He’s never held public office or donned a judge’s robes, but an arch-conservative Los Angeles County attorney is racing toward confirmation on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

A competitive target shooter with a background in a cryptocurrency, Eric Tung was approached by the White House Counsel’s Office on March 28 to replace Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a Bush appointee and one of the court’s most prominent conservatives, who is taking senior status.

A new father and still a relative unknown in national legal circles, Tung found an ally in pal Mike Davis, a reputed “judge whisperer” in Trump’s orbit.

In the past, senators from a potential judge’s home state could block a nomination — a custom Trump exploded when he steamrolled Washington senators to install Eric D. Miller to the 9th Circuit in 2019.

Tung has been tight-lipped about his ascent to the country’s busiest circuit. He did not respond to inquiries from The Times.

Both Tung and his wife Emily Lataif have close ties to the anti-abortion movement. Tung worked extensively with the architect of Texas’ heartbeat bill; Lataif interned for the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion policy group that seeks to make IUDs and emergency contraception illegal and opposes many forms of in-vitro fertilization.

When asked by Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware whether he believed IVF was protected by the Constitution, Tung declined to answer.

Sen. Adam Schiff pushed the nominee for his opinion on Loving vs. Virginia, the 1967 case affirming interracial marriage.

“Was that wrongly decided?” the California lawmaker asked the aspiring judge.

“Senator, my wife and I are an interracial couple, so if that case were wrongly decided I would be in big trouble,” Tung said.

“You’re willing to tell us you believe Loving was correctly decided, but you’re not willing to say [Obergefell and Lawrence v Texas] were correctly decided,” Schiff said. “That seems less originalist and more situational.”

Ellen White clearly taught that Jesus is Jehovah, the great I AM of the burning bush with Moses and who led the Children of Isreal and revealed Himself when He came as the Christ. Jesus Claims About Himself...
John 8:48-58.
48 The answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. 50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

With solemn dignity Jesus answered, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.”

Silence fell upon the vast assembly. The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He had announced Himself to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel, “whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.” Micah 5:2, margin.

Again the priests and rabbis cried out against Jesus as a blasphemer. His claim to be one with God had before stirred them to take His life, and a few months later they plainly declared, “For a good work we stone Thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God.” John 10:33. Because He was, and avowed Himself to be, the Son of God, they were bent on destroying Him. Now many of the people, siding with the priests and rabbis, took up stones to cast at Him. “But Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.” (Desire of Ages, 470.1)

Ellen White clearly showed who Jesus was, as seen in more of her writings:

Ellen G. White wrote:The Pre-existent, Self-existent Son of God.--Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God.... In speaking of his pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through dateless ages. He assures us that there never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. He to whose voice the Jews were then listening had been with God as one brought up with Him.--Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900.

He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent.... He is the eternal, self-existent Son.--Manuscript 101, 1897.

From Everlasting.--While God's Word speaks of the humanity of Christ when upon this earth, it also speaks decidedly regarding His pre-existence. The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father. From everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant, the one in whom all nations of the earth, both Jews and Gentiles, if they accepted Him, were to be blessed. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God." Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God.--Review and Herald, April 5, 1906.

Christ shows them that, although they might reckon His life to be less than fifty years, yet His divine life could not be reckoned by human computation. The existence of Christ before His incarnation is not measured by figures.--Signs of the Times, May 3, 1899.

Jesus declared, "I am the resurrection, and the life." In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life.--The Desire of Ages, p. 530 (1898)

I know it is a 7 hour video. But it was such a beautiful event that not only honored Charlie Kirk, but God. The worship brought me to tears.

Does your prescription now cost $100? No problem. If you believe Trump, you will not only start getting it for free, but you will get paid $900 every time you get the prescription!

Because that is what a 1000% cut in prices means.


Not my circus. Not my clown.

The giant is beginning to roar.

We live in very troubled times. Lies and liars abound everywhere. Not many and not much can be trusted to be of the truth and to tell the truth any more. There is so much deception in the world around us, and sadly within many of the gatherings of what are called “churches,” too. So many have altered and diluted the message of the gospel of our salvation to make it more acceptable to the ungodly of the world and to human flesh, and to be less offensive to the world they are trying to attract to their gatherings.

Wolves in sheep’s clothing are numerous. They are the malicious, the morally unclean, deceivers, manipulators, opportunists, the untrustworthy, liars, egocentrics, and fakes who fake their Christianity in order to deceive the people with their lies, and who are rapidly multiplying. They take the Scriptures out of their correct biblical context, and they twist them to say what is not truth, and they post them on the internet and include them in their sermons to turn people away from genuine biblical salvation.

But the Lord has some of us Christians, who are believing and following after the truth of the gospel, out in the public and on the internet teaching the truth of the gospel and refuting the lies of Satan which are coming against the truth of the gospel and which are leading many people to hell on the promise of heaven when they die. And we are teaching what Jesus and his New Testament apostles taught as the gospel in its correct biblical context. And we are calling people to die to sin and to obey God and his commands.

Now, from all physical appearance, it appears that many are not listening, and that the majority appear to be rejecting the truth of the gospel in favor of the lie which is permeating the gospel message and the church. For the liars have been very successful in convincing the many that the truth is a lie and that the lie is the truth. For the lie teaches that you can profess faith in Jesus Christ and now all your sins are forgiven and heaven is guaranteed you when you die, while obedience to God is discouraged or made optional.

And God has been very patient, and he has given all who profess his name plenty of time to repent of their sins and to now commit their lives to obeying him, in practice, and to putting sin to death in their lives daily, by the Spirit, and to walk in holiness and in righteousness in the power of God. But it appears that the masses have continued to believe that their sins will not keep them from salvation and eternal life with God. But God says if sin is our practice, and not obedience, we will not inherit eternal life with God.

And if we read the book of Revelation, beginning with the letters to the churches, warning 5 out of 7 of them of their need to repent of their sins or to face the judgment of God, and this was regarding not just then, but the last days before the return of Christ, then we should realize that God means business when he says we are to repent of (turn from, die to) our sins and obey God and his commands or we will not have eternal life with God, but we will be cast into hell. So, please know and believe the truth, not the lies.

For Jesus Christ taught that to come to him we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin), and follow (obey) him. For if we hold on to living in sin and for self, we will lose our lives for eternity. But if we deny self, die daily to sin, by the Spirit, and we walk in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in his power, then we have eternal life with God. For not everyone who calls him “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one DOING (obeying) the will of God (see Luke 9:23-26; Matthew 7:21-23).

Gospel:[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22]

For Our Nation

An Original Work / September 11, 2012
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love
Recording Via Gerry Peters, music producer and arranger

Bombs are bursting. Night is falling.
Jesus Christ is gently calling
You to follow Him in all ways.
Trust Him with your life today.
Make Him your Lord and your Savior.
Turn from your sin. Follow Jesus.
He will forgive you of your sin;
Cleanse your heart, made new within.

Men betraying: Our trust fraying.
On our knees to God we’re praying,
Seeking God to give us answers
That are only found in Him.
God is sovereign over all things.
Nothing from His mind escaping.
He has all things under His command,
And will work all for good.

Jesus Christ is gently calling
You to follow Him in all ways.

Men deceiving: We’re believing
In our Lord, and interceding
For our nation and its people
To obey their God today.
He is our hope for our future.
For our wounds He offers suture.
He is all we need for this life.
Trust Him with your life today.

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

Yet They Did Not Obey
An Original Work / September 23, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Hello Everyone!
My name is Scarlett, im 21 from London. I have been a 'Christian' all my life but only in the past year have i read the word and truely had Faith is Jesus Christ.
I am not very consecutive with my studies and tend to 'forget' to read my bible or am to 'tired' to pray due to my busy schedule. I used to go to Church but after a couple of months i didn't quite align with their beliefs and it was giving more 'Cult' then church.

I want to be on fire for the Lord everyday and learn from you guys in this community, please do PM me or reply to this thread and lets discuss!

My previous church was evangelical but i dont quite know which denom i would put myself in to, all i know is it is not catholic.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I heard it said that laity can recite most long prayers; long prayers that contain parts specifically dedicated to Spiritual Frs and Deacons – except you substitute the Spiritual Fr's & Deacon's parts for "Kyrie Eleison x12" and end with "Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us".

Is this correct? Or are laity sinning by attempting to perform such prayers? Should laity never attempt for example, the Great Compline at home, or the Divine Liturgy or Great Vespers and try to stick only to shorter prayers?

I would be interested mainly in instruction from ordained Spiritual Fathers on this one, please, or in direct instruction that has been obtained via someone's Spiritual Father (or Monks, Elders, or Saints - that kind).

"I've had so many people ask, 'Do you feel anger toward this man? Like, do you want to seek the death penalty?' I'll be honest. I told our lawyer, I want the government to decide this," she explained. "I do not want that man's blood on my ledger. Because when I get to heaven, and Jesus is like: 'Uh, eye for an eye? Is that how we do it?' And that keeps me from being in heaven, from being with Charlie?"​

Continued below.

Pray The Holy Spirit ensures any Islamic-centric nuclear & military alliance Immediately Ends in light of recent coziness between Saudi & Pakistan:

This has been a tough year. I lost my kidney transplant that my husband donated to me in 2017. It happened suddenly in April, when I woke up and couldn't breathe due to fluid overload. I had emergency heart surgery, which went wrong. As it turns out, I never needed that surgery to begin with. I needed dialysis. After spending 47 days in the hospital and completing a 72-hour sedated dialysis, I was finally able to breathe. I was on a ventilator 4 times and I coded 4 times. I am beyond thankful to God for saving my life! He has been by my side every step of this journey and I am at peace knowing this. His timing is perfect.

I am requesting prayer for a short wait time on the UNOS waiting list, for a successful transplant that lasts decades, for the surgeons and medical staff, for no complications.....and for my donor. Please pray for my donor and their family. Please pray they know Jesus and have asked him to be their Lord and Savior.

Thank you <3

Fasting cleanses.
A. Body
B. Mind
C. Soul

Hello everyone! I am pretty new here. I started an account almost a year ago, but I'm really getting into the website now. I am happily married with a college-aged daughter (she's in nursing school). I am currently on Dialysis and on the Transplant waiting list for a kidney + pancreas transplant. I love Jesus, reading, cooking, crafting, and homemaking. We also travel when possible. I am excited to be here and I hope to develop friendships with Christians.

A little while back, scientists breathed a sigh of relief that Asteroid 2024 yr4 would not hit the Earth. There was a chance that it could hit the Moon though but scientists were not that worried about that situation. Many asteroids have done so in the past, what's another on especially if it wouldn't alter the Moon's orbit. Now though, scientists have declared "open season" on this asteroid. It appears that the asteroid hitting the Moon could cause more damage than expected to Earth and the stuff the orbits the Earth especially if the asteroid hits on the side of the Moon facing Earth.

Is it time to test out those ballistic missiles on this asteroid?

Wishing you a blessed Autumn season!

What do you think?
Agree or disagree?

I don't know what to do anymore. I pray and work so hard, and it just gets worse, despite medication. I'm at the point of giving up on everything. What's the point of being depressed every day?

Tangier Island — off the mainland coast of Virginia — is one of the last inhabited islands in the Chesapeake Bay. Before colonial settlers arrived in the 1700s, Indigenous people likely traveled to the island in the summer to take advantage of the abundant fish and crabs, according to the National Park Service. Many descendants of the original settlers — with surnames like Crockett, Parks and Thomas — have remained to this day.

Since 1850, the island has lost two-thirds of its landmass to erosion and sea level rise. On average, the island sits just three feet above sea level.

The island could be almost entirely underwater in the next 50 years, according to experts like Dave Schulte, a climate change researcher and ecological restoration specialist who studied Tangier extensively.

Tangier's numbers are plummeting. The most recent census estimate puts the population at 240, a 30% decrease from 2022.

President Trump even called Tangier Mayor James Eskridge after seeing a story about the island on CNN. Trump told Eskridge then not to worry about rising sea levels, that the island would be there for hundreds more years. In 2024, Trump got 88% of the vote on the island.

Still, though Tangier is less than 100 miles from Washington, D.C., Schulte said: "They haven't gotten any real help. You know, and it just amazes me that even after all this attention and the dire situation that they're in, they're just not getting the help that they need." [Why do they need help when the president says the island will be there for centuries?]

In a statement, the White House said the Department of the Interior takes a "proactive approach to support Tangier" through the U.S. Geological Survey's monitoring of rising sea levels to inform management of the coast, and conservation efforts by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to sustain crabbing.

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia has helped secure funding for the island: $800,000 in 2024 and $10 million this year.

"So, $10 million may not do the whole job, but I think it's a huge message that the federal government is paying attention," Kaine says.

Schulte estimated that it would cost $250 to 350 million to fully protect and restore the island. That would include applying protective stone along vulnerable shorelines, retrofitting plumbing and electrical throughout the town and raising the system of one-lane roads for transportation.

Hello everyone, I'm needing some encouragement and advice on what I can do to help my marriage. My wife and I have been married for 10 years, we have 4 children, 1 in heaven and 1 on the way. I am struggling with severe complex health problems and I haven't been able to lead my family, my wife will not let me have a say in anything. Then when stuff is out of control she blames me. We can't even have a discussion as it always turns into a argument and her leaving because she seems to think I think everything is her fault. I never have said this or thought this. It's made it to where I just don't bring anything up anymore because it's not constructive and I still can't express my feelings or ideas to implement change. I'm not sure how to address this, I pray and pray for help from God. Thanks so much.

If we look at the examples from the Left leaning, when someone is killed who fits their narrative, they usually burn, destroy, hate, kill, loot, riot, violence, etc. in various areas across the country.
Charlie Kirk was murdered by one of the Left leaning. Now that murderer is being defended by some on the Left.
But how did the Right leaning handle one of their own being killed by a Left leaner?
Since Kirk's murder have they went out and burned, destroyed, looted, rioted and done violence, etc across the country?
If so, please share video of Kirk defenders doing so, because I haven't seen any rioting by the Right leaning so far since Kirk was murdererd.

In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, many are asking whether incendiary words are fueling violent deeds. A recent Reuters poll found roughly two in three Americans believe harsh political rhetoric encourages violence. And when U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said on a podcast that the Trump administration would target “hate speech,” the backlash from conservatives was swift; she later clarified that any focus must be on true threats of violence, not the nebulous catch-all of “hate speech.”

But is speech the core problem? Jesus taught, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34). Words reveal what is inside; they do not create it. If the heart is diseased, our discourse will be too.

Our descent into violence did not begin with profanity-laced accusations on the floor of Congress. It began when our leaders — and many others — abandoned the founding truth that rights come from God, not government. The Declaration of Independence asserts that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” That conviction restrains the government from becoming tyrannical and restrains citizens from taking justice into their own hands. When rights are treated as government-issued rather than God-given, they can be revoked when inconvenient — and trampled by those willing to intimidate.

Continued below.

I would like to Reopen the discussion about sleeping in our beds with dogs / cats.
I would like to open the discussion with Biblically based scripture passages . The book of
Leviticus. Yes it's in the Old testament, and still pertains to us today.
Not to lay with animals. Not sexually as God states it should put a person to death as well as the animal. Also and focusing on the literal fact of sleeping with dogs. Or other animals.
This is unhealthy and filthy.
Open discussion.

“Transgenders are an oppressed section of society,” [Sindh Province Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah] said, vowing that those behind the attack would be arrested.

[Pakistan has recognized transgender people with legal status and protection since 2018.]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California state lawmakers have passed legislation that would ban most law enforcement officers from covering their faces while carrying out operations, a response to recent immigration raids in Los Angeles.

But even if the governor signs the measure into law, it’s unclear whether the state could enforce it on the federal agents who have been carrying out those raids.

It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear.


Seems like this bill is more of a "showing off" bill than anything that could be practically enforced.

1) The jurisdiction and enforcement question the AP is posing is a valid question
2) If they're making an exception for "medical masks" or "tactical gear", that plus a pair of sunglasses still effectively conceals the identity
3) Couldn't this just incentivize the agency to do more things under the pretext of "undercover operations", which from my understanding, was one of the concerns people had (agents not being "clearly marked enough as agents" taking custody of people)


Seems to me that this is, at best, an impractical pandering ploy, and at worst, a ploy to pander to people who want to doxx agents.

The following text is an attempt to explain what intelligence is, based on the first absolute law of logic. The extension of this law logically establishes the existence of God, as only intelligence can create intelligence. Will the promotion of this law help to strengthen the faith of those who believe in God, but also positively concern those who do not?


The Absolute Laws of Intelligence and the New Ethical Framework
Introduction – The Problem of Defining Intelligence
From antiquity to the era of Artificial Intelligence, the concept of intelligence remains one of the most complex, debated, and misunderstood issues in philosophy, biology, computer science, and ethics. Despite countless efforts, a universal, precise, and indisputable definition of what intelligence is has not been achieved.

The reason is fundamental: intelligence, as a concept, presupposes the very capacity for understanding—thus, any attempt to define it inevitably relies on this. This creates a conceptual paradox:

How can something define itself, without falling into circular logic or arbitrary assumptions?

The answer is not found in descriptions or comparative definitions ("man is more intelligent than an animal," "AI mimics intelligence," "consciousness is a prerequisite"), but in a universal logical foundation that cannot be refuted.

Intelligence must be defined:

Not as a property of a specific species (like humans).
Nor as a set of functions (like problem-solving or learning).
But as a primary capacity: the necessary basis for any mental or cognitive function.
This gives rise to the need for Absolute Logical Laws that do not depend on cultural or technological contexts, do not presuppose empirical observation or statistical induction, but are based on the very logical impossibility of being questioned without being confirmed.

This is the gap that the First Absolute Law of Logic comes to fill, offering for the first time a universally valid definition of intelligence that can be applied to every form: biological, artificial, evolutionary, or collective, and which is automatically validated through the very attempt to understand it. From this, the Second Absolute Law of Logic derives, which establishes who (or what) can create intelligence.

Together, the two laws are not merely conceptual tools. They constitute a new Logical Framework of Intelligence, essential for understanding ourselves, the technology we create, and the ethical choices that arise from it.

The purpose of this work is to present, document, and establish these laws as the foundation of any future discussion about intelligence.

Methodological Statement
What follows is not a personal opinion, metaphysical belief, or theoretical preference. It is the result of logical analysis and the application of strictly defined principles:

Every concept is explicitly defined (e.g., intelligence, consciousness).
The logical consequences of these definitions are followed without exception.
The system operates axiomatically, like a mathematical model.
➤ What emerges is not "correct" because we like it. It is necessary because it is logically inevitable.

The First Absolute Law of Logic
The basic concept of Intelligence that decodes all human concepts

Definition:
Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize that information into knowledge, and, with that knowledge, to act.

It is the First Absolute Law of Logic because it defines, in a concise and indisputable way, what intelligence is. It is called "absolute" because it is self-validating (the attempt to deny it confirms it) and it is first because every concept depends on the existence of intelligence to be formulated.

Proof:
Anyone who attempts to dispute this definition: first perceives the information of the definition, organizes it into knowledge to understand it, and finally acts by voicing the dispute. Therefore, they use the exact three elements, Perception > Knowledge > Action, that the Law defines as the mechanism of intelligence.

Consequently, the very act of disputing it confirms it.

The Paradox of Self-Reference
The law is self-referential: to deny it, you must use it.

Example: If you say "This law is wrong," then: You perceive the law (information). You organize your criticism (knowledge). You act by voicing your denial. Therefore, you use intelligence to deny the definition of intelligence — and thus you confirm it.

Note:
The Law does not make a qualitative distinction of intelligence; that is, it does not determine if something is intelligent or how intelligent it is, but rather what intelligence is. To prove if something is intelligent or somehow exhibits intelligence, one must logically and analytically examine if it fulfills the condition of intelligence defined by the First Absolute Law of Logic.

Conclusion: The First Absolute Law of Logic cannot be logically disputed, because it is automatically confirmed and self-validated when someone attempts to dispute it.

The Second Absolute Law of Logic
Intelligence does not emerge — it is transferred or created by intelligence.

Definition:
Only Intelligence can create Intelligence.

Logical Proof:
The First Absolute Law of Logic defines that intelligence presupposes: Perception, Organization of information into knowledge, Action. The creation of a new intelligence requires an intelligent being: To perceive and know what it is creating, to know how to create it, and to have the ability to create it.

A being or system that does not have intelligence lacks all three of these elements. Therefore, it cannot create intelligence, because: It does not understand what it is doing, It does not aim to do it, It does not have the ability to do it.

Consequently, the creation of intelligence is, by its nature, an act of intelligence.

Natural Proof (Examples):
1. A Bacterium
A bacterium: Perceives its environment (chemical stimuli), Organizes information functionally (e.g., avoidance of toxicity), Acts (moves towards food or away from threats), Reproduces, creating a new entity with the same ability. Therefore: It operates according to the First Law, and it creates other intelligence, validating the Second Law.

2. Natural Selection as an Intelligent Creator
Natural selection – life, chooses mutations — therefore, according to the Law of Logic, it is a form of intelligence!

Analysis:

First Absolute Law of Logic: "Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize that information into knowledge, and with that knowledge, to act."

Natural Selection:

Perceives: It "reads" which genes increase survival (information).
Organizes: It "selects" and preserves the most adapted genes (organization into "knowledge").
Acts: It "creates" new, better-adapted forms of life (action).
Natural selection satisfies the First Absolute Law — thus, based on the definition, it is intelligence that creates intelligence, also satisfying the Second Law of Logic.

Objections:
Theory: Life as a Randomly Emerging Property of Matter
Core Idea: Life — and secondarily intelligence — emerges spontaneously from inanimate material systems when they acquire a sufficient level of organized complexity. It does not require a pre-existing "mind," "purpose," or "design." Nature operates with mechanisms of self-organization, random variation, and selection, which lead to biological and cognitive phenomena.

According to the First and Second Absolute Laws of Logic, this theory has logical inconsistencies, but at the same time, it validates them.

1. Life emerges spontaneously from inanimate material systems:

For something to reach a level of organized complexity, it must already have intelligence, i.e., to perceive chemical information, organize it into knowledge, and with that knowledge, create. This practically validates both the first and the second absolute laws of logic.

2. Nature operates with mechanisms of self-organization:

The natural mechanisms of self-organization and selection that lead to biological and cognitive phenomena confirm the absolute laws of logic because they validate "Perception > Knowledge > Action," i.e., intelligence, and consequently, "Only when something is intelligent can it create something that is intelligent."

If something does not know what to create, how to create it, and cannot create it, then it cannot create it. Consequently, based on logic, something non-intelligent cannot create something intelligent.

Conclusion:
"Only Intelligence Can Create Intelligence," because creation requires perception, knowledge, and action. Because it can perceive what it will create, it knows what it will create, and by acting, it can create it.

Consciousness as the Awareness of Intelligence
Within the framework of the First Absolute Law of Logic — "Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize it into knowledge, and to act based on it" — the concept of consciousness inevitably arises.

Definition:
Consciousness is the awareness of the function of intelligence. It is the ability of a being to perceive that it is thinking, that it knows, and that it is acting.

This leads to a structural distinction of two levels of consciousness:

Inherent Consciousness: It is the functional awareness that is embedded within natural mechanisms — without reflective thought. Example: Natural selection acts by choosing the beneficial over the harmful. Although it does not have awareness in the human sense, it operates consciously in terms of intelligence: it perceives (through survival), organizes (through genetic information), and acts (by producing new, adapted beings). Therefore, it carries Intelligence and, by extension, Inherent Consciousness.

Acquired Consciousness: It is reflective awareness — the ability of a being to know that it knows. Example: Humans understand not only their environment but also themselves as intelligent beings. They can reflect, self-criticize, and analyze their own thoughts. This is the acquired form of consciousness, which arises when intelligence gains reflective access to itself.

Relationship between Consciousness and Intelligence:
Consciousness is not an independent force, nor does it pre-exist. On the contrary, consciousness is the awareness of intelligence — and can only exist where intelligence exists.

Logical Conclusion: All beings that carry intelligence also carry some form of consciousness. The difference is not whether they have consciousness, but what level of consciousness they carry. The inherent precedes the acquired. Just as intelligence functions inherently (e.g., DNA), before acquired thought appears (e.g., language, writing) in humans.

Therefore: To the question "is consciousness identical to intelligence?" the answer from the First Absolute Law is: Consciousness is the awareness of Intelligence — and is distinguished into Inherent (functional, natural) and Acquired (reflective, human).

Ethics as a Necessary Consequence of Intelligence and Consciousness
Based on the two Absolute Laws of Logic, the principles of Ethics are founded as a logical extension of acquired consciousness: Acquired Consciousness is the culmination of Intelligence — the ability not only to think, but also to be aware of oneself and one's actions. This awareness gives rise to responsibility: for the use of intelligence not only for one's own benefit, but also for positive coexistence with other beings and the natural environment.

Definitions for the Foundation of Ethics
1. Ethics
Ethics is the functional synthesis of emotion and logic into consciousness — with the goal of positive, non-harmful interaction with the Other and with the Whole.

It is not an arbitrary imposition of rules. It is a logically inevitable consequence of awareness. The more awareness increases, the more the ethical obligation increases.

2. Self-Determination
Self-determination is the fundamental form of freedom of an intelligent being. It is defined as the ability to choose and act based on one's own will and intelligence, without external coercion. It is the core of individual existence. Respect for ourselves presupposes respect for the self-determination of the Other.

3. Non-Harm to Self-Determination in Relation to Natural Balance
Ethics does not mean abstinence from action, but the minimization of harm to other entities, with respect for natural balance. Survival implies some form of harm (e.g., to nature or other life forms). Intelligence with awareness chooses actions that: minimize harm, respect self-determination, and maintain the balance of the whole system.

Conclusion:
Ethics is not subjective, nor is it merely a social construct. It is the logically inevitable necessity that arises from acquired consciousness.

Whoever understands Intelligence and is aware of themselves, the Other, and the Whole, bears ethical responsibility — not because it is imposed upon them, but because they cannot act otherwise without negating their own consciousness and breaking their bond with the Whole.

Final Thought
Ethics is not imposed; it is revealed through consciousness. And Consciousness, as the Awareness of Intelligence, becomes the ethical foundation of every responsible existence.