Who is God? / What is God?

Every person worships a god, whether they accept the idea or not. For the majority, their god is some type of being that has powers beyond their own. Some call themselves atheists, but you can be assured that they worship something, whether they realize it or not -- it may be money, it may be position, or it may even be self. There simply seems to be something within human beings that recognizes their own weakness and need. Over the ages, many societies have created and worshiped their own god. Their worship took many forms, and many have created idols to provide a visual focus for their worship. Judeo-Christians believe in one God, who is the former of all creation, is ruler of all, and rejects the attempt to create any kind of image through which He can be worshiped.

I am a Christian and fully subscribe to the Judeo-Christian position. I am also a physical scientist, and I have found nothing to dissuade me from this position. Rather, I have observed and experienced many things in my life that support the position. But I still must ask “Who and what is this God?” As I grow older this question grows in my mind, likely because I believe there is a God, and every day brings me nearer a face to face meeting. As to identity, in ancient times (still today??) knowing someone’s name gave you power over them. One Jewish tradition is that God appeared to Moses and commissioned him to take the descendants of Jacob out of Egypt. Moses asks, “Who shall I say sent me?” God responded, “I am. Tell them I am sent you.” In other words, I will not give you a name. Simply let them know I am in charge.

Even today, we want a name and/or an image. Lacking either we have no choice but to examine the Bible for hints of character. In the Jewish records that also became the Christian Old Testament, we see God as a ruler who expects acknowledgement and obedience. We see a strict judge who gives sentences appropriate to the “crime” – nothing more, nothing less. We also see a father providing behavior guides to his children, as well as serious discipline for misbehavior. And we see a father who loves and cares for his children.  Unfortunately, His children so misbehaved that, as we read the record, his strict discipline seems to stand out. However, as we read the Christian New Testament, His love and care for his children stands out, although discipline is still there for those who reject Him and his gifts. No, God is not a benign grandfather, as often depicted.

So, who is the God we worship? We live in a ‘box’ of three-dimensional space and unidirectional time, and must put everything into the perspective of this box. It is impossible to really understand God, because He is not in the box. Not only is His existence outside the box, but He created the box for us. Does, perhaps, “Star Wars” really depict the on-going battle actions outside the box? Is, perhaps, God really a ‘force’ which we absolutely cannot understand and have no hope to describe? One thing is certain, there is a rebellion which we also cannot see or understand. If you accept the understanding of an all-powerful God, you must also accept the presence of a Satan who is in rebellion, always seeking a way to destroy God. Somewhere outside our existence box there is a perpetual war raging between Satan’s forces and God’s Angels, but Satan’s rebellion is always destroyed just when it seems to be ready to destroy God’s force. The rebellion is a spiritual war, but battles are also fought within our existence box. Who’s side are you on?

The Big Bang - What initiated it?

In the beginning . . . the occurrence has intrigued scientists for many years. Exactly what happened, and how? Celestial measurements indicate that there was, indeed, a beginning. Calculating that there had to be a beginning, however, is very simple in comparison to developing hypothesis on exactly what happened! Over the years, there has been a variety of suggestions on how our universe was begun. Right now the 'correct' answer is a 'Big Bang.' This may be what actually happened, or it may give way to a better theory as time goes by, but no answer can be definitive. To prove any theory viable, we must be able to reproduce the associated event. We can never reproduce the initiation of a universe, or even a small model of the occurrence. Therefore, the Big Bang theory will never be more than an unprovable theory.

An even greater question is, "How did it happen?" And this is a question that, someday, may possibly be answered. Einstein's calculations resulted in the relationship, E=MC², i.e. Energy is equal to Mass times the speed of light squared. More realistically, it probably should be M=E/C². Scientists now know that all atoms are constructed of small packets of energy, much in the same way that a building may be constructed of bricks. There are attractive forces between the energy packets that serve as mortar, holding them together. The speed of light is about 3x10⁸ meters per second, so every unit of mass must contain about  9x10¹⁶ units of energy. Whatever the appropriate units may be, it means every ounce of mass is made from a huge amount of energy. Experience with atomic bombs does confirm the truth of this relationship. 

The huge questions now are:
If the universe was, in truth, begun with anything approaching a 'Big Bang', where did the infinitely immense amount of energy contained in our universe come from?
and
What initiated the energy to mass conversion?
Did none of those studying the Big Bang ever consider this question, or was the implication so 'mind blowing' that no one wants to tackle it?

The age/weight gain dilemma - unavoidable?

A seemingly inevitable aging associated process is weight gain. Can it be avoided? Can it be reversed? Yes and yes! Absolutely it can be, but it requires two underlying attitudes. You must be unhappy with the way you look and feel. Probably well over 90% of aging persons will meet this criterion. Second, you need the will power to do something about it. This is most commonly the reason old people get fat - it just doesn't seem worth the effort. "After all, in the end I am going to be old and fat like most other old people."

I am sure many people look in the mirror and wish they could look like they did in college. I certainly did, and stepping onto the scale I could easily see one major reason I had changed. By my mid-60s my weight had increased by at least 20%! I need to do something about it! But what? One of the first things you are told is to exercise. Baloney!! There are reasons that exercise is good, most importantly related to heart and circulation. It also helps keep muscle tone, something more and more difficult as you age. Exercise, however, will do little to nothing to reduce weight. Sure, good intense exercise will use up food that would otherwise go to fat, and may even use up a bit of fat. But what then? You body yells "I'm hungry! Feed me!" It takes a huge amount of will power to ignore your body and, when you give in, you simply replace all the calories you just burned off.

Simply, weight gain or loss is no more and no less than the result of your daily calories-in:calories-used relationship. Forget the diet routine that everyone tries to sell you. Regardless which it might be, it is a loser. You end up eating things you don't really like and omitting things you like and normally eat. This leads to rebound eating when you go off the diet and ending up weighing more than when you started. Keep eating normally, but simply decrease the amount a bit until you notice that the scale is beginning to drop. Don't decrease quantity more until you find that you have reached a plateau and still need to lose more. Yes, this will make it a slow process, but how long did it take you to gain the excess pounds? If you want to keep the excess pounds off, don't try to lose more than a pound or two a month. Your body may react to decreased caloric intake by going into "starvation mode" to maintain your fat storage. A way to prevent this reaction is to eat a little something half way between meals, telling your body not to worry, food is still available. (suggestions: a bowl of popcorn, a few nuts, a cracker, even one piece of candy) Most importantly, do this slowly and methodically in such a way that your permanent eating habit is altered to that which maintains the weight you have finally attained.

In our modern society there is one additional factor that needs to be addressed - that being fructose. Our normal sugar intake is sucrose, which is half glucose and half fructose. Every cell of our body 'burns' glucose as it's energy source. A small amount of fructose is used in cell structure, but it can't be used for energy. Any fructose not used in cell structure must be processed by the liver, which turns it into fat. Fructose is much sweeter than sucrose, and actually provides the sweetness of sucrose. In addition, fructose is cheaper than sucrose. The food industry is now using high fructose corn syrup instead of (or in addition to) sucrose in many processed foods. If you are trying to loose fat, the fructose is counter-productive for you. Pay attention to the food ingredients in all items you buy, and stay away from foods containing fructose (normally as high fructose corn syrup).

With this outlined process, I have managed, at age 81, to have lost 40 pounds and am back at my college weight, and now I feel stuffed if I happen to eat a meal of the size I once normally 'put away.' It did take 10 to 15 years to reach this point, so don't expect lose your excess weight for that special occasion coming up next month! I must also say that, even though I am now at my college graduation weight, my body doesn't quite look the same! At the time, my chest was about 44-46 inches and my waist was 28-30 inches. Now: chest is about the same, but my waist has 'filled in' to 40 inches. If I want my profile to more nearly resemble the college profile I will have to lose at least another 10 to 15 pounds. This would put my weight in the range attained the year I had a summer job with a two week pay period, but payment was delayed one period, so I lived a month on close to a starvation diet.

This weight loss has taken a lot of will power. I enjoy eating, and had to change from an attitude of 'live to eat' to an attitude of  'eat to live.' That doesn't mean I no longer enjoy eating, I just had to change the reason I eat. Now, I realize will power may not be so easy for women than for men. They are dealing with hormonal changes which add to weight loss difficulties. Men have hard enough time activating required will power, and the majority simply accept the process of getting old and fat. Most women may have to generate a multiple of a man's will power, but it can be done.

Understanding the God-Man relationhip

The New Testament of the Bible presents two realities that are difficult, if not impossible, for us to understand.

1.       Jesus was one with God

2.       Jesus paid for our sins when he died on the cross.

These are difficult concepts because they require understanding something we have not experienced and can not experience.

About 20 years ago Peter Sallis invented two characters, Wallace and Gromit, which became the stars is a series of short movies. In one episode, Wallace, a “hard core” cheese lover, found he was out of cheese. Since the moon is made of cheese, he built a rocket in which he and Gromit traveled to the moon and collected a supply of cheese. Now, imagine that, instead, Wallace could have simply removed his hand and sent it to the moon (easy enough for a clay figure!).  Furthermore, he could maintain communication with his hand, receiving information and giving the hand instructions. Since we are in imagination mode, assume that, under Wallace’s instructions the hand moved about the moon and found the best possible cheese, collected some, and returned to Wallace. Now, assume this all happened within seconds. This is the best analogy I can come up with for the relationship between God and Jesus.

In our reality, this kind of relationship is impossible. However, if God really did create the world, and if the Bible is really an accurate story of God’s relationship to man the relationship must be something similar to my analogy. My personal experiences lead to the understanding that God did create the world and is still in control. Furthermore, I believe that Jesus was fully man and fully God – hard as that is to understand. As a scientist, my whole life has been driven by a desire to understand how and why things work as they do. As I described in another blog, we live in a three dimensional box with unidirectional-irreversible time. The box is solid and inescapable. We can’t envision anything else. If, however, the box was created by God, which I believe, then He would also have created the natural laws under which we exist. Furthermore, God is therefore not constricted by the box in any way. Jesus said that he and Father were one. To see Jesus was to see God. (John 10:29-30) That is hard! No question. It has to be taken on faith, but if you do accept the fact, everything tends to fall into place. Applying the scientific method in analysis of my own life, I have found nothing to disprove the hypothesis that God is in control and that He is three persons in one - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

How about problem number 2? How can Jesus Christ have paid for my sins when I would not come into existence for another 2000 years. The only way I can explain that is that in God’s world there is no “was” and there is no “when.” There is no past and there is no future – there is only now, because there is no time. In our box this is impossible to conceive. In our time, the man-Jesus was on the cross for a few hours. In God’s world he was there but only an instant, but as the God-man hung there He saw and took upon himself all past and all future sins, seeing them simultaneously. And, if he could see my sins, he would also know whether I accepted or rejected his gift of taking my sins upon himself. I can’t understand this, and so far as I know, no one on earth can understand it. If, however, time does not exist in God’s world, a lot of the biblical content becomes understandable. To God be the glory!

Can Energy Exist in the Absence of Mass, Space and Time?

    A few physicists have postulated other universes co-existing with ours. Most reject that conclusion, and I agree with them. I agree, that is, in the sense of likelihood of finding other universes that basically duplicate ours. But, what is the possibility of something 100% different from our universe? Let’s explore that thought.

    As I pointed out in Scripture Versus Science, we are often admonished to “think outside the box.” We have an ultimate box with impenetrable walls. The ultimate box in which we live is three dimensional space and unidirectional, irreversible time. There is simply no way for our thinking to escape this box, because we would have nothing upon which to anchor our thinking. Yes, some physicists have postulated more than three dimensions.  I think I have seen up to seven or eight physical dimensions proposed, but these are still developed on a base of three dimensional space.

    Could a universe of no space and no time be possible? There is absolutely no way of knowing that, and there is no way to visualize such an existence. If such a universe were possible, the only way we could explain it would be that it consists of nothing but energy, and that would make no sense to us. Is it impossible, though? Consider: our universe is mostly space with stars and satellites spotted around here and there. Thus, there is actually room for something “foreign” to be intertwined among the various stars and galaxies. If this something were to consist of energy only we would not be able to detect it . . . or could we? Astrophysicists keep telling us there is not enough energy in our universe to make it act the way it does, and there must be more. They have labeled this unseen and unmeasured energy “Dark energy,” and  68 percent of the Universe energy is this Dark Energy.

    As I have already pointed out (How Did The Big Bang Happen???), we can only come to the conclusion that there was an unbelievably immense amount of energy which suddenly coalesced into hydrogen ions – the initial components of mass. Now we have something we can deal with, and there is a constantly increasing amount of research based theory on how these initial hydrogen ions gradually became the various atoms we know, and how they may have interacted to form the various bodies we now find scattered around the universe.

    One more thought to consider. Nearly every religion believes in God or Gods who is/are not of this world, but who is/are in control. Christians and Jews believe in one god who created the world and is still active here, not of the world but in some place called Heaven. Furthermore, this God knows everything that will happen before it happens. This is supported by the many prophecies of our Old Testament which happened, sometimes at a much later date, exactly as predicted. This can only happen if this God lives in a universe of no time, where God can simultaneously observe all things past and all things future, as well as being able to interact with them at whatever point is appropriate.

    It has been said that we are nothing more than avatars in a celestial computer program. While we are much more than this, it does provide an example to possibly support the theory of a God existing in a timeless universe. Consider how computers work. Basically, a code must be written to instruct electrons’ actions when told to “go.” Today’s computers are really fast. Let’s say it takes one minute to run the program. The programmer checks the results, and makes corrections in the program if needed, then running it again. This process is repeated until the desired results are obtained. We measure time in minutes and hours. However, electrons are very fast. Their reaction time is measured in the range of billionth to quadrillionths of a second. Thus, one year in our time would be at least a one billion year equivalent in the life of an electron. This is still expressed in terms of time, because I know nothing else, but it provides a possible indication of the difference between existence in time versus existence in a universe of no time. Such a relationship could easily explain the difference between the Genesis time, seven days, for creation of the universe and Scientist’s estimation of it taking billions of years.

    Does this explain the concept of God and Heaven? Could a process similar to development of a computer program, but in a timeless universe, explain why this God knows our future with detail? Is Heaven really what we call Dark Energy? Was 32 percent of Heavenly energy used to form our Universe? I have no way or knowing -- at least not in life. Furthermore, If Heaven is real and I get there, it is unlikely that I will any longer be interested in the answer to these questions! In any case, there likely no possible to answer the title question within our known universe.

Occam's Razor - a simple answer . . .

What may be known about God is plain, because God has made it plain. Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. (Romans 1:19-25)

This is just as true today as it was when written by Paul nearly 2000 years ago. The only thing that has changed is our “sophistication.” Science is now worshiped rather than physical icons. Astrophysicists have decided that the entire universe is the result of a “Big Bang” nearly 14 billion years ago. Perhaps, but what caused the Big Bang? Einstein’s theory, Mass is Energy divided by the speed of light, is being proven basically true. If we consider the total mass of the universe, we can only conclude that an inconceivably immense amount of energy was involved. Where did that energy come from? Scientists don’t want to consider that question, and it is very doubtful that it can ever be answered. We can only say, “In the beginning God . . . “

Carl Sagan said two things were needed for man to exist, and there must be thousands of inhabited planets in the Universe. Since his death, the requirements for life have been gradually increasing until now it is felt that life on a planet requires over one hundred correct conditions, and even the Earth does not meet all conditions. All we can say is, “But God . . . “

For the last several centuries our energy needs have been met by use of coal, oil, and gas deposits within the Earth’s crust. Scientists have calculated that these deposits were laid down when the Earth was covered by lush vegetative growth during the much warmer 60 million year Carboniferous Period of about 300 million years ago. Jewish historical records indicate that the God worshiped by both Jews and Christians knows both history and future. This can only be true if He is in a timeless “world.” We live in a three dimensional world with irreversible, one dimensional time. We can conceive of nothing else. For this discussion, however, if we accept the concept of God’s timeless world He would have understood our needs from the beginning of time. All we can say is, “And God . . . “

Today many have rejected the concept of a Holy God of creation who loves the World he created, along with everything in it. When we look around us, we see many things that really make no natural sense and we ask, “How can this have happened.” Scientists often create explanations which are not supported by observations. But if our mind is opened to an all-powerful, loving God who knows and meets our needs it falls together and makes sense. This is the God I worship – how about you?

The cause of 'global warming" - Truth or Fiction?

     “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.” Have you ever heard someone use that quote?  Let me alter it a bit to: “Statistics don’t lie, but people with an agenda can misinterpret statistics.” Basically, statistical analysis is a method to extract relationships from confusing information. It is not always easy, though, and error of interpretation can always sneak in, either through error or intent. Let me give you an example.

     Early in my career I was working on a project studying the role of Phosphorus in eutrophication of a lake. (Eutrophication is a term used for the process of a clear water lake gradually being taken over by vegetation, eventually becoming a bog.) At one point we collected lake bottom samples along a transect from shallow to deep water, hoping this would provide some answers. Instead, it created confusion. Everything we measured was related to water depth. This made absolutely no sense … until we realized it was mechanical. All chemistry, instead, was related to organic matter, and through wave action that was gradually moved from shallow to deep water.

     Today we are bombarded with similar statistical analysis error of interpretation – and it is intentional as a method of financial gain. Is Carbon Dioxide CO₂ really causing the Earth to rapidly heat? Let’s analyze this interpretation. First of all, our “stove” is the sun, and the amount of heat reaching the Earth is directly related to solar surface activity. That activity is known to undergo high/low cycles. In the 1970s activity was low and everyone was talking about global cooling. There was fear we were headed into a new glacial period, which would have serious impact upon society and the ability to sustain global population.

      The argument is that solar activity does not adequately explain the current temperature trend, so it must be something else. The decision is that the “something else” must be CO₂, since that has been increasing. Wait a minute! What is the Specific Heat Capacity (SHC) of CO₂? 0.844 – 0.655, depending on how it is measured. (SHC is the amount of heat required to heat one gram one degree Celsius – expressed as Joules of heat) There happens to be something else in the atmosphere – water! What is the SHC of water? 4.184 Joules per gram per degree C. There are also other gasses in the atmosphere, and some have higher SHC than CO₂. For example, the SHC of Methane is about 2.3. While there is much less methane in the atmosphere, it has increased from about 1.6 ppm in 1980 to 1.85 in 2017 – faster than the increase of CO₂. Nitrous Oxide also has a higher SHC (0.88), but it is present in even lower concentration, so its contribution would be even less important.

     The concept that we live in a “global greenhouse” means something in the atmosphere traps solar heat during the day and controls loss of heat during the night, thus moderating surface temperature. The current concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere is about 0.04%, or 400ppm. The concentration of water is variable, ranging from possibly 1% in polar regions to as much as 4% over tropical oceans. Now, which is going to be the better “greenhouse gas” – one with an SHC of 0.8, present as about 0.04% of the atmosphere, or one with an SHC of 4.1, present from 1 to 4% of the atmosphere?

Have you ever walked into shade during a hot day and immediately felt cooler? Have you ever wondered why a desert can be so hot during the day, but freezing at night? Carbon dioxide is certainly not the reason! Water is the answer – or, better, the lack of water in the atmosphere. Heat comes from the sun in the radiant form, so when we walk into shade we are no longer receiving the solar heat. Water in the atmosphere adsorbs a lot of that heat, so normally moderates surface temperature. No atmospheric water means hotter surface. Likewise, if there is little atmospheric water, there is nothing to prevent radiant cooling during the night. The same principle applies in early autumn when a cloudless sky often means frost, while cloud cover means one more night escaping a frost.

     When there is abundant water in the air, the “greenhouse effect” becomes operative. The water continues to collect the solar energy, but atmospheric water content is too variable for finding any relationship to surface temperature.  That brings us back to our original comments on statistics and the ability to extract relationships from confusing information.  

     When atmospheric data is carefully examined, it is obvious that CO₂ has been increasing, and world population is also increasing. This is obvious and understandable. Every time we burn some kind of carboniferous material, whether it be wood, coal, natural gas, gasoline, or any other burnable carbon containing fuel, two gaseous products - CO₂ and H₂O – are released into the atmosphere.  Thus, the amount of CO₂ and H₂O entering the atmosphere from human activity is logically related to human population. Problems arise, however, in attempting to develop any kind of relationship between these gasses and Earth surface temperatures, which have been increasing. Atmospheric water content should logically be related to surface temperature, but any kind of statistical relationship is compounded by the global water cycle that makes human existence possible in the first place.

     Then one individual had a “eureka moment!” If the world could be convinced that increasing global surface temperature is related to human activity, there is much money to be made. While we put far more H₂O than CO₂ into the atmosphere, the natural global water cycle makes any statistical relationship impossible. Conveniently, CO₂ in the atmosphere has also been increasing, and a plot of increasing temperature as a function of atmospheric CO₂ looks convincing. The campaign has been unbelievable successful and people around the world are convinced that increasing temperature is the result of human activities. But is this logical?

     While less studied than the water cycle, the earth also has a carbon cycle which makes existence possible. Every living organism on earth, both plant and animal, obtains energy through oxidation of carbon compounds to form CO₂ – i.e. respiration. If there were not a method to reverse the reaction the CO₂ level in the atmosphere would become toxic and all living organisms would die. Fortunately, plants are capable of photosynthesis, using solar energy to break the C-O bonds and restore O₂ in the atmosphere, and they produce more O₂ during the day than they use at night. In this way the global CO₂ level is maintained well below the toxic concentration.

     There are two areas of the earth primarily important in maintaining adequate O₂ and safe CO₂ levels in the atmosphere -this being the tropical rain forests and ocean algae. What is happening in these areas? A significant amount of the tropical rain forests of the world are being cleared for wood and kept clear for agricultural purposes. The ocean has become the final recipient of our human wastes, both chemical and solid. As a result, the algal population has been affected. We might ask, then, is the increase in atmospheric CO₂ really a function of our increasing energy production, or is it the result of the global carbon cycle being disrupted? Likewise, is the current increase in average surface temperature really  caused by an increased CO₂ in the atmosphere, or are the two observations unrelated but conveniently used for financial convenience? Logic tells us it may well be the latter, and any greenhouse effect is really a function of atmospheric water vapor abetted by increased solar activity.

     People have become so convinced of “global warming” being the result of increased atmospheric CO₂, though, that no politician looking toward being re-elected would ever dare suggest this attribution is in error. Besides many of them are financially benefiting in supporting the idea. You often hear, “the science is settled.” This not a scientist’s statement, but a politician’s – even if made by a person with scientist credentials. Science is never “settled.” All scientific research must be based on the positive theories – A is the result of B. This means that one valid research study showing this statement cannot be true means the theory must be discarded and replaced by a better one. There are a number of points upon which the current “settled science” can be questioned.

     What about the scientists who support the theory? The answer involves money again. Research funds are available for studies on the effect of increasing temperature on . . .  Scientists are always looking for research support. Few are going to attack this opportunity. When opportunities like this arise, the game is to figure out how you can twist your favorite research program to fit under the objectives of the granting agency. Were I not retired and no longer looking for research support, I must admit that I could be among the scientists doing “atmospheric research” in support of my real Soil Chemistry research interests. 

Why are some countries great? What does it take?

“I will make our country great again.” What does that mean? The statement says the United States was once great, but is no longer great. When was the United States great? Why are we no longer great? What makes a country (or a person) great? We often hear the phrase, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” In reality, greatness could also be in that category. If I were to ask 1,000 people the meaning of national greatness, I would likely get 1,000 different answers. With this in mind, I will consider the meaning of national greatness. What I present will not be accepted by all, I am sure of that!

Over history, greatness in a nation was always measured by power. Rome was great, because it conquered and controlled the entire Mediterranean Sea surroundings as well as most of what we now know as West Europe. Later, Spain was great because its navy controlled the oceans, giving it power over new lands as the Europeans discovered them. Then England defeated the Spanish navy and became the greatest empire yet known, with control over vast holdings around the world. The problem with this power-greatness is that it is not permanent. Throughout history, the holder of power 1) became over extended, with increased difficulty with control, and 2) a rebellion arose within or outside their empire. England’s empire began to collapse when an upstart colony became upset with the king and rebelled. A different definition of greatness was presented by Christ (Luke 12:16-21, Matthew 20:25-27, Mark 10:42-44). He said that power does not endure, and true greatness in only achieved through service.

Yes, England’s upstart colony did engage in conquer and enlargement, but the largest land acquisitions were purchased through negotiations with countries which could not adequately defend their holdings. I am not forgetting, however, that we did acquire land in the southwest through conflict with Mexico, although it is a bit difficult to distinguish how much of this conflict was aggression and how much was defense of current land holdings. Certainly, it was Spain that originally laid claim to most of the landscape, but both Mexico and the United States wanted the area. Yes, we did acquire additional land through conflict, but the acquisitions were not because of aggression – most were through successful defense against aggression.  This is a major simplification of national formation, but I am primarily concerned with why the United States became great.

Once the United States was consolidated, unprecedented action was initiated in dealing with all further gains due to conflicts, which did happen. The acquired civilizations were allowed to decide their own future, and they were supported in that decision. In many cases this included preparation for independence. Cuba and The Philippines were given independence. Hawaii was given statehood per their request. Puerto Rico and Guam both remain as protectorates, but have the freedom to request independence or statehood if desired. These are a few examples of the support approach which made the United States great.

The problem is that within our country greed and selfishness has snuck back into existence. While the attitude of servitude does still exist, to many of our representatives and senators do not see themselves as servants to those put them in place. Instead, they see their position as an opportunity to advance themselves - to gain both position and wealth. And this has been true right up to POTUS level.

With these things in mind, has there been a peak of greatness which we have passed and need to recover? Not everyone will agree, but I would place that goal as the United State between about 1940 and 1970 – during and after World War II. No, it was not a good time for many, but it was for the country. We had helped Europe to defeat Germany in World War I, and had little interest in getting involved again. This attitude was changed, however, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The country came together as one in support of our soldiers. We denied ourselves many things to make sure our soldiers had what they needed. Young women headed for the industrial plants to replace their husbands and brothers who had been called into service. Yes, there racial problems were still there “under the table,” but all worked together for the benefit of all. The result was winning a war fought on two fronts, defeating the aggression of both Germany and Japan.

When World War II ended, the United Stated did something unprecedented in the history of mankind. We helped both Germany and Japan to get back onto their feet, and soon both became economic powers. And our benevolence did not stop there. We helped people around the world – mostly those who have been listed as being in “third world” countries. Within a decade problems began to reemerge in Southeast Asia and we answered the plea for help when the newly formed United Nations declared war against North Korea in support of South Korea.

It began to fall apart in the 1970s, though, as war emerged in Viet Nam. In retrospect, entering this war may have been a mistake, but at the time it was thought to be necessary.  The most important thing, however, was that the country was not unified behind our decision, and our soldiers were reviled by many, rather than being given support. The division initiated has turned out to be a crack in our national unity which has greatly expanded during intervening years, until it is now a chasm that may never be possible to heal. Those who desire power and wealth for themselves have jumped in for their own benefit, and have contributed to the turmoil. With the help of Martin Luther King, one serious racial division was addressed and healing was initiated. However, the healing was soon reversed by our national turmoil, and persons with self-interest have initiated more and more divisions to keep us occupied. Power-brokers have stepped in behind the scene to support unrest, with the lofty objective of “World Unification” – with them in control, of course.

Those who believe that World Unity will solve all problems are certainly not in favor of reversing our movement toward this end, but in reality it will not and cannot succeed in anything other than providing wealth and power for a few. Europe has been giving this a trial and their effort is currently slowly disintegrating – but there is a group of people who have benefited. There is no reason to believe a world effort would be any more successful, but there is certainly a group of people who will benefit.

President Trump’s objective seems to be to provide an economic environment conducive to healing of the many divisions which have arisen. Return to the environment of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s would not make us great again. In fact, no return to past period attitudes would make us great again. The whole world had changed and continues to change. The only thing that will make us great again would be the healing of our many divisions, and a regaining of the attitude that we all benefit by working together with the realization that everyone’s beliefs will never be unified, but everyone has the right to their beliefs. Along with this, we must regain the attitude that helping others also benefits the helper.