Different schools of thoughts have been kept in place to fully understand the knowledge and existence of God but none have come closer to the abstract truth. Some have propounded that God is dead, others said that God is no more alive and that he used to exist at a certain point in time. Another school of thoughts like the Chinese ideology believe that we are God and thus no need to go beyond the scope of  understanding the nature of God.

However, when properly subjected to critical reasoning, it is glaring and important to note that the knowledge about God can’t be understood in isolation to the nature of God. Such attempt will arrive at nothing but empty echoes. The Bible, if not for anything, but that I so believe in this quote “the wiseness of man is the foolishness of God”. This is a thought for ponder, so we do not even level up to the wiseness of God, how much then do we think we can have a knowledge of God in the first instance? Pathetic is the word to describe such a quest especially where we have decided to ignore nature.

Taking a lesson from nature, we have seen wanton destruction of land, earth-quake, ocean tides in high altitude, sky blues, ever green grasses, amazing mountains, animals still not known to man despite destruction in the past. Now, these symbols portrays God in his mercies, quest, judgement and wisdom but humans are so narrow minded to see all these blissful outcomes that nature has provided freely to understand God. The knowledge of God comes from an intrinsic source; one that is very much imminent to us. The desire to be a worship being doesn’t hold that much but that we attempt to grasp nature fully in our wiseness that is the foolishness of God. For after the creation, God even saw that all he created was good. Imagine the delight on God face and happiness as well only to destroy them in a flood. Now, what have we failed to understand, God destroyed the earth but what was really destroyed? Men perished but men were saved, women perished but women were saved. Light was created but wasn’t destroyed. The sky was created but was destroyed. The ground was created but the flood gave way to land after pouring as much as the vegetation was later watered by the water. Animals were still preserve even in the water and in the ark. God wouldn’t have destroyed his creatures and creations after seeing that it was good.

The moral of this is that the existence of God is imminent to his nature and nature has provided that freely to all and sundry. God is a merciful being with no ill, evils or wickedness. This is hard to understand because we are only grasping the foolishness of God thinking in our wiseness, thus, making it a task to comprehend. To understand God, we must move back to nature, only then, only then.


























Philosophically, man has a duty to rationalize his past, present and future. The term “philosophizing” is used to describe the act of engaging oneself with the question about things going on in our environment. We philosophize to answer questions that bother our minds and co-existence as well. Accordingly, Nietzsche postulated that philosophizing helps us to proffer solutions to issues and establish a solid and enduring basis for looking at life. Socrates, on his part took the dialogue approach because subject not defined in their context were not worth talking. Often times, I am compelled to ask myself this question; “what could make an idea so dangerous?”

Socrates was born into a low profile family;his father a sculptor and mother, a midwife. It was from this observation that Socrates concluded that he was a fine man and midwife in the search of knowledge. In his dialogues, he would buy ideas, refine them and apply accordingly to his audience hereby qualifying him to be a sculptor of knowledge. Similarly, he saw himself as one who was in position to impact knowledge unto others by assisting them to attain the light.

The above,one would notice is an accurate  description of making something out of nothing. As a philosopher, there is a duty to philosophize. You either defend or define your existence. Of all philosophers, only Socrates was able to define his existence while the vast others focused on defending their existence. Knowledge, according to Socrates, gives understanding while intrinsic knowledge gives insight. In epistemology, we usually make a distinction between knowledge and belief. Socrates, the wise sage was able to address that reason was true knowledge and faith was belief.

Socrates was of a philosophical being  and moralist whose impact is still felt greatly in contemporary philosophy. To understand this concept, he was more of a thesis to his contemporaries, an antithesis to the sophists and other men of ignorant. However, it seems to me that Father Socrates was neither both but rather a combination of both which would rather qualifies him to be a synthesis. How much I love synthesis!!!!

While we keep busying ourselves with the elevation of the five physical senses from the realm of objectivity and rationality just as our instincts is the seat of all emotions. Socrates would warns that philosophy is not to emotion because when emotion becomes involves, reasoning can’t be fathomed and thus we find ourselves shut up in a circle of no possible escape again.To philosophized is to liberate the mind. Analysis and synthesis are the functions of the subjective mind. I am so sure that it is due to this fact, that the ancient Greek goddess tagged Socrates as the wisest man through its mouthpiece; Pythian prophetess.

In his defense, he was said to have uttered that he was better than the man who knows nothing but think he does because by accepting that he did not know made him wiser. Enter a dialogue or discussion with Father Socrates and be sure to be tutored on what you think your possessed knowledge of. He would listen more, speak less but understood best! He stuck to the usage of definition; for what can we speak of when we can’t understand what we speak of. I am apt to say that without Socrates,Philosophy would have been a gray area and an under active intellectual field.

Nothing could alter the progress made by Father Socrates just as all his contemporaries shares this view. Knowledge is justified true belief and unto this I hold my faith. As you continue to dialogue with the gods, who knows if you have surpassed them even! Socrates was just too wise. I pay my tribute to man who gave me philos


as my food of thought!


ON RELIGION AND HUMANITY: a one minute thought

As the conventional knowledge of religion keep us afloat of all issues in this boisterous planet of ours, so also should we be reminded of that conflicting knowledge that humanity is for all. Man, as it argued is governed by a supernatural force that he can’t fathom himself, shut up in a circle that he can’t escape and confined to the dark cave with no hope of light. Religion tends to guide us so dogmatically that we dare not question even the amorality and immorality marred with it. as many great minds, intellectuals and lovers of wisdom sough to understand this, they came up with “rationality” or rather called “logic” and “reasoning”. Little wonder why the great scholar Anselm, concluded through the ontological argument that “faith seeking understanding”. Men have ascribed so much to faith and religion and have forgotten that the greatest faith man can have is faith in humanity. The faith to see each other and one another as ourselves and not as sectional or varying beings. Minds like Averroes, Anselm and Aquinas asserted that faith and reason could be harmonized just as two truths can’t contradict one another, hence what exactly is man purpose in life?

Man is born free but yet he lives in chains and bondages. He is confined to a doctrine that he can’t question and what has been the result? War, crime, supremacy, falsified glories and fear of the unknown. Religion has suddenly become an opium just Karl Marx observed . There is one universal truth and theory that super-cedes, ascends and uplifted than Religion and this is HUMANITY!

Humanity, humanity is that doctrine that don’t pass fear, it seeks to address all things and all manner of intrinsic fear that religion has caused us for ages. Humanity doesn’t ask you what class you belong to or what religious group you are an adhere to. Nay, it simply sees you as one and one. It postulates the message of glory and hope. One can say that humanity is part of religion because religion is the supreme of all faith and deeds but it is not. Religion will always segregate you and by segregation, man begins to fight for esteem and honours which leads to evils. Religion will ask you to do things that you must do while its principal officers wallow in the flesh and evils of this world. It will deprive you of  all you can do as a good person but by humanity, man is made nearest to perfection. Even the great God, we all worship regardless of what “GOD” is called in different religion (you see religion will also make you have varieties of God names), is of the opinion that we need a humanity to sustain this world.

We all have a duty to serve humanity because as we do, humanity is also serving us! HUMANITY IS MAN’S ULTIMATE GOAL


As a free thinker and logically inclined person, I still find the ongoing debate between my fellow Christian and Muslim brothers and sister amusing. I still can’t fathom the rationale behind their attempts to prove that each others religion is the supreme one and thus will do anything to protect their claims. Going through a lot of debates between great scholars and intellectuals, I am quick to add that the very source of their argument was founded on a shaky background and thus, a time for reflection should be the order of the day.

Man has the capacity to think, argue, reason, imagine and believe but he doesn’t have the capacity to understand the rationale behind why he exist. That we exist is only a grace of the divine being given to us. Are we better than the many faithful who have died so early? Are we better in term of organization than the ants? What exactly do we seek in this existence of ours? There are many questions on the list but for the sake of this clarity, much can’t be said of.

I will be doing justice on this topic if I come as a layman with no understanding. it would make me better than the so called intellectuals who have failed to ask themselves some basic and fundamental questions rather than deepening themselves into the core heart of finding errors and mistakes in the HOLY BOOKS. Yes, let them say that man had written the books and thus it does not qualifies to be called HOLY. Let them say that the AL-QURAN is false because the man Muhammed was false. Let them say that the HOLY BIBLE is only a book and that it is full of errors, mistakes and absurdities. Let their voices be heard, let them speak and shout, let them wail, let the curse, let them argue, let them gather ten thousand of people to listen to their oratories, let them showcase their acquired intellectualities and let them speak like king among kings. Yes, let them voice out!!!

Alas, we still come back to the basic, we still come back to the very beginning. What change can it cause except that both faith switch to each other religion (Muslims become Christians and vice versa), what else? This is the failure of these intellectuals. To me, they only use casuistry to make their point but never have they asked themselves how a book full of contradiction became a HOLY BOOK?

Today, we have heard of so many instances where verses from the Al Quaran and Holy Bible saved a lot of people. We have heard of some many cases of where the BIBLE and QURAN were used to revive people. These books have healed many people, signs and wonders have been given and they are happening today. Has all these argument changed the course of these books? What else? Is the Bible not the source of inspiration to many broken homes and a source of belief and expectations? Is the Quaran not a revealed book that guides the conduct of men? We forget that even if all men were Muslims or Christians, our world will still not be a better place. Have we not heard of Muslims killing their fellow brothers? Have we not heard of Christians doing same? What about the Jews, Buddha and all others? What exactly do we owe to nature if I may ask you all? Hence the if the books of contradiction is capable of doing all these wonderful things, why then do we still busy ourselves with the task of supremacy?


Often times, I have asked this question of freedom and determinism. Is man really free? What is it in man that makes him free? It is commonly believed that man is free and makes use of his freedom in the manner that so pleases him and therefore should be held morally for any course of actions he undertakes. However, when we come across the principles and theory of determinism, we are soon faced with the readily fact that man is not free and he has never been free.

Ethical determinism speculates that men’s action is only determined and followed as a result of what they see and perceive as good. This simply means that man will act only based on the good and what comes as good to him thus being compelled by an internal force to act and do. It would sound untrue to hear of a man who left the good (what he knows to be the good) and choose what is evil. We can’t define the good in the universal sense because good is a relative term. What appeals and appears as good to me might not be same with another fellow. For example, that I stole a mobile phone sound evil because I have taken away the source of communication from that person but at the same time, it is a good to me because I now have a mobile phone to communicate regardless of how it was gotten. This example makes it difficult for the good to be defined in general and hence many have suggested that the good itself, should be beneficiary to both the subject and the object; only then, we can define the good in the universal. If indeed man were to be free as speculated, the variations existing between accepting what is good and not should have long ago be discarded or resolved. When the ancient Greek Philosopher; Socrates and Plato held the view that it is ignorance that makes people to do evil or harmful thing to others, they were quick enough to note that ignorance is the absence of knowledge. Therefore, if ignorance causes men to act in an evil way, we conclude that man is not free from his emotion because, what appear as good might be used to promote the evil. If one day, I render help to a dying man left for the dead knowing fully well that if I walk pass, he will be dead in another few seconds. After some days, I am being robbed by a group of men and only for me to realize that the ring leader is this same man I helped before, what would be the current situation if we have to follow what Socrates is saying? Ignorance would only apply when I see the good and refuses to accept that this is the good, only then I become ignorant. The good is not something that can be dismissed or evaded with a flick of the finger. The good is so powerful that it surpasses the emotion and forces the emotion to act.

I can’t accept the fact that ignorance causes people to act in an evil manner. What of the man who made up his mind to kill his evil father for the many sins committed by his father? Is that not a good itself? Would we say that killing a man who has previously taken away five hundred innocent lives and still hoping to take another three hundred in the nearer few days, is not justified and thus should be taken as evil? Evil, as many have argued has no base but rather thrive on the good for it to be called “evil”. In the similar examples given above, we can logically say that while it is wrong to take away somebody life no matter the circumstances, then we commit an evil by allowing the person to live still knowing fully well that he will go ahead and kill more people. How then do we reconcile these school of thought, on one hand, we can’t take away the life of someone and on the other hand, we commit an evil by allowing him to live knowing that his continuous existence will cost more people to do?

I have often wonder supposing we have a scenario in which a sick man is seriously in need of a little amount of money to buy medicine that will save his life and after seeking all places, he finds no help. He is left for the dead and he readily accepts his fate. Meanwhile, there is a rich man in the same location and he is very wealthy that he doesn’t know what to do with his money except that he stores them up in a room. Suddenly, a relative of this sick man stole a part of this rich man’s money and saved his brother from dying. What is the good and what is the evil here? Is it the fact that the money being stolen (which the rich man never knew and probably will never know) that makes it evil or that the attention of this evil was directed towards a good? Saving a life is far better and glorious that money being piled up for no purpose. Hence, while we agree the mean was dubious, evil and uncalled for, the end itself was a glorious one because it required the saving of someone’s health. Yes, the rich might have worked so hard for his money which by moral value is a good action. At the same time, a sick man in point of death requires money to live on. Therefore, we could not find the perfect good because it was marred with some evil in order to save a life.

If we follow the utilitarianism theories, the greatest happiness represents the greater number of people. Thus if one man will die and it will save five hundred people from dying, why should not he be put to death? Or do we subscribe to the view that it is better for five hundred men to die and one man to live? No, we can’t agree to this view. This makes the problem of good and evil even more confusing. What exactly is the good? What is evil?

Whatever we see and perceive as good must comes from one determinant factor; this is the belief that this good will be useful to us. Man, by all morals and standards is not a free man as many ancient and modern scholars will argue. To be free, is to be totally free from all emotions, death, beliefs etc. To be free in the universal sense and ideal is to be born free of which man is not. It would be illogical to have been born in bondage and yet living in this chaotic world hopes to attain freedom. Emotion puts us to act in so many instances and thus what do we owe to freedom? Nothing

The good “being a must do” has not be universally defined and thus the very reason why we have people who continually to mistake the good for evil and evil for good. Ignorance doesn’t compel us to act but what compel us to do evil and good is simply because everything appears as good to us. The only different is that the mean and process of actualizing it, is what defines the good and evil in the clear context. I do not think the evil can thrive without the good. Just as we can’t have a world full of good, so also we can’t have a world totally full of evil. For a world of evil to thrive on, it would means that nothing is perceived as the good and this is paramount to impossibility because we cat in an evil way to achieve some good. We never act evil because we want evil. No man, even the nemesis and enemies of man desire evil on us but that they see something which is the good hence the innate nature of evil. Evil for evil sake is not an ideal thought.

The more we try to thrive on the good, the more evil becomes glaring, how then can we live a free world where supremacy battle reigns between the good and evil. I have sought for so many answers regarding this good but hence it would be wise to conclude that what appears as good is not same to my fellow brothers and thus using the means and process as a yardstick will only make the distinction.

I dare to conclude this thought that until the good is defined universally, only then, men will understand that to act in the good, is to do the good in a way that the good is good in itself with no single trait of evil. The perception, the act, the process and the mean must be good such that when subjected to moral standard, it will be accepted on the overall.


Life is a mixture and combination of opposites. Just as there is love and hate, ups and downs, to be alive and to be dead, so also there exist in this world; war and peace.
Come, hear this, think for a while, why is there war? Is peace a sequel to war? How can we know the value of freedom when we have never felt bondage?  Can we have peace amidst ethnic trauma, rural conflict, anomie, cataclysms and political violence?

Impossible some will argue. Such pessimism is certainly founded on the bellicose tendencies of a preponderant number. However, the truth is that it is not impossible; therefore making it possible to have peace in the constant struggle of the realization and bitter experience wars has caused us.

If God could create this boisterous planet out of primal vapour and created man from clay with just a breathe to give him life, then he in comity with man, can rescue our planet from genocides, war, fratricide and hate. War is a product of misunderstanding and sometimes a quest to show the relevance of superiority over inferiority, governed by the epistemology of hate, vengeance and revanchism through the act of terror, violence and brigandage. It is a pity we can achieve nothing good following this false doctrine.

Name them; the First World War, Second World War, civil war, battle of waterloo, the unforgettable USA/Iraq war. What did these violence and malevolent war cause? The answers: the great depression, hunger, turning our once gregarious planet to a living hell of life and has eventually breached our co-existence as one in unity and harmony. Our once ecstatically, happy, joyous and glorious state has been reduced to nothing but to ruins. Peace has suddenly becomes an enemy of the state.

Brothers, sisters, parents, friends and compatriots, the prognosis continue. Peace is not an option but a “must do”. We ought to stand as one to further deepen the truth as we seek for hope. I dare to say this to all enemies of peace and to all the wreck-less wreckers of our planet, we are following you with the wisdom of the serpent, the strengths of a lion and nemesis of nature. The verdict of history will judge you. Peace is the way forward