the world of ideas where logic works. If, in addition, someone believed that there are only two possible candidates to explain our existence: either God or Evolution, then our refutation that the Evolutionary Theory is false would be for him or her a demonstration of having been created by God. But such a person would not be governed by Science. Indeed:

The theology we have used to falsify the Evolutionary Theory says: in serious projects, something always goes wrong, so it is imminent to study and think well. That is a strongly established truth, with too much data, from many sources, and from many types. And everyone who has non-childish goals can check it every day. Therefore, our falsification of the Evolutionary Theory is statistical, not absolute because it comes from experience but not from first principles. Hence, it is applicable to the Earth, which is too young, and also to our universe, which is neither too large nor too old, but we could not apply it to truly large universes, such as MultiWorlds that are universes of universes where if something is possible, then that something necessarily exists in one of them. For example, in one such universe, you are taller, and in another, you are smaller. In other, you would not exist. Anyway, if our Earth were a world in a MultiWorld, then whatever exists, exists because it is possible. And this would be the only, sufficient and final explanation for whatever question might exist. Any other explanation would be a coincidence.

Therefore, either God or Evolution is not an acceptable dilemma for Science. Hence, the falsification of Evolutionary Theory does not prove to Science that God created us. The only thing that proves is that there is work to be done, something that must be more convincing than the theories of MultiWorlds. But what? They could be the Multiverses that are MultiWorlds generating mechanisms, of which we have examples in quantum mechanics (parallel worlds) and superstring theories. But these theoretical efforts have little support from Science precisely because we have no experiments or because they say that our Earth is not part of them. That is why many scientists work hard to see what correction or revolution occurs to them that is compatible with what we observe.


Our universe has too many favorable conditions. For example, if the Earth were a little farther from the sun, winter would be longer and pandemics more deadly. But if it were closer, half the world would be a desert. Research the Anthropic Principle, its relationship with the theme of multiverses and its proposal to devalue the properties of our very special universe.

In conclusion: the falsification of the Evolutionary Theory does not scientifically prove that God created us. However, whoever believes that God created him and lives in the fear of the Lord, must live this way because the testimony of his own spirit so determines but not because there is scientific evidence. This will make true the biblical words that say: the just shall live by faith. Moreover, any scientific demonstration of the existence of God is mere fantasy: No one ever saw God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.


We have seen that the concept of God is a contradiction in itself and that Science is not and cannot be a basic pillar for religion, which means being tied to God, although eventually, somehow could help. All this has always been known. However, Christianity has generated many important jobs and money flows for all ages and continues to do so today.


Because human beings are openly, intrinsically and immanently irrational. That means we use logic only when it suits us. For the rest, we are capricious and authoritarian. Everybody. And what do our whims depend on? On our feelings. Among Christians, this is something that currently causes serious financial failures: ancient churches focused on teaching the Word of God are running out of visitors and therefore without funds. Instead, modern churches that are experts in producing feelings of ecstasy have plenty of members and some have bank accounts for tens of millions of dollars. But attention: the feelings of ecstasy are induced both by the music of adoration and by promises of prosperity, of economic, sentimental and intellectual success. That is, feeling like being in heaven, in the presence of God, and assurance that here on Earth we have another heaven in relation to personal survival and fulfillment as of the family as of the clan.

Well. How does the user feel about this marketing program of human nature?

I have seen many discontented because of the evil and lack of wisdom. But I have also seen satisfied people who are not worried that pastors get rich because they are doing their job well. Because in reality, you can do a good job:

However, I see a great emptiness everywhere: there is little difference between the sexual behavior of Christians and that of non-Christians. This is serious because, throughout the centuries, sexual purity and the holy way of speaking and dressing of Christians have been defined by many from outside as something characteristic of our identity.

I also see that false prophets are very popular and that it is very difficult to stop them. An example with infinitely many instances:

A prophet told a young man: confess such sin or you will die. (Variants: instead of dying, a hand will be cut off, or a foot, or a finger… or the liver will get ill…) And the prophet told him the sin, one hidden. But the young man did not confess any sin and left. When he returned he said: I was about to die in an accident. Next, the young man confessed his sin. The event represented for the prophet a great victory. But, let's analyze: Is it a prophecy? Yes: the prophet revealed to the young man a hidden sin. Is that prophecy of God or a demon? My answer: it's from a demon. My proof: My God is Christ crucified by the sin of the world. Therefore, will my God come down from his cross to kill that sinner and, by justice, all mortals and me? No. So that prophecy does not match the mission of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the prophecy cannot be of the Holy Spirit. But, one moment, there is an important objection because my theory implies two false things:

We are facing the frontal clash between two powerful ideologies that contradict one another. One says: Jesus Christ came to save not to condemn, much less to kill. The other alleges: God is Holy and is the same yesterday, today and forever, so he killed, kills and will continue to kill whoever does evil. All right. What must we do to choose the appropriate ideology for the case? My proposal is to look in more detail at the nature of God:

It seems to me that from this perspective it is much easier to realize that the presented case is another example of the pantomimes of holiness that false prophets offer:

What is the final verdict? That the prophecy is cheap for being unspecific but perverse for the cunning. It is not from God. When the prophet announces financial opportunities, believe not him.


A mystery is a problem that is only solved with a bigger one that is surely more inconsistent. Christians have chosen God the Creator and Judge as the terminal mystery. Thus we solve the tremendous problems associated with the existence of good and evil, of justice and injustice, of matter, of our universe, of our body and of our soul, in which we believe despite any scientific evidence. That is why we are irrational, we put the inner and anthropological testimony in favor of its existence above the absence of scientific evidence of its reality. We also believe that we were created by God. In contrast, Science preaches that we appeared by evolution. But that is very simple to falsify: if the species arose by evolution from each other, we should have many errors in our bodies, and find many failures in the other species, and in the fossil record there would be many defects. But we don't see such a thing. So we stay with God without having or accepting scientific evidence about it. And that gives us inner peace and joy. And also many struggles in within us. In particular, I fight a lot against false prophets and against those who fear using the Bible to buster them. Nevertheless, I achieve not too much.