Who is God?

In the previous letter, I stated that I would analyze the major theories of Science against The Matrix Theory. These theories are The Theory of Evolution, The Big Bang Theory, and the Theories of Quantum Mechanics. In that letter we covered the Theory of Evolution and so in this letter we will move on to the other theories.

The Big Bang Theory is based upon the concept that the Universe, which consists of at least 100 billion galaxies that are spread out over at least 27 billion light years, was at one time condensed into a single point in space. This theory is tied to Einstein’s discovery that mass and energy are actually the same thing in different forms and that energy can be converted to mass and vise versa. Thus, this theory postulate’s that all of the Universe’s energy was at one time concentrated at a single point in space, but then expanded very rapidly (like an explosion - earning it the name “Big Bang”) and it thereafter converted into mass and eventually, various forms of matter as it spread out and cooled forming the galaxies.

This theory sits better with me than the Theory of Evolution does, or at least I do not find issues with it that are all together unbelievable. However, the problem that The Big Bang Theory has is that it only explains the existence of the inanimate universe. It does not attempt to explain the how life came into existence in the Universe. When it comes to this topic, The Big Bang Theory simply defers back to the Theory of Evolution thus linking the two theories together and consequently leaving me with something that I can’t believe. Thus, given that The Big Bang Theory is not able to stand on it’s own, it has the same problem that The Theory of Evolution does and ever will have until Science does one of two things: (1) sure up The Theory Evolution or (2) replace and/or supplement The Theory of Evolution with something better.

Option one however is a lost cause in my opinion because not only is it stuck in the logical Catch 22 that I detailed in Letter 8, but it is also stuck in the second logical Catch 22 I detailed in the previous letter.

The breakthrough that Science has been trying to make as a means of establishing The Theory of Evolution is to finally create a single cell organism from raw energy and/or elements and thereby prove that it can be done. However, we already know that it can be done for life exists in the Universe. What we don’t know is how to do it. This is where the second Catch 22 exists. If and when Science finally figures out a way to create a single cell organism, it will have taken them the entire history of the world working collectively together as intelligent beings, utilizing the highest means of technology to have accomplished it, and this fact in and of itself renders the concept that such a thing could happen by chance without any intelligent assistance unbelievable.

The best thing I can think of to exemplify this is a puzzle consisting of a few million pieces. If you put them in a box and repeatedly throw them up in the air to see if they will ever land (by chance) in their proper assembled configuration… do you think you will ever have a successful attempt? I don’t. For this to happen, someone has to put the pieces together deliberately. However, putting the pieces together yourself only proves that you know how to do such a thing. It does not prove that the pieces can fall into place by chance.

This will be the case if and when Science finally creates a living single celled organism. The only thing that it will prove is that we are finally catching up to the original creator in ability. Therefore, Evolution is in my opinion forever trapped in logical loops and Big Bang doesn’t fly as long as it is paired up solely with Evolution. Thus, option 2 listed above is the future and hope of Science and The Big Bang Theory. What could serve to replace and/or supplement Evolution? Let’s consider the theories of Quantum Mechanics.

What Science needs is a theory or theories that can explain life in general. As it stands, Evolution does a good job of explaining the observed evolution that life forms exhibit, but it does not explain how life started, nor does it explain the condition of life meaning consciousness, intelligence and emotion. This is where Quantum Mechanics & Quantum Physics have entered the picture. These disciplines have done a good job of providing data about the subatomic world that includes a link between human consciousness and matter (as we discussed in Letter 4). Thus, it seems logical for Quantum Mechanics to use this data to devise a theory that explains the existence of intelligent life. However, my observation of their attempts to do so leads me to conclude that they have gotten lost in the complexity of the science. For instance, a theory that has evolved is The String Theory. This theory may someday explain the existence of life and it’s conditions; our hearts (emotions); our minds (intelligence); and our souls (consciousness), but so far it only offers insight on the inanimate world and oh by the way… requiring way too many dimensions of space to do it (I believe that they are up to 11 now which has pushed them past the point where the data is mathematically and/or analytically useful).

There are other theories that have evolved from Quantum Mechanics, but they are more philosophical than scientific and when I sift through them, I come to an interesting observation. Though they differ in theory, they share a common thread for they appear to be saying, “Though there may be some form of creator responsible for life and the Universe, it is not the God(s) of Religion”. In other words, my observation is that these scientists are conceding (in a quasi kind of way) that there is some kind of intelligent creative force or some form of mysticism present in the Universe that is responsible for the origin of life. However, they do not agree with Religion regarding what it is. Thus, their argument with Religion seems to be shifting from “There is no God” to, “Whatever it is that is responsible for creation… it is not your God”.

This ends up being a great example of what I mean when I say that people are trapped in the argument. The Matrix Theory is founded on the same data that Science/Quantum Mechanics have founded their theories on. Therefore, they could use that data to postulate The Matrix Theory for themselves if they wanted to (it is quite simple), but they can’t and/or won’t do it. They are locked on their side of the isle and they won’t even consider the possibility that a God could exist who is their Father. Their theories go so far as to speculate that “We are our own Gods” or “The Universe is its own conscious collective God”… Really! Come on, do I even need to write a letter covering how illogical those concepts are? However, I will take a positive sign from this nonetheless - that being that both sides of the isle are at least now offering theories that include some form of intelligent creator or God. Thus, with respect to the question, “Is there a God who created all things?” it would seem we can just barely agree enough to move on to the next question which in my opinion, is what the argument has been about all along… “Who is God?”

This however brings me to a pivotal point in my letters. This is the point where I will likely lose the other half of my readers (assuming the Science crowd left the lecture hall a while ago). When I study the details of the debate between Science and Religion, I do not blame Science for taking the stance that they have taken, for I myself find that Religion has offered theories on God that are less believable than what Science has offered regarding the origin of life. In the next letter, we will start to explore who God is.

Til next time…


The End

0 comments about this work Feed