Writings On Man, Masculinty And The Emerging Patriarchal Renaissance

A Rational Proof For The Existence Of God

Maximus Decimus Meridius | November 4, 2017 | 30 minute read

Can we prove God exists? Why does it matter if we can or cannot? While these questions may seem tangental or irrelvant to a patriarchal renaissance for many young men today, I believe they are going to be central for a single, big reason.

Truth & Reality

Man needs to know the truth of his lived reality. If he does not, he is living a lie, a dream inside his head. The whole reason the Red Pill took off in the men's movement is because it was a better description of the reality of western society men now find themselves living, loving and working in. The RP has become a refined and finely distilled philosophy that allows not just western men, but all men, to understand the reality of 21st century western (and increasingly global) political culture, the nature of women, and how to live a healthy, wealthy and full life despite the dangers and pitfalls we continually face.

But what do we do about the issue of morality? Of justice? Of truth on the nature of Man, capital M, and the universe he exists within?

The Red Pill, while excellent grounding empirically (i.e. Aristotle) and of tremendous utilitarian value to a western man, falls short of being complete in the most critical and fundamental way.

The Red Pill has no answer for WHY Man, capital M, is here.


CAVEAT:

For those with a knee jerk reaction of bile and foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of Islam, I caution you to read no further. What I am about to write is simply my life experience and how I came to find God. God can also be found in Christianity and I will be writing on it in the future as well, specifically the Orthodox faith that is completely unknown to The West. All I am trying to do with this article is articulate, to the best of my humble ability (if God so wills), a proof for the existence of God that I found for the first time when I began to research a religion I am being told to hate.


This why of Man and it's non-existence now in The West is the very crux of western degeneracy, a truth even an atheist will agree with. What is that truth? No one believes there are any ABSOLULTE moral laws/rules to life. Either they exist or they don't and right now, in the "don't judge me" West, they don't. This was the utilitarian purpose of God in The West's past and one even ROK has recently taken the risk to point out exists in our supposed enemy - Islam. In an article titled Unlike “Christian” Girls, Muslim Women Are Modest And Take Their Faith Seriously, what David G Brown fails to draw in conclusion is WHY Muslims girls (those that do) take their faith seriously; they believe God exists and His laws/rules are absolute. This latest admission by a leading ROK writer - that Islam has something The West is lacking - was a serendipitously timed piece to give added weight to my argument that The West needs to find God again, Christian or Muslim.

About six years ago, I started a journey with the Quran and Islam because, reflexively, I do not bow to pressure to fear or hate anyone. I wanted to know, for myself, what all this anger and fear of Islam was all about. Obviously, logically, the best place I felt to start was with an English translation of the Muslim holy book. After the Quran, I have read many more books on Islam and watched a lot of good Islamic lectures on YouTube.

It was in one of those lectures that I found Islam had the proof of God's existence and it blew me away.

All I wish to share with my readers is what I found, nothing more. The debate over whether the God of the Bible and Allah of the Quran are the same, or how the Trinity and Christ's divinity works for salvation of the soul vs the Islamic view of a final judgement yet to come, is not the purpose of this article.

What I want is for the reader to simply review the Islamic proof for God, and then ask themselves if it stands or falls on its own merit. Christians will also be able use this proof as they will see, immediately, that the Bible and the Quran are talking about the same concept. Most importantly, I hope this single article will begin to get those young men of atheist/agnostic/nihilist life philosophies to begin to see how and why such belief is not just wrong, but is the very reason The West is destroying itself. Correlation IS causation in this regard, and once you see it, you can't go back to being the blind, deaf and dumb soul you were before.

Before I begin, I want to start off with a good definition of God that I found here:

God is - the force / entity / cause of events that created me and the material reality that I experience to be the way that it is.

You. The earth. The universe. Everything, good and bad, can be encapsulated in that very simple definition I think. As the author I link to states, if you can prove this entity/force exists, you have proven God exists in His most widely accepted definition. This is what Islam and Muslims have been articulating for centuries, and this is the reason why it is so strong today and keeps so many of their women in modesty and humble submission to their husbands (such as it is, we are talking about the female after all).

Faith & Reason: Friends Or Foes by Hamza Andreas Tzortis was an eye opener for me. I can fully admit this proof for God may also exist in the Christian tradition, but the problem is, I am a western Man in his 40s and despite growing up Lutheran, in four decades of life I have never heard such a logical and philosophical argument for the proof of God's existence. I think that says a lot as to why The West is in the state it is in. I have tried my best to summarize the Islamic proof for God from the above lecture you can watch for yourself at your leisure. In it, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis breaks down the Islamic argument for God's existence as follows:

I. Any proof for the existence of God can only give man good reasons to believe God exists.

Give Man, capital M, good REASONS to BELEIVE. Think on this deeply.

Man can never - empirically, physically, scientifically - prove that God exists. What we can do however is show Man that, given the rational evidence presented, the probability that a force/entity/concept of God exists is very high. Whether man chooses to believe these reasons is thus a matter of faith, but faith with sufficient reasons to have good CAUSE to believe, not just faith alone.

This is what truly separates Islam from Christianity.

Islam not only has faith, it has proof in the ultimate reality that we have come to call God.

II. We must make clear what is meant by the term "rational."

When atheists say, "God is not rational!!!", what they actually mean is God is not empirical.

Materialists will never believe in God. Individuals like Richard Dawkins must have physical, material, empirical, scientific proof to believe in God's existence. Since this is impossible, the materialist, the empiricist, will never believe any argument for God, no matter how well it is articulated or rationally and logically deduced.

What is the mistake made at the very beginning of the debate on God with most "rational" atheists / materialists?

They conflate RATIONAL proofs with EMPIRACAL ones by EQUATING the two to reach a conclusion on the existence/nature of God.

They are not the same. Rational reasoning, as Kant claims, is man's ability to have or gain knowledge of concepts/ideas independent of experience - i.e. a priori knowledge. Kant's proof for the existence of a priori knowledge was causality. If knowledge of causality was not innate, human beings would be unable to order their experiences.

Ordinarily, we can choose to order our experiences. We can for instance choose to look at the time when an alarm goes off. Decide to go to the bathroom or have breakfast next. Or hit the snooze button and sleep in an extra 10 minutes. Each of these experiences follow the first, but we CHOOSE to order them that way. We were in control of our "experience" of waking up in the morning and how it played out.

Causality comes into play when the mind needs to order events we have no control over. If someone walks past you while waiting at a bus stop, you have no choice but to first see the front of that person before you see the back. Their approach, their passing and their receding. No prior experience taught you how to order the experience of that person walking past you and, most importantly, how to give it meaning. (i.e. seeing her front came BEFORE seeing her back, which came AFTER). The reason you know time has passed is because of causality - you must see the front of a person before you see the back in walking past you. But do human beings need to be taught this? No, it is innate. In the realm of causality, there are many things human beings know in regard to "this" coming before "that" without having to think about or experience it.

Outside of causality, the best example Man has of a priori knowledge is mathematics. What is the number 1? Or 0? How do you prove zero exists? Would you need a teacher to be able to know and explain the concept of numbers in order to "count" things? Perhaps only to learn the vocabulary, to communicate math to others, but the concept - "more" and "less" - is again, innate. You don't have to be taught it outside of being able to communicate this knowledge to others in a way they understand.

But to an an empiricist, none of this is possible. No knowledge can be acquired outside of material, empirical experience. Thus, proof of anything must be demonstrated by the senses of Man's lived material existence. In short, if Man has not PHYSICALLY experienced something, he has no knowledge of it.

On the other hand, a rationalist will argue that there is knowledge Man can acquire that is not based on experience. This knowledge is innate and, most importantly, something Man can use his reason alone to discover. Knowledge Man can discover at any time by reasoning, rationally, to its existence and thus reality.

In short... we are talking the old Plato vs Aristotle debate. The metaphysical vs the material.

God... is metaphysical and thus falls into the rational, not empirical, stream of proofs for existence.

Anyone who says you "can't prove God exists rationally" is saying "you can't prove God exists empirically."

Thus, God is the ultimate test of a Man's ability to actually use his intellect, not his senses, to understand the reality of the world he must navigate to survive and thrive.

III. We must make clear what is meant by the term "reason."

Atheists also say "Belief in God is not reasonable." If you use your REASON, you cannot prove God exists.

This brings us to the concept of a posteri knowledge and the world of the empiricist once again. When those who argue for the existence of God are asked by an atheist, "Give me a good reason to believe.", they are once again asking for pure empirical proof.

But reason is not wholly empirical either.

Reason is using your entire personal context - the knowledge you already have from prior experience - and this is important so pay close attention... to infer new knowledge of the present or future which you do not have experience to prove is true.

The good example given by Hamza is a hydro meter reader showing up at your door and asking to come in... wearing only pink underwear. You have no REASON (i.e. outright empirical proof) to KNOW he is not who he says he is (a city hydro employee), but you may have good REASON to BELIEVE that that the guy standing at your door in pink underwear is... just a freak and you should not let him in. That belief (to not let pink underwear guy in your house)... is not strictly REASONABLE... nor strictly RATIONAL... but you have GOOD REASON TO BELEIVE to tell pink underwear guy to fuck right off.

This is where faith and reason come together.

While you have no true, solid, empirical knowledge that pink underwear guy at your doorstep is not a hydro meter reader, you have good REASON to BELIEVE he might not be that is not based on any immediate, direct evidence whatsoever, but instead on a) prior experience and b) a guess, just a guess, but a well REASONED guess, as to the truth. Just because the other meter readers came wearing official uniforms does not mean pink underwear guy is not a meter reader expressing his gender preference through clothing choice that day. If you let him in however, many people would say you did not use your REASON very well to figure out he was just a freak when he assaults you.

So now we have two important terms needed to prove God exists. Rational proofs, not empirical proofs, as evidence and how we use reason to believe something is true based on experience AND what we can infer about knowledge we do not yet know, or cannot yet (or ever) prove to be true.

IV. From nothing, nothing comes.

Bertrand Russell is misquoted as saying that the universe is "just a brute fact - it just is", but for most people, this will not compute due to innate knowledge of causality.

We know that if something exists that a) there could not have been nothing from which it came from and b) that it could not give birth to itself (i.e. be its own cause). Anyone who believes that something can come from nothing will have to prove it. Give them an empty hat and ask them to pull a rabbit, or anything else, from it. Since it can't be done, you, me, the universe had to come from something. And as for cause, even in pagan goddess worshipping insanity of the swamp-and-cave (which we are fast returning to), women would claim the winds or the rivers "made me with child". As crazy as shit is now in the feminist West, any woman who claims she was the cause of her own pregnancy would rightly be called an idiot. "It just happened, it did it itself" ain't gonna fly, but we are being asked to believe that the entire universe "just is."

Hawkings and the physicists are trying to prove there is some form of gaseous, pre-matter-ish conditions, but this does not compute. If there are pre-conditions that gave birth to the universe, that is still SOMETHING, not nothing. And if there is ANYTHING material that can make something else, the question then becomes "what caused/created the pre-conditions?" Calling something pre-matterish only leads to the same conclusion atheists have about the existence of God. If you can't measure this pre-matter, you can't prove it exits and thus must take it on FAITH that it does.

The Bertrand Russel & Fredrick C Copleston debate in 1948 was the culmination of the Enlightenment's dethroning of God and Christianity in The West. The debate had up to that point been a primarily elite/intellectual concern of the 19th century, but was now beginning to trickle down. The masses (you and me) may have been aware of it, but the strength of tradition and history kept the rejection of God/Christianity from being widespread. I suspect after this debate, and especially after the horrors of WWII, the rejection of God and Christianity exploded (baby boomers) because the traditions and history of The West were being questioned and rejected.

What is interesting to note is that Russel lost the debate. How you may ask? For the very reason I outlined the importance of reason and rational in the first two points. Something Copleston realized and humorously pointed out to Russel.

Russell saw the argument for a cause of the universe as having little meaning or significance. He established it as a “question that has no meaning" and thus proposed:

“Shall we pass on to some other issue?"

Copleston's response to Russell's refusal to accept the importance of the issue was to claim:

“If one refused to sit at the chess board and make a move, one cannot, of course, be checkmated."

And this is where the debate about God has been sitting ever since. Western Man refusing to sit down and actually play the game of understanding his lived reality. For Russel, the only conclusion about Man and the universe is nihilism, because to THINK, actually reflect and ponder, about the implications of the actual existence of a moral/just God, shakes Man to his very soul.

For Russel, like many an atheist, the only way he can live with no God is to reject the fundamental law of causality. I.e. Just because many PARTS of the universe has a cause, and thus all REASON and RATIONAL logic leads one to conclude it too must have a cause, does not mean that WHOLE (i.e. totality) has a cause.

To make a crude, but blunt, analogy...

Just because I took a shit yesterday, and everyone will take a shit today, does not mean the WHOLE of humanity has been taking a shit from the very beginning.

That... is how the great Bertrand Russel ended his debate on the existence of God.

In short, for Russel, from nothing EVERYTHING comes. This is the kool-aid The West has been drinking since the end of the Enlightenment. This is the real reason why Islam, and its dead serious consideration of God as a real being/force, is so hated in The West. Islam is forcing the Russel/Copleston debate back into the forefront of Man's consciousness, and western man is not liking it one bit.

V. Can something other than matter, time and space exist?

The empiricist will insist that there can be nothing outside of material reality.

Yet, we have proven that a priori knowledge can exist independent of material experience.

Being a being of pure matter, we can never know a reality that is other than material, but does that logic then prove that another reality cannot exist? If a physicist has an adjustment knob for every conditional variable that makes up our material reality, and he tweaks even just one knob a hair, poof... no universe! Or at least not ours. Will there be another kind of universe? Another reality? Can we say, with 100% certainty, knowing OUR REALITY DOES EXIST with our constants... that it is impossible for another one to exist with different constants? Only a fool would say it's impossible, and only a humble man would say we will never know.

I live in Canada. I have been told of this place called Japan. Until I actually visited Japan, it was just a concept, an idea, a "reality" that many people told me existed and was real. I could have said I won't believe Japan exists until I see it with my own eyes, but many people would think I was crazy because so many other people believed it was real and said it existed and had been there themselves.

On one had, we have a way to prove Japan exists. We can go there and see Japan for ourselves. Can we do the same with God?

I think the best rational argument I have found as proof of another reality is that of a mother's womb.

When inside the womb, all a fetus knows is the womb. If there are twins in the womb and one twin states there is this entity called Mom that exists outside of it, the other twin will rightly look at his brother and think he is nuts.

Our material reality is very much like a mother's womb. IT IS ALL WE KNOW. It is all we can know. But does it then logically follow that this material world is all there IS to know? Rational reasoning would say no. Empirical reasoning would say yes.

The true dividing line in the debate over whether God exists falls entirely on whether man can accept there is good reason to believe that another reality other than his material one can exist. Since every man came out of his mothers womb, one reality into another, how can Man believe another reality is not waiting for him when he dies, and that he will not be born yet again into a world completely alien to him?

This is not a simplistic or childish argument of proof. All one has to do to see the implications of rejecting the child/womb/mom argument for God is reflect on the nature of justice. How can we prove justice exists? It is the same question as that of God. Justice is a wholly, 100%, metaphysical and thus rational realm of inquiry and discovery. We can't and never will physically hold or point to justice. But in America, Charleton Heston did make it emphatically clear that justice is NOT just a figment of Man's imagination and if threatend, justice can indeed be physically held.

Justice may be just a idea, but it has very real world material consequences if it is denied or threatened with destruction. So to is a nation, and its people, who reject the sovereignty and authority that God has over all lands and all His creatures.

VI. Why is there something instead of nothing?

Belief in God is not a matter of faith or even proof, it simply makes sense.

There are really only three reasons to explain the origin of the universe and Man:

  1. It came from nothing.
  2. It created itself.
  3. It was created.

If nothing begets nothing, yet there is something and not nothing, then something must have created it because it cannot create itself.

If something exists, a priori knowledge tells us there must have been a CAUSE for that something to come into existence. Nothing exists without a cause. Again, this is just common sense.

Lastly, a cause that CREATES something implies a WILL. If there was nothing before, and something was created to fill that nothingness, this implies a will to create. Your bed does not make itself. Nor does a BMW roll out of the factory all by itself.

Something therefore must have had a desire, a personal will, to cause something to exist instead of nothing.

It just makes sense.

If you wake up and find breakfast waiting for you on the kitchen table, you don't say "Gee, how lucky am I that out of completely nothing, total random chance produced a nutritious breakfast!" You sit down to eat and when finished, you get up to go to the bathroom (unless you don't take shits in the morning, like Bertrand Russel). On your return, you find the table cleared and the dishes all washed and once again say to yourself "Wow!!! This is amazing!!! The dishes just randomly, and for no reason whatsoever, cleaned themselves!!!"

This is what the atheist has to do ALL DAY, every day, his entire life to be able to LIVE with his concept of ULTIMATE reality. He looks around the world and marvels that complete, random chance, from nothing and nowhere, for no reason or purpose, caused ALL of the universe, including himself, to come into existence and just "be," a brute fact.

Which brings us to...

VII. The uncaused cause.

If God made the universe, who made God?

Classic atheist mic drop.

Once again, the empiricist will insist that, if there was a cause, there must have been a cause for that cause, and a cause for that cause, and a cause for that cause on into infinity.

Which brings us back to basic mathematics, something atheists seem to have completely failed.

What is infinity?

In pure mathematics, it is a very useful concept that can be used in calculations. But in MATERIAL reality - i.e. our reality of matter, time and space - infinity is impossible.

If I ask you to walk 1/2 way to your car. Then walk 1/2 way again. And continue to advance to your car precisely 1/2 the remaining MATERIAL (i.e. physical) distance TO INFINITY... will you ever reach your car? No. It's impossible because the distance between you and your car can be divided infinitely... in THEORY. But in actual PRACTICE (i.e. your reality), it is impossible.

The same example can be used to prove the uncaused cause.

If I ask you to light the big bang universe firecracker, but you have to ask permission from your neighbor first (it's gonna be loud!). Then he has to ask permission from his neighbor and so on TO INFINITY, will you ever light that firecracker and get the universe started with a big bang?

No. Thus, an infinite number of MATERIAL causes cannot exist in our PHYSICAL reality, our universe.

Only an IMMATERIAL cause could start the universe.

That which created all matter, time and space... cannot be OF matter, time or space.

Yet, it has to be something because... from nothing, nothing comes.

God is an absolute and infinite SOMETHING, that is not in any way a MATERIAL anything. The uncaused cause.

VIII. The infinite reality of God

Since material reality has a beginning and an end, the cause that created it cannot have the same conditions imposed on it, being not of material reality. It must thus be infinite and always so.

Since there cannot be an infinite number of past events, it only makes sense that a reality that created ALL matter, space and time cannot be material (finite) and must be infinite.

If God began, he would have a cause, and we go back to the impossibility of the infinite regress.

God therefore must be infinite and to have always existed BEFORE AND BECAUSE... he is not bound to material existence.

Now, reflect once again on this nature of God and thus the nature of justice.

Is justice finite? Material? Bound to "conditions" and "causes"? It is if you are a rabid and violent feminist or SJW who believes in culturally constructed social systems (i.e. patriarchy) that "oppress" others. Change the conditions, change the culture, change justice!!! Justice for me and mine, not justice for all.

Are you beginning to see where this is all going yet?

VIII. Design to the universe implies the cause is intelligent.

Gumbo.

A better example of "throw it all in and see what comes out" random cooking you won't find.

Yet... there are gumbo competitions. Some gumbo recipes, and the chefs who created them, are better tasting than others. There IS a recipe to the "chaos" that makes for good gumbo.

Design is EVERYWHERE in the universe. The finely tuned small and large nuclear/gravitational forces of the universe are as they are and could not be anything other because... we would not be here. Change one of those mathematical values that Einstein and many physicists rely on every day, and we get a DIFFERENT reality.

Secondly, all that design... seems to be perfectly maintaining itself. Everywhere we look... it all works (human beings excluded of course). In fact, the Enlightenments very spark and existence in Western history is BECAUSE the design of the universe is 100% stable and predictable. Can you imagine if gravity was constantly changing its rate of descent? I don't know gravity, but even if it does change, again, their is a consistent math that can predict it we call physics. Even if that math is called chaos theory, it is apparently one hell of a reliable chaos that we can predictably forcast in calculations.

Again, the atheist is asking us to believe that our human ability to vacate our bowels, to take a shit, "just works." There was no design, and thus no grand purpose, to you needing to flush your bowels of toxic waste.

Why you ask so many questions? You just take a shit. There is nothing grand or amazing behind it. Sit, shit, flush.

This... is what the atheists have been arguing is the truth - i.e. the REALITY - of the universe and Man now that he has "freed" himself from a need to believe in a ghost in the machine, God. While it takes no intelligence to realize taking a shit is not all that big a deal, tell that to someone who is constipated. Have you ever gone three days without taking a shit? No biggy right?

Intelligence. In Man, in the design of the universe, can only lead to the rational, and thus reasonable conclusion, that SOMETHING designed THIS universe (and Man) the way it is for...

IX. Intelligent design & personal will to create implies a purpose.

Purpose.

Why was Man created?

Why is Man here?

Where is Man going?

This... is why the majority of The West hates Islam. The speaker above is powerful and no Christian can deny he is speaking the exact same final destination of Man that they also believe in, for those individuals who wholly and completely deny Christ (i.e. God).

Death... is the reality that modern western man is now in complete and full denial of. He believes, since there is know no God, no reason or purpose to being here, that death is just a return to the earth and to dust, to atoms and the stars.

If you have made it this far, I want you to contemplate the following...

Rationally, reasonably, it makes sense that a power/force, whatever you want to call it, exists.

That power/force created the universe and you.

That act of creation was done with a design, a purpose, a reason.

Yet the atheist and secular West wants you to believe that when you die, YOU, the universe, ALL of your life experiences, means absolutely nothing and there was no reason or purpose to any of it.

Personally I... as a Man... am increasingly finding this modern argument for my lived "reality" to be less than... reasonable to believe.

Which is precisely why The West is in the place it is now in its confrontation with Islam and Muslims. The West is being reminded of a teaching, of a truth, of a reality that they themselves have over 2000 years of culture and history of intellectual and philosophical knowledge and musings upon. A knowledge they have purposely, and willfully, thrown away and now actively deny.

Christian or Muslim... at least people of faith know better than to believe that after ALLLLLL this... there is nothing after we die.

How should we view God in moral terms?"

This is the question Sam Harris asks about the possible truth of Islam. Or reframed more clearly, the truth of the existence of God and the purpose for Man's creation. A truth he also makes a point to say Christianity also has claims upon, if in slightly different terms than a Muslim might articulate the same argument.

His answer - that God can't be moral because not everyone today, or those in the past, have heard the message of Islam and God in the Quran and thus are cast into hellfire - is simply misdirection.

Every nation, every tribe, has been given guidance.

And after 9/11 and now over 15 years and counting of a war on Islamic "terror"... there is almost literally no one other than Amazonian rain forest tribes who has not heard of Islam and thus it's reminder, it's message to Man from God. And even they, the tribes of old, will have their beliefs in a greater power and thus the same moral guidance from God, as given to them as He saw fit to reveal Himself. Moral guidance. Knowledge of a greater power than Man, be it the big mind of Buddhism or Allah of Islam. No one, no human being, can die and claim after death that he has no knowledge whatsover of any moral guidance revealed to him in order to live a righteuous and good life.

With punishment so clearly spelled out in the Quran for deniers, Sam Harris asks a very logical and atheist question: "Where is God's compassion?"

I think, and this is only my opinion after studing Islam, that a Muslim's response to this cleverly emotional (feminist?) attempt to refute who and what God is...

God... is like gravity.

Reality IS what it IS.

Deny reality ALL YOU WANT, it will fuck you up, eventually. Stupid is as stupid does is also a very appropriate retort.

If REALITY was any other way, if TRUTH was anything other than what it is, it would not be what it is, but something else.

Since reality is NOT, then we can only conclude that this life, the life of Man, was created as a test. Like gravity, if we fail to accept the reality of our situation, God will simply do as He wills, and as the universe and Man He created to be as they are.

Step off the sane and stable bridge that is acknowledgement of God and submission to his laws and rules... and plunge to your your horrible fate.

Gravity does its thing as surely and as predictably as God will do His.

It is REJECTION of this guidance. REJECTION of the clear proofs for the existence of a creator, a moral force and thus a force for justice. This REJECTION is what condemns a man or woman to hell, to judgement, to a reality so horrific if accepted, if pondered, one might not be able to go on living.

But there is also the CHOICE... to CHOOSE... to acknowledge God. To BE moral. To ACT with justice. To become MORE than the Darwinian animal The West has fully choosen to believe is all he is and can be.

God is compassionate, infinitely so, but you have to give God a REASON to ACT on that compassion. There is no justice otherwise, which is precisely what drove Kant to pick up his pen and write in the first place during the Enlightenment, but no one understands this today.

Which is why I will be writing on Christianity (Orthodox) next week. While Islam helped me to find God, Christianity may have the better formula on the relationship of Man with God. If Christianty is capable of a 2nd reformation, Christ's return will not be literal, but intellectual, and The West reborn, the dream that was Rome reawakened.

Will The West choose to acknowledge God again? To try and put forth effort to be worthy of His compassionate mercy?

Only time will tell, but the Quran has already told us what happens to those nations and peoples who reject God.

See they not how many of those before them We did destroy?- generations We had established on the earth, in strength such as We have not given to you - for whom We poured out rain from the skies in abundance, and gave (fertile) streams flowing beneath their (feet): yet for their sins We destroyed them, and raised in their wake fresh generations (to succeed them).

Al Quran - Al An'amm 6:6

CATEGORIES