Returning from hell:

Once, a person did say to me: "Go to hell!"

My thought: "The least I can do is to try it and to see whether I like it there." 

I did take it literally. So I did NOT go to any of the many "Hells" on earth, aware of a statement made by Karl Popper (science philosopher): "The attempt to realise heaven on earth, always created hell."

The hell did attract me since I was a child, probably because of the high temperature there in combination with the extreme low percentage of fat in my body and the fact that I was told by my mother that all animals were present there too. Of course, later I became aware that it would make little difference given my final decision that cremation would be preferred to funeral. Even if burning could also concern material that had been burned just before - at least questionable - the last burning would obviously last forever, according to the available information in the Bible.  By the way, that would be less problematic than when burning would be definitive, simply because eternal burning means warranty of temperature without irreversible consequences.

So, I did expect to meet there a lot of interesting people, who died before I was born, given my opinion: "All dead people, that were interesting during life, are now present in hell."

Heaven on the other side, did put me off, since I was told that angels were singing there continuously.

Moreover they were playing on violins and as a child I could not endure violins since I had to play it myself, without any feeling for it.

But anyway: Surprise, Surprise! What an enormous disappointment upon arrival in hell! You will not believe it, but I was flabbergasted. The first encounter was with God Himself.

He shouted: "Hello, I 'm God! Let me tell you that I did understand your perplexity completely. Given your Calvinistic education, your surprise was expected."

"Jesus, God, yes, You are right: Why should I expect you here, given my education based on your word: The Bible?"

He answered: "Let me at first tell you what you should have concluded already by yourself. Where did I say that the Bible is my word? Did I ever speak to you, write to you or communicate with you anyway, in order to confirm that the Bible represents my opinion?"

"No, you are right! In spite of my doubts, the belief of my parents and most of the other members of our species "Homo sapiens", did obviously disturb my own critical and rational thinking."

"Exactly, and although I' m not without mistakes myself, I cannot see this specific misconceptions as a consequence of one of my own mistakes."

"I agree, sorry. But why did you not warn people on earth that you were not omniscient and not omnipotent? You could have written your own word. Even better, you could have incorporated it in our DNA for instance, or indelibly recorded in our neuronal network."

"Your neuronal netwerk will be replaced continuously during the first ca. 4 years of your life as you know. So my message would have been deleted before you became an adult!"

"Goddammit God, your reaction on my last suggestion is silly. You should know better than I do, how many possibilities exist, better than leaving your message to men living in a period in which they were generally believing in fairy tales only."

"Yes, sorry, you are right. But apart from the question: "How and why should I have done that, given that I did never claim the opposite and did never want to instruct men, as I did not do with all of the other species on earth? And why should I have done that? Do you really think that you are able to let people believe what they do not want to believe, e.g. that their life will have an end, just as all other animals, and that they are subject to all natural powers, just as all other animals?
Please be aware: I did not create men, but they created me, because they did need me!"

"I see your point. You mean: Men did come up with these ideas, and evolution of life on earth did not produce a timely answer. But men did need answers on their questions about life and death. As a consequence evolution reverted to a cheap solution: "The will as a father of thinking in cases where rationality did not please them."

"Exactly!"

"But let me ask you the most intriguing question, since my arrival here in hell: "Why are you here?"
My enthusiasm to visit hell was based on my expectation that I would meet here a lot of interesting people, who died long before I was born. People like "Darwin, Descartes, Spinoza and Laplace. I did hope to discuss some of their ideas with them."

"No, sorry, you will not find them here. This is the place for pastors, priests and prophets.
After reading the Bible, written by men, I did realise that I did break many of the rules developed by myself.  For example: The commandment: "Thou shalt not kill". You are well known with the bible, given your calvinistic education. So you know the frequency of my killings. As you will know - well known with the old Testament in the Bible - my killings remained not limited to the Flood.
As you will know - well known with the new Testament in the Bible - my son was killed as a result of my decision. It was an attempt to mask my own construction errors during my creation of men.  The Romans under Pontius Pilatus cannot be blamed because they were not willing. The Yews cannot be blamed because they were only implementing my decisions.
So my right place is here!"

"I see. I hope you can stand it here! One last question: "In that case, where can I find Darwin, Descartes, Spinoza, Laplace and all the others?"

"Sorry, they are all dead now. Of course there is no second life. You have to read their writings. Also, their ideas were great at the time these were elaborated and were opening up new horizons, but are now completed by a lot of newer information and in some cases even replaced. That is Natural Science in its most pure form."

Before I could say: "Thanks and Goodbye God", my dream was suddenly ended because of urinary pressure.  

A short history of life on earth: 

I. From atom to cell.

Long ago, after the origin of our planet, atoms decided to collaborate, because they were aware that alone is just alone and together they could reach more than alone. So they became unified in molecules. For the same reason, molecules decided to cooperate together and they were unified in macromolecules.

Amino acids e.g. did form societies, billions of years later called proteins by men. Nucleotides did form societies called nucleic acids by the same strange men, who called themselves biologists by the way. But let us return to ca. four billions of years earlier.

The macromolecules became larger and larger and at a certain moment, they decided to investigate whether they could find a way to replicate themselves, in order to avoid the continuous need to start again as atoms and to prevent the long inefficient and boring way to become unified in macromolecules. They became subsequently aware that collaboration between different types of macromolecules would be a necessary step on the way to attain this goal, since it was clear that specialisation and collaboration of differently specialised molecules would offer an extreme efficient approach on the way to progress. This was the beginning of life on earth.

Of course, you could ask: “Why do you talk about atoms and molecules in relation to awareness, deciding and thinking?” The answer is quite simple: “We - men - are constructed from atoms and molecules during evolution. Although thinking became gradually more important during evolution of life and the improved efficiency as a consequence of specialization and collaboration was obvious, there is no reason to draw artificial boundaries.

Actually - looking ahead to our time again - collaboration between atoms and molecules were the first steps on the way to globalization, a form of world wide collaboration between men, as it is nowadays called by both its advocates and its opponents.

Just as the history of life on earth, globalization in the world of men can only be stopped by other and stronger natural powers, simply because it is also part of nature. 

Also ca. 4 billions of years ago, there will have been a lot of atoms and molecules trying to disturb the inevitable collaborations by temporary interruptions of the most obvious processes. The forming of proteins by collaborating amino acids could be temporary hindered by small molecules interrupting the progress of their formation. But just as in case of globalisation in the present time, natural developments can never be stopped completely.

Returning to ca. 4 billions of years ago, the origin of life on our planet has not been unraveled up to now. Not surprising, if we realize that none of us was present in that period, in order to prepare a meticulous description what exactly did successively happen.

Theoretical questions, as those about the origin of life, are a hobby of men, dating from the time that they did no longer need to spend all of their time on collecting of food and fighting to become the fittest. However, as a consequence, they have to find out the past by themselves, based on palaeontology and experiments in laboratories.

What exactly was the first form of life on earth? This is a major issue for biologists to spend their time.

Viruses e.g. though they are relatively simple macromolecular constructs, are not able to replicate without the help of the cells in which they penetrate as parasites. 

Up to now, a unicellular structure is generally considered as the first form of life on earth. Attempts are being made to investigate whether such a structure might arise from molecules brought together under conditions that did exist on earth in the period of the origin of life. But up to now, no unicellular structure was found and certainly no people were found in a test tube.

Such a cell, maybe an amoeba, was at best only the beginning of life. A long evolutionary tree of life did finally produce a large number of successful species. Men are only one of these.

In the next blog, evolution of life on earth will be followed.