God existed before time and matter began

Some months ago I was invited to give a dinner talk to a group of doctors, scientists and members of the academia in an elite club

It was on the subject pertaining to our human existence since the evolution of life on Earth. I spoke at length on this subject to an highly interested audience.

During the lengthy Q and A session a doctor stood up boldly asking me whether or not God existed before time, space, matter, and even before the heavens were created.

When I replied in the affirmative, and the next question I already knew he was going to confront me was who then created God?

I have no hesitation in answering him at some length, but briefly here was what my answer

The question as to who then created God before He created heaven is illogic.

It is not uncommonly for people to ask this, including learned scientists whenever the subject on the creation of universe and the genesis of life on Earth propped up.

When scientists start to question this, frankly I do not think they are really learned as far as their spiritual understanding is concerned.

Our spiritual vision can be clouded by our understanding of material things. We become like a frog in a well because we  cannot see beyond our enclosed physical entities.

Everything around us has to conform by existing physical laws for an explanation.

But let us remind ourselves that God is spirit and is not a material being like ourselves.

God being the highest spiritual being is not confined or has to conform by any existing physical laws of science to explain His existence

He himself created everything in heaven and on Earth,  and also created laws to control everything under His creation. He is above all things and above all laws

"God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24)

When I quoted Genesis 1:1 in my previous write up  "in the beginning God created the heaven and earth..." it was already instantly very clear to me that God  has no beginning, and it was the heaven and the earth he created that have a beginning.

I instantly saw God as eternal. He has no beginning and no end.

Think of it this way. If God haven't existed before the heaven and earth he would not have  been there to create anything, let alone the  heaven and earth

In short, nobody will be there..not even God. Just remember God is the most Supreme spiritual being, and being the highest, he does not require anything higher to create him. He is spirit. He is not physical or material that requires certain physical laws to explain.

Without his eternal existence everything will be empty..no time, no space, no dimension, no energy...nothing.. all void, not even time, let alone matter, space and energy.

So we need to reckon there must be a non material being already in existence to create everything, and put them into physical existence, whether it  be from a point in time as explained in the Big Bang theory as astronomers believe, or from the scripture. Look at  it another way even from our material vision.

Matter, space, time, and energy is just one single entity before the Big Bang or even before God created the heaven and earth according to the Bible.

Einstein specifically tells us that time and matter and space are all one entity in a continum although Isaac Newton always thought that time has no beginning.

So if we follow the theory of Einstein, even time did not exist before the "beginning" because matter in the universe or heaven if you like,  must come together as one, and not as separate entities.

This already clearly tells us there was no time before God created the heaven and earth.  It was only when he created heaven and earth was the  beginning of time

In other words, time, matter, space and energy all started together as as one in the same instant.

Once began, everything must obey the laws of physics or Nature which God himself also created to control all his creation as much as we create law and order to control the creation of our civilization. It is often said the king of a country is above the law. Likewise, God is above all laws of his creation.

Being a Spirit, and he is above all laws he also created to control the harmony of heavens  as on Earth

His existence is eternal, from the "beginning" to the "end" He is already there even before he created everything material including time. Time started only when heaven and earth began

Allow me to quote a few verses in the Bible:

"Before the mountains were brought forth or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2).

Similar verses on the eternal nature of God are also found in 1 Timothy 6:16, Hebrew 1:10 -12, Hebrew  9:14, and Psalm 102:25.

Then there are two more verses:

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with glory which I had with thee before the world was " (John 17:5)

"....the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world" (John 17:24).

What does John 17:24 tells us? It clearly tells us that Jesus and God exisited as one, even before the beginning of time and heaven.

I managed to answer the doctor to assure him that God,  Jesus  and the Holy SpIrit is ONE, and they have already existed even before time, and even before the heaven and everything else was created

Matter in the universe and time existed together from the very beginning only from the moments of creation, be it from the Big Bang offered by scientists where everything including time began, or by the simple Faith by way of divine revelation in Genesis.

I explained  to the doctor once again  God is spirit, not material or a physical being.

God does not require any material being to create Him or use the laws of science to work out his existence or beginning.

Naturally he was very amazed by what I told him. I thank him for being able to glorify God to the highest since then

Natural and Synthetic Vitamins. Can we manufacture natural vitamins

Dear Dr. JB Lim

1. Can the PharCo produce the synthetic levo vitamins instead of the dextro type.
2. Why the American FDA approved the sales of these harmful and misleading vitamins. All the while people are thinking they are buying the same vitamin products natural or synthetic.

.......


Thank you for your question on why drug manufacturers cannot make their vitamins exactly as those found naturally in foods.

I cannot give you the answer with certainty as I do not have a PhD degree in biological or pharmaceutical chemistry.

But I supposed it would almost be impossible for scientists to mimic God's marvellous creation of Nature.

If scientists could do that, then they would have been able to create life by synthesizing all the biological molecules exactly like those in a living body.

Most of the biological molecules including vitamins exist in the levo or left handed form as far as I read, and was also told, compared to the dextro or right handed orientation in natural ones. Do not ask me why.

Even if scientists are able to mimic God's handiwork, the vitamins are all going to be very, very, expensive which even millionaires would not be able to afford

The only exception I can think of as I type this sentence, is sugar where the body utilizes the D or dextro form more efficiently.

But the rest of the nutrients as far as I know, are mainly in their left handed orientation.

This is particular true with
L-amino acids which is found in large quantities in all biological systems.

This probably started from the beginning of life on Earth when natural amino acids were levo instead of in the dextro form and its synthesis continued naturally, being duplicated in all living things into their biological systems like molecular clones till today.

Almost all the amino acids from proteins are in the L (levo) form instead of in the dextro form

I believe it would be easier for the body to follow the same metabolic pathways for all biomolecules, whether or not they are amino acids, triglycerides, sugars or vitamins, instead of man-made D form for which I suppose is much, much easier and cheaper to manufacture.

But that does not mean the body cannot use them, except it may have to create a new road (new metabpolic pathways) for them to follow.

This means the conversion into another metabolic system may not be so efficient, and that large amounts would be needed for the conversion?

Let me put this in another way. It is like currency exchange where you need to pay large amounts of a certain currency just to get a small amount of another currency

A simple example is you need to pay more than RM 3 to get one Singapore dollar.

Now you can understand why it is far, far better to get your vitamins from food rather than from tablets because of this conversion rate.

Moreover it is far, far cheaper to eat food Nature provides for than for us to take tablets of artificial nutrients.

Remember, man eat food, not nutrients.

Now you can understand why I said in my last letter that you need only 10 mg of vitamin C from fruits instead of 100 - 200 mg from tablets to cure scurvy.

I can only explain all these examples in a lecture, not by using my small smart phone here which keeps auto correcting me.

It is more advantageous for the body to receive something that is more compatible to its own than something that is just a mirror image or as an antagonistic

The body has to create a synthetic pathway just allow the synthetic vitamin to use, and sometimes it cannot even do that.

I hope my explanation following your question makes things easier for you to understand


Lim jb

September 11 attack. Was it a plane?

I was just fascinated by this video sent to me claiming that no plane was involved in the Twin Towers attack on Sept 11


Various arguments was given that it was not a plane which could smash thorough a building made of steel and concreate.

This fascinated me too, whether or not they were the two planes that brought down such massive and strong buildings as the Twin Towers as I sat on my hospital bed watching the video.

So I thought I should sit up and analyse the logical aspect of the controversy although I am not an expert on planes, buildings or on explosives.

First, I need to make a search to find out what was the maximum weight of a Boeing 767 with 51 passengers, 9 crew and 5 hijackers in one of the planes belonging to United Airlines on a flight from Logan Airport to Los Angeles that fatal morning.

I then searched to find the maximum load a Boeing 767 can carry, iincluding fuel, and found it was 179,000 kg.

Let us now assume this was the load including 65 people inside. Let us make a rough estimate for both planes to be roughly the same to make calculations easier. We need to assume both planes were roughly the same.

A search showed the US government calculation gave the first plane flying at 494 mph when it smashed into the first tower, and the second plane at 586 mph

But an analysis by MIT showed a slightly lower velocity.

Let us take the figures released by the US government.

United States uses the old Imperial standard of measurement instead of in the SI unit. So converting their speed, it was 220.84 meters per second for the first plane, and 261.97 m / s for the second one

Now let us look at the kinetic energy for both planes in flight that morning of Sept 11 at these speeds with a mass of 179,000 kg.

Using the equation E = 1/2 m v squared, where m = mass of the plane, and v = velocity; it turns out that first plane would have acquired a kinetic energy of 4,364,942,351 Jolues when it smashed into the first tower.

The second plane, released a power of 6,142,231,141Jolues when it slammed into the second tower.

Now the power of one metric ton of TNT is 4,184 million Joules.

This means the energy released by the first plane as it smashed into the 1st tower is equivalent to 1.04 metric tons of TNT, and the second plane with a slamming force of 1.47 metric tons of TNT

As last, this is as far I can go as I am not a structural engineer, especially one who need to specialize in building demolishing work using explosives. I am only a medical scientist and a clinician, not a structural engineer.

However, I thought to myself the fuselage and the wings to the best of my knowledge are made of either aluminium, or aluminium alloy, titanium, carbon composites such as graphite epoxy or carbon fibre reinforced polymer, all of which are much lighter and less dense than a tower made of steel and concrete.

As such I would have thought a plane travelling at that speed would have been smashed into smithereens outside the towers before it can even penetrate a tower of steel and concrete. But I admit I do not exactly know

Even if it could, I cannot tell how much TNT would be needed to smash it right through a building of concrete and steel. Would one ton of TNT be sufficient?

Even if the planes managed to smash into the towers and spill aviation fuel inside the burning of the fuel can be seen outside, and the fire can only spread upwards from the upper floors.

How could the fires burn downwards and weaken the entire structure from the bottom floor to cause the entire towers to collapse down to ground zero?

The fuel and fire cannot be burning from the bottom upwards since the planes hit the upper top floors, not from the bottom.

If this is not possible, then we need to know if it was an inside job using explosives inside the two towers rather than blown up from outside by the plhanes?

However, I am talking of the initial impact only which is the most important, but not the collapse of the entire towers from the heat of burning fuels

But if the planes managed to smash in and spill burning fuel inside. then it may explain why the towers collapsed after that which may suggest it was actually the planes, and not explosives within the building.

But as I said earlier we need to consider whether or not the temperature of burning aviation fuel was hot enough to melt steel and concrete, especially the steel structure are normally insulated by concrete outside which are poor conductors of heat

The melting point of steel is between 1,370 - 1500 deg C, but may be softened at around 538 deg C. The temperature of burning jet fuel in air is between 427 - 816 deg C.

However, the steel structures are normally embedded inside concrete which shields the steel from the burning jet fuel if there were. Hence the possibility that the steel were insulated by the concrete.

If the steel structures were all insulated embedded within concrete structures outside they would have been protected by the concrete walls.

The steel within may not even be able to able to reach a critical temperature for it to be soften,let alone melt. Of course I am not an expert on building structure and the effects of intense heat on them.So my argument is only theoretical. Only a real study or some experiments can answer that?


Then again why should the fire and weakening of the upper floors affect structures on the lower floors until both towers collapsed right down to ground level? I only asked myself this question after seeing the video sent to me by friends in the Whatsapp.

Since there are so many senior structural engineers in my Whatsapp group who sent me that video, I like them to take over from here after my argument given above.

I would be interested in their structural analysis since they told me the towers were not brought down by plane as I have all the while read

Thank you.

Lim jb