My Super Mum

As a child, she taught me the value of love and humility, the essence of life.
She taught me the difference between knowledge and wisdom, the essence of education.
She taught me etiquette, how to maintain a good posture, self confidence, the essence of singularity.
She taught me faith, honor, loyalty and respect for all life, the essence of community and stewardship.
She told me never plucked the wings off flies like the other boys did.
She told me never to tie tin cans to cats’ tails or lock beetles in matchboxes or stomp anthills.
Yet when I grew up and saw the world through my own eyes.
All I saw injustice, hatred, racisim, selfishnes, bigotry and pride
I saw how life had been unfair to her, the sacrifices she made for me-us.
I witnessed what vices people did to her and how the pain she had to endure.
And despite all this, I was amazed, She was always smiling.
She said read me a poem…about the sun and the sea… about nuclear reactors and satellites…about the greatness of humanity.
She told me she was happy because every time she looked into the eyes of her children,
She was proud she did her job right.
That against all evidence, she still believes in humanity.
That she, has hope.


Mystery Of God III “The Tachyon Particle and Grand Design” 

“The simplicity of God is that he can be found even in the tiniest particle” Chisanga Kombe.

For many years now, atheism has been gaining traction, seemingly because it has been inaccurately linked to intellect and the ability to discern fact from fallacy. I say inaccurately because this is actually not the truth. Many of supposedly intellectual youths of my age group seem to be mused by this idea of proving that God does not exist, but is it so?

You know it’s easy to ignorantly claim the inexistence of something your brain is too frail to fathom but I think it’s rude of you to let it out unless it’s factual on both ends. You can easily say you are not a rapist but can you defend that fact with proof? Besides using this kind of logic, you can prove nothing at all e.g. “We all know it’s got, we can see it’s a got, but where is the evidence that it’s a got, who determines it’s a got?”

Last month, I wrote a blog article trying to use scientific evidence to get sceptics to see God via an intellectual scope since to them,  faith is not enough. I cited some popular science papers, journals and other publications, I quoted the likes of Richard Lewontin and  Sir Isaac Newton.

Frankly,  I was rather overwhelmed by the number of mail I received from people, some even from renowned individuals all claiming that yes they acknowledged my assertion that there is an infinitely powerful, unquantifiable force which seems to be actively managing the universe but they were sure it wasn’t God. What is it then?

Michio Kaku, who is a highly respected contributor to scientific community thanks to his work in helping to popularise the String Theory, has developed a new theory which he says points to the existence of God or an intelligent designer for the universe.

Kaku, who is a professor in theoretical physics at the City College of New York USA, came to his conclusion by studying “primitive semi – radius tachyons”.

These tachyons are theoretical particles that have the ability to “unstick” matter in the universe or vacuum space between particles, essentially leaving everything free from the influence of the universe.

In respect to these new findings, Dr. Kaku concluded that the universe was created through design, and not by random chaos, and that we could be living in a type of “matrix”. He said of his research: “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence.”

“Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore. 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.”

With all of the calculations that would need to go into creating a successful universe, Professor Kaku says that God is a mathematician – which could imply that we are living in a simulation, which many experts are considering the notion of.

He said in a YouTube video: “The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician. The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.” Personally I think the existence of God is out of question, it’s whether we want to believe or not.

Mystery Of God II “Science VS Faith”

“God will always be mysterious, faith is always plain and simple”                                                                                          Chisanga Kombe.

You know what, am beginning to write this article fully aware that 50% of those who will react to it won’t even read it, and of the 50% who will actually read, only 10% will look up the facts. Even so, I have chosen to dedicate my personal time and man hours of research to you…yes, I mean you. See, the thing is I find it really hard to understand why extremely intelligent human beings fail to see, later on be amazed by the magnificent power of God.

Each time man probes for answers trying to explain everything hence disputing the fact that God exists, he actually finds more proof that he does and in such a splendorous glamour. Theory after theory, twisting results and environments, it seems we can never just get the simplicity of faith. Some of the greatest scientific experimental theories that accidentally or somehow just need “God” to hold water are the quantum theory of entanglement, big bang theory (Dark Matter & Dark Energy), the string theory and the loop quantum gravity, all of which coincidentally being targeted in the opposite direction though. It’s funny to note that these especially and many other of the bizarre mind-blowing theoretical physicist predictions and particle level experiments at CERN all share the same flaw, or maybe not a flaw…They share an Identical finding. Scientists consensually agree that the problem with these theories is that they “generally extend into realms that aren’t quite testable yet, that there is an external force beyond which is responsible for all that happens to everything, with tangible and very distinct yet obscure properties, which does not obey the laws of all that which is physical”, eerily similar to the description of God huh?

Although, I have to mention It’s easier to understand the scientific perspective once you quote one of the scientists themselves i.e

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”.

Quoting Richard Lewontin.

The thing is, from deep down, we all acknowledge the fact there is a higher power, which means if you dispute that God exists, you might find yourself worshiping the devil somehow, there is no other way, being atheist has nothing to do with being smart, it’s an egocentric version of ignorance disclosure, and to quote the bible “foolish”. But, it is the same as being a Christian without having your faith buried deep in the word, because really have to be crazy to believe in what you can’t prove. You can try to google this stuff on your own…Though I have given links to the quote and the theories below. If you have no time, you can still inbox me for clarifications.