DO BIOLOGISTS NEED TO THINK IN NEW WAYS?

I do not mean to attack science, but I write to show what I have found, which can add new perspectives. That is why I try to show pieces of what I have found.

- If physicists had not discovered the structure of atoms, I would not have found the insight I have gained about the conscious qualities of particles by asking new, philosophical questions.

- If biologists had not discovered the many complicated functions that cells perform, I would not have been able to ask the questions that led me to completely different and new answers about how life on Earth developed.

- If psychologists had not discovered a lot about the psyche, I would not have developed the method that enabled me to process difficult emotions and leave bad memories behind. I discovered that stored, negative emotions lead to limited thinking. The method enabled me to see existence with new eyes.

When you think about it. Isn't it very logical that there must be intelligence behind the structure of nature? Cells contain many components that perform amazing and diverse tasks so that the plant or individual they are part of can develop. Could any of this have been developed by coincidence?

Does it serve to reject everything that religions say, even if we do not believe in God? Isn't it true that we must realize that the rules of conduct that many of us received through Christian education in school, gave us a foundation of good morality and rules to relate to? - But that we as adults cannot accept the lack of logic in Christianity and other religions, because we experience a world that shows us the opposite?

 There cannot be an almighty and loving God up there! - But could there be an intelligent consciousness that does its best, based on completely different criteria and assumptions than what religion and/or science have told us?

Is there a universal consciousness that gave Darwin the impulses that species had developed from simple to more and more complicated individuals? Could it be, that he still did not understand everything he was prompted to do, because he himself was a human being, limited by his own upbringing and background as a theologian? It was not really Darwin who came up with the idea that species should have developed through mutation or coincidence, it was someone else, Herbert Spencer. Both had a Christian background and their thinking was therefore influenced by that. Until then, everyone had been told through religion that God had created everything in nature.

Darwin's theories were based on scientific studies of the species and their similarities. But as a scientist, he thought in a mechanical way, through empirical studies. He noted what he observed, compared and found new, interesting answers. But did he include the possibility that an invisible consciousness could have placed itself inside an animal and transformed it into another? Could a squirrel have evolved into a hare through the thought of the creative intelligence?

(Images are bought from Shutterstock)

THE NATURE OF PARTICLES IS REALLY WORTH STUDYING IN A NEW WAY

 One of the most important things to understand, says the Creator Intelligence, is that consciousness consists of particles. They are particles of light, but they become darker as we live.

He says we need to understand that our emotions are stored in the particles that our soul consists of. As we get older, emotional wounds cause us to carry more and more "baggage." This may color our personality and can make us more irritable, pessimistic, and/or selfish over time.

The experiences stored in the particles of the soul are with us for better or worse, so it serves us to process emotions so that we can forgive and put the bad behind us. The good experiences are stored in the same particles and therefore they are a part of life that we do not want to lose, do we?