The Physics of Immortality

Frank J Tipler

Edited by JE Bradburn


Is there a higher power in the universe? What happens to us when we die? Is there a heaven? For modern scientists the answer to these age old questions has always been that there is no proof, no indication, nor any hint that the universe is anything but a cold, unknowing place, that human beings are accidents of evolution and that when we die, our consciousness disappears into oblivion. In “The Physics of Immortality,Frank Tipler” has written an astonishing and profoundly important book (containing far-reaching ideas or essential wisdom and experience that usually require serious thought to be fully appreciated) which rebuts (To deny the truth of something, especially by presenting arguments that disprove it) this approach and presents a purely scientific argument for the existence of God and the physical resurrection of the dead. Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University, is a major theoretician (somebody who is skilled in considering theories, or is learned in the theoretical aspect of a subject) in the field of global general relativity, the rarefied branch of physics created by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. Like most modern scientists, he was an atheist who gave little thought to questions of theology. Yet in devising a mathematical model of the end of the universe, Tipler came to a startling confusion (misunderstanding of a situation or the facts): using the most advanced and sophisticated methods of modern physics he has created an argument for the existence of God.

Tipler’s model of the universal end of time is called the Omega Point Theory, a purely scientific theory derived from modern cosmology and computer science, based on scientific naturalism rather than Revelation and faith. The Physics of Immortality guides the general reader through the details of Tipler’s exhilarating discoveries. Displaying an awesome command of disciplines as diverse as computer science, economics, particle physics, cosmology, and evolutionary biology, Tipler constructs a stunningly plausible argument for God and universal resurrection.

Lucid in style, audacious in aim, breath-taking in scope, powerfully written, and, finally, deeply moving, this is a book that will change the way everyone thinks.

No reader, whether sceptic or believer, will look at the universe in the same way after encountering this remarkable work.

It is quite rare in this day and age to come across a book proclaiming the unification of science and religion. It is unique to find a book asserting, as I shall in the body of this book, that theology (the study of religion, especially the Christian faith and God's relation to the world) is a branch of physics, that physicists can infer by calculation the existence of God and the likelihood of the resurrection of the dead to eternal life in exactly the same way as physicists calculate the properties of the election. One naturally wonders if I am serious.

I am quite serious. But I am surprised as the reader. When I began my career as a cosmologist (the philosophical of the nature of the universe) philosophical [concerned with or given to thinking about the larger issues and deeper meanings in life and events], some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting (to claim or seem to be something or somebody) to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straight forward deductions of the laws of Physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of Physics.

I obtained my Ph. D. in the area of global general relativity. This branch of physics, created in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the great British physicists  Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking, enables us to draw very deep and very general conclusions about the structure of space and time by looking at the universe in its totality in both time and space.

Now one might think that such a view of the universe is the view of all cosmologist, but this is not so. Almost all cosmologists concern themselves with what is called the visible universe: that part of the universe whose past can be seen from Earth It is not possible to look at the universe in its totality in both time and space while ignoring almost all of space and time.

Interestingly, this is not true. The two sources of chaos cancel out.

What happens is that intelligent life, in order to survive, must use the chaos in the physical laws to fore the evolution of the universe into one of a very restricted number of possible futures, its very survival requires life to impose order on the universe. Taking biology into account allows us to do the physics of the future.

But in order to do calculations, it is necessary to regard all forms of life—including human beings—as subject to the same laws of physics as electrons and atoms. I therefore regard a human being as nothing but a particular type of machine, the human brain as nothing but an information processing device, the human soul as nothing but a program being run on a computer called the brain. Further, all possible types of living beings, intelligent or not, are of the same nature, and subject to the same laws of physics as constrain all information processing devices.

Many people find this extreme reductionist (the analysis of something into simpler parts or organized systems, especially with a view to explaining or understanding it) approach to life not only wrong but repulsive. I think, however, that their hostility is not to reductionism as such but to what they mistakenly believe to be the consequences of reductionism. They are convinced that regarding people as machines would mean that people would have no “free will,” that there is no hope of individual life after death, that life itself is a totally insignificant part of “an overwhelmingly hostile universe,”

In fact, the exact opposite is true. The very fact that humans are machines of a very special sort allows us to prove that we humans probably have free will, that we shall have life after death in an abode that closely resembles the Heaven of the great world religions, and that life, far from being insignificant, can be regarded as the ultimate cause of the very existence of the universe itself. How this works as a matter of physics is the subject of this book. One naturally wonders why it is only in the last decade of the twentieth century that these ideas have appeared in physical cosmology (the philosophical study of the nature of the universe)? A good question. Part of the reason is that the mathematical techniques to analyse the global structure of the universe did not exist until about fifty years ago. But a deeper reason is that almost all physicists have ignored the future of the physical universe. There seemed to be a tacit (understood or implied without being stated openly) consensus that the future  is not as real as the present and the past, in spite of the fact that all fundamental (relating to or affecting the underlying principles or structure of something) physical theories advanced in the past three centuries—Newtonian mechanics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, string field theory—have insisted that there is no fundamental [basic] distinction between past, present, and future.   

Hence the future is just as real as the present. Seventy five years ago, the early universe was an equally taboo subject. As the Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg put it

This is often the way it is in physics—our mistake is not that we take our theories too seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is always hard to realise that these numbers and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real world. Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable theoretical and experimental effort.

I take the future of the universe as seriously as I do the early universe. The equations of physics tell us to take the far future seriously, and until I have experimental evidence to the contrary, I shall believe what the equations say. I hope my fellow physicians will do the same. I intend to show in this book that, by ignoring the far future, they are passing up opportunities to do physics as they previously did by ignoring the early universe.

It is more surprising to me that theologians have ignored the ultimate future of the cosmos. This ultimate future supposedly is the chief concern of the main Western religions Christianity and Judaism. The central discipline for both should therefore be eschatology  [which is the study of the “last things”] Eschatology has traditionally dealt with questions of whether to expect life after death,


1.      What the afterlife would be like,

2.      How God would provide for humankind in the afterlife.



This book is a description used by Physicists and is a description of the Omega Point Theory, which is a [de]testable (a series of questions, problems, or practical tasks to gauge somebody's knowledge, ability, or experience) physical theory for an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God Who will one day in the future resurrect every single one of us to live forever in an abode which is in all essentials the Judeo-Christian Heaven.

During this book; every single term in the book—for example, omnipresent,” “omniscient,” “resurrection (spiritual] body,” Heaven—will  be introduced as pure physics concepts.

In this book I shall make no appeal, anywhere, to revelation. I shall appeal instead to the solid results of modern physical science; the only appeal will be to the readers reason. I shall describe the physical mechanism of the universal resurrection. I shall show exactly how physics will permit the resurrection to eternal life of everyone that has ever lived, is living, and will ever live.  I shall show exactly why this power to resurrect which modern physics allows will actually exist in the future, and why it will in fact be used. If any reader has lost a loved one, or is afraid of death, modern physics says: Be comforted, you and they shall live again.”

The resurrection theory requires us to accept that a human being is a purely physical object, a biochemical machine completely and exhaustively described by the known laws of physics. There are no mysterious “vital” forces.

More generally, it requires us to regard a “person” as a particular (very complicated) type of computer program: the human “soul” is nothing but a specific program being run on a computer-ing machine called the brain. I shall show that accepting this allows us to show not only that we shall be resurrected to eternal life, but also that we have free will—we are indeed machines, but we, in contrast to the machines we ourselves have built, possess true free will.


1.      That we have free will, that God exists, and that He will one day resurrect each and every one of us to eternal life is not what one expects to be the message of physics to say the least.

2.      One is accustomed to hear instead that the message of science is: we are mechanical puppets of blind, impersonal, and deterministic natural laws; nothing like a personal God exists; and when we are dead we are dead, and that’s the end of it. The latter has indeed been the message of science for a very long time now.


This [lie] has now changed. The cause of the change is that cosmologists have finally asked the fundamental questions (relating to or affecting the underlying principles or structure of something):

1.      How exactly will the physical universe evolve in the future?

2.      What exactly will be the final state of the cosmos?

3.      In Particular, do the physical laws permit life to continue to exist until this final state?

4.      Or is the extinction of life inevitable?


It is obvious that these questions are questions of physic, and that physical science cannot be considered complete until they are answered. Heretofore, science has concerned itself with what the universe is like now and what it was like in the past. But the universe has existed for only 20 billion years, whereas if the physical laws as we understand them are remotely correct, the universe will continue for at least another 100 billion years, and almost certainly much longer.


Genesis 18:14 (KJV) Is anything too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.”  [In her old age]


Jeremiah 32:17 (KJV) Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by Thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for Thee:”


In other words almost all of space and time lies in the future. By focusing attention only on the past and present, science has ignored almost all of reality. Since the domain of scientific study is the whole of reality, it is about time science decided to study the future evolution of the universe.

A problem immediately arises. The basic equations physicists use in cosmology, the Einstein field equations, are maximally chaotic. This means that, without further assumptions, it becomes impossible to say anything at all about the state of the universe, after a time which is short in cosmological terms. But which additional assumptions should we make?

The assumption (something that is believed to be true without proof) which I consider the most beautiful, the most fruitful,

And which is the basis of this book, was proposed by the physicists J.B.S. Haldane, John Bernal, Paul Dirac, and Freeman Dyson: let the universe be such that life can continue until the end of time, literally forever.

I pointed out in the Preface that chaos itself makes this assumption plausible, and that said assumption solves the prediction problem. As will be seen, this assumption clears up a large number of puzzles in physics—such as which boundary condition to impose on the universal wave function, and even why the universe exists at all. The assumption also leads inexorably (impossible to stop) to the above theological conclusions. Physics has at last invaded the territory of theology (the study of religion, especially the Christian faith and God's relation to the world).


But a moment’s reflection shows that this latter development was inevitable.


God stepped in when the enemy Satan intervened with Adam and Eve causing them to sin. The result was Abel and Cain were born then God banished them to this fallen earth for just over 6000 years The Fall.


Genesis 3:15 (KJV) “And I will put enmity between thee [Satan] and the woman, [Christ] and between thy seed [Satan's] and her seed; [Christ's] it shall bruise thy head, [Satan] and thou shalt bruise His heel [Christ].”

 Enmity (The extreme ill will or hatred that exists between the enemy and God.) Either theology is pure nonsense, a subject with no content, or else theology must ultimately become a branch of physics, or more correctly, physics must ultimately become a branch of theology. The reason is simple.

The universe is defined to be the totality of all that exists, the totality of reality. Thus, by definition if God exists, He is the universe, or part of it. The goal of physics is understanding the ultimate nature of reality. If God is real, physicists will eventually find Him. I shall argue in this book that physics may in fact have found Him. He is actually everywhere, we have not seen Him only because we have not looked at the universe on a sufficiently large scale—and have not looked for the person in the machine.


The Omega Point Theory

Will require looking at God in a non-traditional way, but I think this new way is already present in modern theology. Paul Tillich, for example Paul Tillich, (born Aug. 20, 1886, Starzeddel, Brandenburg, Ger. —died Oct. 22, 1965, Chicago), German-born U.S. theologian and philosopher whose discussions of God and faith illuminated and bound together the realms of traditional Christianity and modern culture.16 Aug 2020  Paul Tillich, for example, has emphasised that it is incorrect to think of God as a being, rather, God is being itself. God is ultimate reality (existing as an underlying reality, when all other things are disregarded) but Tillich adds—an all important addition—that this ultimate reality is personal. This crucial constraint (something that limits freedom of action) on ultimate reality, that it must be personal, is the distinguishing feature of theism (the belief that one God created and rules humans and the world, not necessarily accompanied by belief in divine revelation such as through Bible) as opposed to pantheism (the belief that God and the material world are one and the same thing and that God is present in everything). The personality constraint is what makes Tillich’s definition nontrivial. It is a terrible mistake to think of God as apart from the everyday world, to be Wholly Other. That is the road to Gnosticism (a pre-Christian and early Christian religious movement teaching that salvation comes by learning esoteric spiritual truths that free humanity from the material world, believed in this movement to be evil), to the dualist idea that the physical world was created by an evil God [the enemies idea]. The orthodox Christian God gets His hands dirty. He is in the world, everywhere, and is with us, standing beside us, at all times. The love of the Christian God for His creatures requires such Prescience (knowledge of actions or events before they happen). But such Prescience means that God must be discoverable by physicists.


As St Paul: Romans 1:20 (KJV) For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


In one unfortunate and crucial respect, Tillich’s model of God remains pre-nineteenth century. Following the pre-nineteenth-century physical cosmologies, Tillich pictured God’s mode of being as static, unchanging,  [When the 6000 years are up]. However Biblical, scholars began to realise in the late 19th century that such a view of God was utterly foreign to the New Testament. Jesus’ picture of God, as demonstrated by the Theologian missionary doctor Albert Schweitzer among others, was based on seeing Him as the ruler of the coming Kingdom of God, that is, on regarding His mode of being as the power of the future. The essential Christian message was its eschatology (the body of religious doctrines concerning the human soul in its relation to death, judgment, heaven, and hell) which is the study of the ultimate future. The study of the ultimate future. Some scholars have argued that the view of God, that He is to be considered primarily a future being, was already present in the very beginning of ancient Judaism

Let us be clear about this: that God and the Son of God are what they say they are. God is God and His Son is Elohim: the first-born of God; who was given by God the Father, the Hebrew’s became the chosen of Elohim

That is why: When God [Elohim] spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, Moses asked Him for His name. According to the King James translation of the Bible Elohim replied “I Am That I Am”


Exodus 3:14 (KJV) And God said unto Moses, “I Am That I Am: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent Me unto you.”


However in the original Hebrew Elohim’ His reply was “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh.” In Hebrew, the word Ehyeh is the future tense of the word Haya, which means “to be” (so it is). That it is God’s reply to Moses. Should be translated  I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE tell the children of Israel that I WILL BE sent Me too you.” This is correct, buhowever; His son of God was given unto Him the chosen Hebrews; so He could not say “God has sent Me.” Although His firstborn son inherited the Hebrews.  After His crucifixion he was rewarded by His father and chose the Hebrews.


Genesis 3:15 (KJV) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head [crush], and thou shalt bruise His heel [crucifixion].” (The greatest prophecy in the Bible) Jesus was Elohim the firstborn Son of God. So there is no intentional discrepancy in the translation; only ignorance.

The Jewish German philosopher Ernst Bloch and Catholic German theologian Hans King have both pointed out this true future tense translation, and emphasise that the God of Moses should be regarded as an “End and Omega- God.” The book goes on to say: The Omega Point God  described in the physics of this book is definitely a God Who exists mainly at the end of time. The trouble with scientists is not study; but theory.

But on occasion the advance of science itself requires us to reconsider and finally accept a physical theory which earlier generations considered refuted (to prove something to be false or somebody to be in error, either through logical argument or by providing evidence to the contrary) for all time. So a refusal to reconsider a previously rejected theory in the light of new data is bad science. The modern attempt to keep religion strictly separate from science is also bad theology. The idea that religion and science must be integrated was accepted in all Christian countries by all the great theologians. In science, the only valid experiment is one which can be reproduced by anyone, on earth, at any time in Earth’s history (semper = always). Here we have the truth of it all: “The reason for this emphasis on experiment in science is to let Nature not mere human opinion, be the ultimate authority of science.” Nature is never wrong, whereas human scientists often are. Similarly, the intent of ubique, semper, ab omnibus is to let God, not mere human opinion, be the ultimate authority of theology. (Quite agree) “Always everywhere and by everyone” I was led into all truth by the Holy Spirit; from the beginning of Adam and Eve to the end days. Precession of the Equinox leads me to believe the Truth of the Holy Spirit, and not man, nor nature. Also by reading and studying Bishop E.W. Bullinger’s Companion Bible, and a host of relative books over many years at the right time when I needed it. However; the whole truth is that I was being led by the Holy Spirit in whom I have a lot of faith; unlike scientists who have none.

Only a true universal belief about God could be a true belief about God.

Of course, the real reason modern theologians want to keep science divorced from religion is to retain some intellectual territory forever protected from the advance of science. This can only be done if the possibility of scientific investigation of the subject matter is ruled out a priori (A priori is a term applied to knowledge considered to be true without being based on previous experience or observation. ... Both a priori and a posteriori are used in the context of reasoning and philosophy, especially epistemology, (which is the philosophical study of knowledge.)

Tipler disagrees with Kant and so do I: but for different reasons.  By turning these “problems of metaphysics” into problems of physics, I shall argue in the body of this book that these questions can be answered, and that answers to all three are:


1.      Probably He does exist.

2.      Probably we have free will.

3.      Probably He will grant us eternal life after we have died.


I sayprobablybecause science is not in the business of giving an absolutely certain-to be-true answer, valid for all time. Science can only give “probably true” answers, as witness the fate of the geocentric (describes the solar system when it is regarded as having the Earth as its centre) hypothesis (a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation) of Ptolemy. But I firmly believe it is better to have the “probable” answers of science than the absolutely certain –wrong—answers of metaphysics. 


Hebrews 11:6 (KJV) But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.” Diligent: (Constant in effort to accomplish something; attentive and persistent in doing anything: a diligent student. Done or pursued with persevering attention) The consistent study of God’s Word.


If the Omega Point Theory is correct, this divorce between emotion and reason is at an end. The divorce will end soon, one way or the other. As Aristotle said more than two thousand years ago, a human being is at bottom a thinking animal a creature whose distinguishing feature and chief survival mechanism is its ability to consider the world rationally. In the end [days], reason  will sway emotion. If science continues to find no evidence for the existence of God, and for an afterlife,



1.      first the scientists will become atheists,

2.      Then the laity of all churches.


People will find a philosophy which will allow them to face the inevitability of their own very final and permanent deaths, the deaths of their children, their civilisation, the death of all life in the cosmos and of everything they care about. (They will write books. Make movies, TV Documentaries, C.Ds, and Websites, for a hungry populace wanting to know the truth but instead being fed a heap of hypothetical lies.) This advance of atheism can be documented in the history of twentieth century biology (the science that deals with all forms of life, including their classification, physiology, chemistry, and interactions) and foretold in the KJV Bible  

The Cornell historian of biology William B Provine has pointed out that in the 1920s many, probably most, evolutionists were religious. At that time Darwinian evolution theory was in eclipse, having been temporarily replaced by the hypothesis of a purposive (useful) force which was evolving life toward more complexity. The dean of the American evolutionists, Henry Osborne, head of the American Museum of Natural History, called this force “aristo genesis”; the French philosopher Henri Bergson called it “Elam vital”; the French evolutionist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin called it “radial energy” The terms were different but the evolutionary mechanism was the same: there was a nonphysical cosmic force guiding evolution. The existence of such a force was the consensus belief of evolutionists in the 1920s, and it was a small step to identify the force with God. By the end of the 1940s, all trace of God had been eliminated from evolutionary biology.

Provine remarks, “My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary are atheist or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic (more concerned with practical results than with theories and principles). Well there you have it all, in religion and science it all comes down to the people with dishonesty, and ignorance, to gain their own end on this fallen earth, causing confusion, and perplexity, alerting one to the dangers of leaving religious study to someone else,   


In the U.S, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious, many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood. Provine’s opinion is confirmed by Steven Weinbergs’s 1987 congressional testimony asking for money to build the SSC (USA-SSC is one of the largest stocking distributors of CCTV products, Access Control, Hardware and accessories in the United States).  A 10 billion dollar device to be constructed in Texas. (Funding has since been cut off). A congressman asked Weinberg if the SSC would enable us to find God, Weinberg declined to answer. But eventually the atheistic implications of modern science will be understood by the general public, who will themselves become atheists.

The majority of Western Europeans and a large number of Americans have already become effective atheists: they rarely if ever go to any church, and a belief in God plays no role in their daily lives. The evidence is clear and unequivocal [or Unambiguous] (allowing for no doubt or misinterpretation): if scientists have no need for the God hypothesis (the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe, worshipped as the only God), then neither will anyone else. [Wrong]. Were theologians to succeed in their attempts to strictly separate science and religion, they would kill religion. Theology simply must become a branch of physics if it is to survive. That even theologians are slowly becoming effective atheists has been documented by the American philosopher Thomas Sheehan.  Most of the physical universe lies in our future, and we cannot truly understand the entire physical universe without understanding this future. But we can study this future reality, in particular the ultimate future which constitutes the end of time, only if in some way this final state of the physical universe makes an imprint on the present.


All physical scientists should take this assumption seriously (something that is believed to be true without proof) because we have to have some theory for the future of the physical universe—since it unquestionably exists—and this is the most beautiful physical postulate (to assume or suggest that something is true or exists, especially as the basis of an argument or theory) the ultimate extinction of everything we could possibly care about.


One fundamental question remains: is this Omega Point God (assuming said Person actually exists) the God? It is generally felt (by some) that the God must be the uncreated Creator of the Physical universe, a Being Who not merely exists but Who exists necessarily, in the strong logical sense “necessity”; i.e. the Person’s nonexistence would be a logical contradiction. Only if God is not in any sense contingent (dependent on or resulting from a future and as yet unknown event or circumstance) can one avoid regress posed in the query, who created God? I shall tackle the question of necessary existence in Chapter V111.

However; the Christian God is a great deal more than the God of the philosopher-physicist. The former is a God of love and mercy, a God Who grants eternal life to each individual human being.

I shall discuss in Chapter 12 the question of whether the religion most discussed in the West, Christianity, can be incorporated into the Omega Point Theory. The short answer is, not easily. But as discussed above, the aspects of Christianity which most people seek in a religion—a Personal being Who shall one day resurrect themselves and their loved ones to eternal life in Heaven—are basic features of the Omega Point Theory.

Let me emphasize (to stress or give importance to something) again that the Omega Point Theory, including the resurrection theory, is pure physics (the scientific study of matter, energy, force, and motion, and the way they relate to each other. Physics traditionally incorporates mechanics, electromagnetism, optics, and thermodynamics and now includes modern disciplines such as quantum mechanics, relativity, and nuclear physics.)

There is nothing supernatural in the theory, and hence there is no appeal, anywhere, to faith (belief in and devotion to God). The genealogy of the theory is actually atheistic scientific materialism: the line of research which led to the Omega Point Theory began with the Marxist John Bernal, as I shall discuss in Chapter 111. The resurrection mechanism was independently discovered at about the same time by myself, the computer scientist Hans Moravec, and the philosopher Robert Nozick. This simultaneous discovery strongly suggests that “eternal life as physics” is an idea whose time has come. The key concepts of the Judeo—Christian—tradition are now scientific concepts. From the physics point of view, theology is nothing but physical cosmology based on the assumption that life as a whole is immortal.


The Kingdom (or Sovereignty) of GOD


·         Has God for its Ruler;


·         It is in heaven, over the earth;


·         It is unlimited in its scope;


·         It is moral and spiritual in its sphere;


·         It is inclusive in its character (embracing the natural and spiritual seeds of Abraham, "the heavenly calling", and the "Church" of the Mystery).  Hence,


·         It is universal in its aspect;


·         It is (in its wider aspect) the subject of New Testament revelation;


·         And will be eternal in its duration.


We are to overcome the evils of the cares of this fallen earth, by filling the mind and heart with the concerns of the Kingdom of God, a great soul-filling and mind-absorbing end; we are to struggle after His righteousness—the victory of good in this world, while we continue to aim for personal perfection. We achieve this by taking each day as it comes from the hands of a gracious God, permitting only the duties of the day to claim our thought. Such a frame of mind is an inexhaustible source of strength towards a successful struggle for existence.