There are a few ideas that need to be discussed and more clearly defined before we can explore the concepts necessary for the unification of scientific theory and spiritual thought. I thought it best to explain these ideas up front so that a fundamental understanding can be reached before we get too far along.
These ideas are:
What is the source of everything?
(The eternal energy? The consciousness of God? Both?)
Where did everything come from? (The big bang…or the creative process?)
Who are we? (Spiritually conscious eternal beings or intelligent animals?)
Was all this an accident? (Accidental evolution or intelligent design?)
These ideas are basic questions that mankind has been asking for thousands of years. Our collective knowledge (scientific and religious) has gotten to a point where we have a great deal more to work with today than we had 50 years ago. The same can be said for the preceding 50 years, and so on. In the information age of today we have so much data it is impossible for one person to process it all. In fact, most of us are so busy just dealing with life that few of us have taken the time to put these questions (and the mainstream answers) to the test by really examining them. Most of us accept the answers that the academic world is offering because we don’t have the time or knowledge to tackle the questions ourselves. We trust the so-called “people-in-the-know”, the professionals, the professors, and the scholars. We take it for granted that they must know what they are talking about. After all, they are the experts.
Our society has become so specialized that not one of us knows the whole of human knowledge. So few of our scholars and professors have acquired for themselves, through experience, experimentation and observation, the knowledge they profess to know. And why should they? The people that came before them figured it out. The problem is, the things our forerunners figured out still have a lot of questions left to answer. Theories are being taught as fact, even though they are still theories. Concepts and ideas are being repeated by academia like parrots reciting words they have heard a hundred times. They too take for granted that what they learned is correct. After all, they paid good money for their educations. This is not to say that all scholars, professionals, and professors are just repeating what they where taught. There is an exception to every rule and our society has “Newtons
Consider this…each generation thinks that their level of understand is the height of knowledge and their model of the universe is right. People thought the world was flat and earth was at the center of the universe. We laugh at this now, but they believed this with all there strength. In the 1950s science thought that the moons of Jupiter were cold icy worlds with no activity and little differences between them. They thought this based on the single idea that deep space was far too cold for anything else. We know now that this is false but our belief in our current understanding is no different[1][a]. With each new discovery we make corrections and then say to ourselves, “Now that we have corrected that error, all of our knowledge is once again correct.” But is it? We might think that we have it right and we can boast of our technology, but we need to admit that not all of our “knowledge” is correct. Just one hundred and fifty years ago our ancestors thought that steam and steel was the height of technology. Before that, they thought that wooden ships with sails were the ultimate power on the oceans.
When Newton Newton
All too often, the academic world ignores information that it cannot explain or it forces information to conform to the accepted model. This kind of thinking usually comes from one of two sources; the scientific community’s need to deny the existence of God in all forms, and the human ego’s need to avoid being seen as having no answers. Science has taken it upon itself to answer all the questions without God as part of the equation. That is not to say that all scientists are atheists. They are not! Most of them believe in a higher power of some kind. However, the collective attitude is such that one should not mention God if they wish to keep their job as a professional in their field of study. One might say that the scientific community goes about trying to stifle God with the same zeal that the church tried to stifle science hundreds years ago.
In the next four articles I will examine some of the accepted models and theories. I will use common sense and basic information I have acquired through private study. I hope you find my observations and conclusions interesting.
Energy…and Nothing Else
For most of us, energy needs no introduction; it is simply the force that makes everything move. Most of us know that it comes in many forms: the energy of a flowing river, the energy in a coiled up spring, the energy in a running animal, the chemical energy in a battery, the energy in a photon of light. This list goes on and on, but these are simply applications of the base energy that makes up the whole universe. It is this base energy that I wish to discuss, for it is the only thing that truly exists.
Near the turn of the last century (1905), Albert Einstein wrote an equation that changed the world: E = MC2. What an elegant equation! The elegance is in its simplicity. “E” is all by itself on one side requiring no explanation -- as if everyone knows what “E” is. Of course, everyone does know what “E” is. It is energy. Even though most of us do not know how to define it beyond our outward observations, we all know what it is. In this regard, it is a lot like love. We all know what it is, but no one can truly define it completely. The reason we know what energy is, without being fully capable of defining it, is because we are all composed of it -- our spiritual consciousness is energy. However, I’m getting ahead of myself -- I’ll discuss this more in depth later.
On the other side of the equation, we have a much more complicated group of parameters: “M” which means mass, “C” which means constant, and the mathematical exponent which means to multiply the preceding parameter times itself (“2”). According to physicists, the equation tells us the ratio for converting mass into energy and energy into mass. Physicists have told us for years that matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed. But it is truly only energy that cannot be destroyed. Think about it. Mass can be transformed, combined, reorganized, and completely converted to light. When the heat and pressure of a star changes base elements into heavier and heavier elements, the subatomic particles that make up the new atoms are reorganized and the old atoms are destroyed. In the process, light and heat (energy) are expelled. When you smash subatomic particles into smaller particles, they change attributes and give off energy in the form of light and heat. In fact, all forms of matter can be destroyed or reconfigured. When they are, the old mass no longer exists. Therefore, the only constant is the energy that comprises the mass. Energy is the basic building block from which all mass is comprised. Consider E = MC2 again and think of it this way -- it is not the conversion rate for changing mass into energy and vise versa, it is the formula for solidifying energy into mass. All mass is simply solid energy.
Consider this next illustration if you will. If you place an orb around our solar system with the outer surface of the orb at the outer circumference of the ort cloud (a radius of about 2 light years), you would have a giant sized orb that is the perfect model of the atom -- proportionately the same. All the laws of physics apply. From outside the orb looking in, it would appear that the entire space is empty except for a few grains of sand. It would be like placing a grape at the center of the Earth. The grape would represent all the mass in the solar system and the space in the rest of the Earth (from the center to the outer crust) is the space in the rest of the aforementioned orb. The volume of the mass compared to the volume of the void is shockingly disproportionate. (Imagine the volume of the Earth filled with grapes.) In fact, the volume of the mass compared to the volume of the void is a ratio greater than 1/10700. That’s a one with seven hundred zeros behind it! If you gathered up all the mass in the solar system (dust, planets, asteroids, comets, the sun and moons), you would need to multiply it times more than 10 to the 700th power to fill the entire void. Additionally, there is the volume of the void outside the orb (or between the solar systems/atoms) to consider, but let's use this figure just because it does well enough to illustrate the great difference between the two numbers.
Now, consider the size of the atom. This is the portion of the previous equation that we considered to be “mass.” The atom is so small that a single 8oz glass of water has more atoms in it than there are 8oz glasses of water on Earth. If the atom is the same as the solar system, with the mass to void volume ratio the same, then, that would mean the actual mass in the solar system is much less than previously calculated...and the volume of the void is much, much larger.
Consider then, that the subatomic material that makes up the atom is also proportioned in the same way. Once again, we have to go back to our calculations and decrease the amount of mass and increase the total volume of the void. Each time we look further into the existence of matter, the amount of actual matter detected decreases and the volume of the void increases. This would mean that the universe has no measurable mass within it, and the void, which is endless, is also immeasurable[1][b].
Quantum physics asserts that once you get down to the very basic building blocks of the smallest detectable particles, there are only strings of energy and no mass. I’ll say that again because it bears repeating. There is only energy -- no mass.
Now, let’s take another look at energy. Consider this. If you put on a space suit or got into a spaceship with windows all around and you traveled to anyplace you wanted in the whole universe, no matter where you went, you would be able to see light from every direction. In fact, there is not a single place in the entire universe that is not filled with photons of light from one end of the spectrum to the other. Furthermore, there is not just light, there is radiation. This means that the “void” is not truly void and energy totally fills the universe.
It would appear that the energy in the universe is the only "thing" that can be proven to exist. And it exists at all levels, from the quarks to the planets. Therefore, I submit to you that energy is the only "thing" in the universe and all the matter in the universe is just solidified energy. Matter is simply energy resonating at a lower frequency from the energy source. This gives a whole new meaning to E = MC2. Mass and energy are not two separate things that can be altered to create the other. They are unified and the same. They are both energy.
Ancient texts and spiritual teachings tell us that God is not only in everything, but that He is everything, including the void. It would certainly appear that science has proven that everything is comprised of the same thing -- energy. It does not take a great leap of faith to know that spiritual energy is the basis for our conscious being and so, by extension, everything else as well. I submit to you that all energy is spiritual energy, eternal in nature and completely enveloping and penetrating everything in existence.
Energy is eternal and cannot be destroyed. The same can be said of God. God creates all things by drawing substance from Himself. Energy is the base substance from which all things are made. To a hardcore scientist, it would appear that nothing has been proven here and that to assume all energy is of God is an irrational leap of faith. However, it is the same scientist that would have us believe that the universe sprang into existence from nothingness. They cannot explain where the energy came from so they ask us to take the same leap of faith. The problem is that their leap of faith does not contain a solution as to where all this energy came from. First, they say that energy cannot be created or destroyed; only transformed. Then, they suspend this law out of convenience to make the “Big Bang” theory work.
The preceding was a very scientific look at how energy is everything and an argument that everything is God. The following is a more philosophical approach.
Logic tells us that it is easier to destroy than it is to create. While that may seem to be true, even when you are destroying something you are creating -- even if it’s just a mess. On the other hand, it is possible to create without destroying (e.g. Sand castles, wind, music, thought, etc.). So, it appears to me that you can’t do anything without creation being in there somewhere. I believe that creation is a constant and a natural part of being, and that destruction is not.
What does that have to do with energy, and the one creative force (God) being the pure energy of love? Well, let’s think about it. Creation is like love or light. These are the positive forces that are constant. It is possible to have love without hate (although some people don’t believe it), but you can’t have hate without love because no matter what it is that you hate, you must have love of something, even if it’s just a love of hatred. It works on the same principle as creation and destruction.
For instance, The Addams Family©[c] is a popular TV show that started as a comic strip, and later became a movie. The writers of this bizarre family have tried to portray them as perfectly negative (Death, hatred, darkness, decay, evil, etc.). However, try as they might, they cannot remove love from their fictional lives. Love, in some form or another, is always there. I believe this is true of all of us. No matter what we do, love is a part of our lives in one form or another. If someone were so dedicated (and crazy enough) as to try to create pure hatred, they would have to have a love of hatred itself, which would make their hatred impure. Therefore, it is impossible to have pure hate. This is why I believe love is a real energy and hate is not. Love exists all by itself, without the negative. For the same reason, I believe hatred is not a real energy because it cannot exist without the positive. I believe an existence filled with hate, will soon destroy itself. By the same logic, I believe that an existence filled with love will last forever.
Light also works on the same principle as creation and destruction. It is possible to have pure light, but it is not possible to have pure darkness. Scientists have found that it is not possible to create a chamber that blocks out all photons. X-rays, microwaves, gamma rays, and many others (even photons emitted from the mass of the walls of the chamber itself), are all present within the chamber. Even though it is not the light we can see with our physical eyes, it is light just the same. Light is everywhere. It is in all things -- including the void. This is why I believe that light is the constant -- because it exists everywhere and darkness is only an illusion.
I believe it is possible to have love without hate, light without darkness and creation without destruction. These three constants are, in my opinion, evidence of God’s existence. Like the wind causing clothes to flap on a clothesline or grass to wave in a field, we can see the effects of God’s rule over the physical universe. We may not be able to physically see the wind or God, but we cannot deny that they exist. If you are an atheist, you might refer to Him as the laws of physics. If you are a Christian, you might call Him Father. If you are Muslim, you might call Him Allah. Regardless of what we call Him, the fact that the universe has order, is proof that there is a governing intelligence behind everything. I believe that the governing intelligence is the one creative force, the pure energy of love that is God.
It is up to the reader to decide, but I think that everything comes from energy and all energy is from the same source -- and that source is God[1][d].
The Big Bang?
The “Big Bang” was a theory when I was going to school, and as far as I know it has not been proven. So, why is it being taught as fact? I have looked at this subject; read a few things on the matter, and I do not think the math adds up. However, before we dive into the math, let’s look at the theory to clarify what we are talking about.
The Big Bang theory states that there was absolutely nothing, not even space-time[1][e]. No mass, no energy, no time, no space, no nothing. Then, suddenly -- out of nothing -- there was an explosion that created everything: time, mass, energy, space…literally, everything. This all took place approximately 13.7 billion years ago based on the distance at which we have detected the “background noise”[1][f] of the universe. That is pretty much it. There are several variations and some details that most scientists will argue one way or the other, but, for the most part, that is it.
Now, let’s take a look at this one piece at a time. First, if there was nothing, then what caused the explosion? Or, better yet, “what” exploded? Why did that which does not exist explode into everything that does? Some will argue that all the mass, energy and space-time was compressed into an infinitely small point so small it could not be defined. However, if that is the case, then there was something there. If so, then how did everything get so small? What force could have compressed everything in the universe into this infinitely small point? There are also some who will say that the void itself exploded for some unknown reason. This kind of thinking is enough for me to call into question the theory, but let’s keep looking.
Second, the laws of physics state that matter and energy cannot be created; only altered from one state to the other and back again. That would mean that scientists would have to suspend this law to make the Big Bang theory work. Science is the pursuit of truth through observation and the use of measurable experimentation that produces repeatable and predicable results. Suspending a law to make a theory work does not sound like science to me. It sounds more like a leap of faith.
Third, the distances between the stars and galaxies are too great. Allow me explain. The Hubble Telescope can see objects in deep space to a distance of approximately 13.4 billion light-years[1][g]. That is within 300 million years of the Big Bang. Obviously, the distance Hubble can see into deep space is not limited to one direction. That would be silly. However, it can only “see” into deep space if there is an object to observe. All space objects are at varying distances from Earth, so for the sake of this exercise we will be using a distance of 13.0[1][h] billion light-years from earth just to make the math easier. In this case, the distance between deep space objects on the ‘north’ side of our solar system and deep space objects on the ‘south’ side of our solar system equals 26.0 billion light-years. That is a much greater number than 13.7 billion light-years. (See figure 3.1) This means that for these objects to get to where they were approximately 13 billion years ago, when they were emitting light from these locations, they would have had to travel at speeds much greater than light speed from the Big Bang’s point of origin. Then for some unknown reason, stop traveling that fast. Newton
Figure 1.1
In other words, for objects to be 26 billion light-years apart just 700 million years after the Big Bang would require the objects to be traveling more than 18 times the speed of light from the point of origin and then still have time to slow to their current velocity and start emitting light.
Even if the Earth were at the center of the universe[1][i] and the Big Bang’s origin was right here, the math still doesn’t work. The objects would still need to have gotten to their current locations more than 13 billion light-years away in less than 700 million years.
If in fact we are seeing objects emitting light from a location that is within 700 million to 1 billion light-years from the origin of the Big Bang, then how did we get to our location ahead of the light so that we could be here to observe it 13 billion years later?
While I have no problem believing that objects can travel faster than the speed of light, I do have a problem with the slowing down part of this scenario.
Fourth, we have not been observing our universe for a long enough period of time to determine if the current stellar drift is a constant outward motion or part of an ebb and flow of an oscillating universe. If we took a three-frame motion picture of an ocean wave rising at sea and based our entire understanding of the wave on these three frames, we would have no reason to believe that the wave would not continue to go up indefinitely. Likewise, we have only been observing the deep space features of our known universe for less than 100 years. That means that we are missing, at a minimum, more than 99.9999999% of the history of our universe. To believe that we can look upon anything for a mere few seconds and claim to know what has transpired for the past year is arrogance at best.
Fifth, all of the objects seem to be a uniform age as you travel away from the earth regardless of direction. Due to the limitations of the speed of light, as we peer further into space, we are looking further back in time. This means that if the Big Bang were true and just the age of the universe were calculated incorrectly, then there would be older galaxies on one side (the side furthest from the point of origin) and younger ones on the other side (the side looking towards the point of origin). However, this is not the case.
I would like to put forth a hypothesis. I believe that the universe is in fact the same age everywhere. If we were able to change our viewpoint in an instance to a location 10 billion light-years away from Earth, we would see that the objects close to our new location are about the same age as the objects we see when viewing them from Earth. In this scenario, the objects next to Earth would now appear to be 10 billion years younger than they appear to us when viewing them from Earth. If this hypothesis is true, then we should be able to see new objects in the direction in which we changed our viewing location, and objects on the other side of Earth from our new location would now be out of range. (See Figure 3.2) If this is the case, then I think our ability to detect light-waves to a distance of 13.7 billion light-years into deep space is not because there is nothing beyond that point and that is how old the universe is. It is because 13.7 billion light-years is the longest a fully charged photon will travel before it burns out. Otherwise, the background radiation that we detect from deep space at a distance of 13.7 billion light-years in all directions means that we are once again at the center of the universe. I think that is far too big of a coincident to be true.
Figure 1.2
So, how did the universe form? I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I would like to present a few basic observations. Then I will present my theory for your perusal.
As stated in the first article of this research paper, there is nothing truly here except energy. Everything else comes from this energy. Energy is not self-created, it is eternal. Rather than getting into the whole chicken and the egg thing, I will not even attempt to explain where the energy came from. I think this is beyond human understanding. It suffices to say that we all know energy is here, so let’s start from there.
Richard Feynman’s[1][j] revolutionary work in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) has shown us that energy in a vacuum will coalesce into basic sub-atomic particles. Most of these particles disintegrate, returning to energy, but a small percentage of the particles remain stable enough to coalesce into atoms.[1][k] These atoms gather to form great nebulae and stellar nurseries. In the vast reaches of our universe this happens continually. If we consider this process over billions and billions of years, it is not hard to account for all the mass in the universe. This means that the eternal energy that fills every space and so-called “void” in the universe is constantly transforming to become the observable and ever-changing universe we see.
Following this line of logic explains many of the mysteries of the universe. For instance, how did we get here ahead of the light from distant objects? The mass in our galaxy (and our solar system by extension) got here because it formed here. It did not need to traverse the universe at speeds greater than light, from the Big Bang’s point of origin, because there was no “point” of origin. There was no “Big Bang”.
This line of thinking also explains the “Dark Matter” in the universe. Dark Matter is a vast amount of mass in the universe that cannot be seen, but can be measured because of its gravitational effect on the galaxies and other objects in the universe. If the Dark Matter that scientists are seeking is in fact hydrogen (and an immense amount of it) it would be undetectable because hydrogen is transparent. It is also possible that there are other transparent elements (e.g. helium, nitrogen) mixed in with the hydrogen. These are among the most basic of elements. They are the basic building blocks of the periodic table, but they have not been transformed into heavier elements because they have not yet coalesced into stars.
This theory of how all of the mass in the universe came into being is right in line with Fred Hoyle’s[1][l] “Steady State” theory that asserts that the universe changes, moves and expands, but new galaxies and stars form in the gaps between the galaxies as they spread apart. Like a river that remains constant even though the water in the river is constantly changing. While I like Fred Hoyle’s theory, I prefer to think that the universe is oscillating in much the same way that all energy (e.g. sound, light, etc.) oscillates in waveform. So while we may be observing expansion in the universe right now, it may be contracting later.
So here’s my theory. I believe the eternal energy in the universe is the essence of God. I believe that He has gradually created the universe over hundreds of billions of years through the creative process of spiritual thought, keeping some ideas and discarding others. As He got ideas, He put the laws of physics in place; as He expanded on His creativity, He created the elements we know; and so on. Basically, we did not self-create from nothing and emerge in a well-organized universe as one big happy accident.
The scientific community has become so fixated on the Big Bang theory that they tend not to consider another answer. This way of thinking reminds me of the way the church treated Galileo. Anyone even suggesting that the Big Bang theory be re-examined is quickly shunned from any credible academic circles. If science, in its pure form, is the pursuit of truth, then why do so many cling to a fairy tale that can be easily dismissed using basic math?
Ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide what theory works best for them. Just remember, they are just theories and none of them should be taught as fact.
We Are Gods
We are all spiritual beings; "gods," if you will allow the term[1][m]. Most people are uncomfortable with the title "gods," but this is the very term and title that Jesus used.[1][n] Allow me to explain.
In the book of Genesis, the Father/Mother God states that He[1][o] created us in His image. In Genesis 1:27, He states that He created “man” in His own image…Male and Female He created them. This is a reference to the creation of the children of God in their spiritual consciousness. It is also a reference to the fact that God’s image, and therefore His nature, is both masculine and feminine.[1][p]
Genesis 2:7 is a reference to the creation of our physical bodies. In this verse, God creates “man” from the dust of the ground. He “…breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” This is a reference to the soul taking possession of the physical body. Before that, physical “man” was just an animal, a beast with no spiritual attributes.
In Exodus 20 (The Ten Commandments), God states that nothing of this world can capture or represent His image. In fact, it is against the commandments to create and worship any graven image. This includes fish, birds, animals…and MAN. That would mean that nothing of this world can capture the image of the Almighty Father/Mother God. Given this information, one is forced to conclude that our physical bodies are not the image He was talking about in Genesis, because nothing of the physical world can represent God.
In the Ten Commandments, He tells us that there are other gods. He did not say, “Worship me because I am the only God.” Contrary to popular dogma, He never said that. What He did say is, "thou shalt have no other gods before me." Here, He clearly states that there are "other gods."[1][q] This was not a mistake, a misspoken word, or a typo. God is all-wise and all-knowing and He knew what He was saying when He said it. He knew that mankind would pour over the text and argue the points of the text over and over again. In His wisdom, He spoke these words specifically.
So, He stated clearly that there are other gods. Who are they? Where are they? They are the angels, the saints, the ascended masters and spiritual beings that watch over this planet…and they are us. Although we may go by many names, as spiritual beings created in the image of God, we are gods. The children of God are gods.
There was a wise man and composer in the court of King David named Asaph who wrote a song[1][r] to tell us that we are all gods, and all of us children of the Most High. It was not considered wrong to say that we are gods in the court of King David, because it was a time when the meanings behind the Books of Moses were much closer at-hand. Time and generations had not yet caused the loss of a deeper understanding of the wisdom given to us by Moses.
Later, when Jesus walked the earth, he told us that we are gods. He was not speaking in parables and metaphors when he said this. He spoke the words plainly. John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”
Too many Christians ignore or deny this passage and try to sweep it under the rug. They do not wish to believe it. For if they acknowledge their divinity, then they have to take responsibility for their actions and for the misuse of the spiritual energy that God gave them for creative purposes. If they acknowledge their divinity then they have to take ownership of who they are, what they create, and the condition of their spiritual and mental consciousness.
Too many feel that it is easier for them to be angry (even if it is a subconscious anger that they do not realize they have) with God and say, "I cannot help it if God made me this way." But I say this is nonsense. Our spiritual being is made in the image of God. Therefore, we have all the same attributes of God; we have consciousness and are therefore self-aware, we have a free will to choose, a drive to create, and the very essence of our being is made from the same energy as God. In fact, the life energy that sustains our being is the energy of the universe pouring forth from the throne of God into our consciousness, giving us eternal life.
Many times in the gospels Jesus tried to tell us that we are spiritual beings. He tried to tell us that we are gods, and that he is a god, and that all of us are children of God.[1][s] However, our mentality at the time was such that we did not grasp the concept. There are many examples in the gospels where Jesus tries to tell us that he is not superior…examples where he says that he is just one of the children of God. He never wanted to take glory from God. He did not want to be worshipped. Consider Mark 10:18. And Jesus said unto him, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” This is a clear reference to the fact that Jesus is not God. There are many more references to this fact, for those who have ears to hear it.
When Jesus washed the feet of the disciples he used this action to show us that he was not superior.[1][t] He also told us to do this for others to show our love for them and to remind us to remain humble and not think of ourselves as superior. Jesus’ teachings and his life show us that he was humble, never thinking of himself as superior. He told us many times that we all can achieve the same level of spiritual enlightenment as he did. If you think of yourself as less than a child of God, then you have not heard the teachings clearly. For all the children of God were/are created equal. In fact, Jesus said that we could do all the works that he did and many more. He told us that! He did not say that some of us can do these things and others cannot. He did not say, “Look what I can do!” He never said, “I can do these things and you cannot.” In Matthew 17:20 he told us, “…for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.” This is something that only a god can do. The monkeys, birds and fish cannot do this. No beast can do this. Only God and His children can manipulate the energy of the universe in this way.
Jesus also told us that we can raise our consciousness to commune directly with God. Luke 17:21 “…for, behold, the kingdom of God Kingdom of God
Our true nature as spiritual beings is clearly stated. It is repeated many times. It is in the spiritual teachings of the major religions of world. So why do we have such a hard time believing in the true nature of our being? Why do so many of us ignore this teaching? Why do so many of us deny our divinity? Most of the people on this planet believe that they will go to a place of eternity, be it heaven, hell, or purgatory. Almost all of us believe in ghosts and angels and other sorts of spiritual beings, so why is it so hard for us to fathom our true nature as sons and daughters of God? It is because we have lowered our spiritual consciousness to experience the material world. When we did this, the veil, the illusion of separation, manifested in our consciousness and we forgot our Father/Mother God…we forgot the true nature of our being. At that point, we were conditioned to see things from a human perspective. This makes it seem so fantastic and hard to believe that we are spiritual beings. We have a hard time accepting what has been repeated and taught in these spiritual texts because we think of ourselves as human and separate from the totality. The truth is that we are gods, and we must change our perspective from that of a human to one that is worthy of a child of God.
If the only “thing” in the universe is energy and our spiritual consciousness is composed of it, then it stands to reason that we, as children of God, use our consciousness to create and experience the material universe for the purpose of fun and spiritual growth through learning.
The spirit of God is the source of all things. Conscious thought is the creative element that shapes and qualifies the spiritual energy. The material world is the creation/manifestation of our thoughts and focused attention. When we understand this and accept our true nature as gods and children of the Most High, then we begin the journey inward to remove the veil and return to the conscious state that the gospels refer to as the Kingdom of God
Awaken children of God! Take your rightful place among the angels and fulfill your destiny as co-creators with, and companions to, our Father/Mother God. Venture inward[1][u] to the temple of your heart and mind to approach the throne of God as humble, joyful children of the Most High. Our brother Jesus has shown us the way and he is standing by to help us in every way, but we must decide to take the journey.
Matthew 6:33 “…seek ye first the kingdom of God
Matthew 7:7-8 7”Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you, 8for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”
Mark 10:15 “Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God
Evolution? Or Intelligent Design?
There are two different types of squirrels that live near the Grand Canyon in Arizona
Animal breeders have known for centuries that you can create new breeds within a species by selective breeding. The dachshund (the so-called “wiener dog”) is not a naturally occurring breed. It was bred to have short legs to flush badgers and other burrow-dwelling animals from their dens. This breed was deliberately “created” for sport hunting.
The idea of selective breeding to promote specific traits was not thought up by Darwin
Consider the following statistics: There are approximately 1 billion[1][w] successful species (from the smallest single cell organisms to the largest multi-celled organisms) living on planet Earth right now. Science tells us (according to the fossil record) that 99% of all successful species that have lived on this planet have already become extinct. That means that in the earth’s history, from the oldest known life until now (about 3.5 billion years), there have been over 100 billion successful species. That means that there would have to be at least 33 new successful species every year for the entire duration of life on this planet. The odds of that happening by chance are too great. There had to be an intelligent creative force behind it.
Science tells us (according to the fossil record) that at the beginning of life on this planet there was an ‘explosion’ of sorts and most single-celled life, plants, fish, worms, and crustaceans developed between 3.5 billion and 570 million years ago. Approximately 500 million years ago there were more successful species on the planet than there are now.
There have been several extinction-level events on this planet, and each time life gets wiped out, it makes a comeback in new and diverse ways. Each time this happens there is a period where life seems to ‘explode’ and then it settles to a comfortable balance. During the periods of ‘explosion’ the rate at which new life appears is statistically impossible, if in fact, it is all by accident. The Scientific hypothesis for these great ‘explosions’ in life is that sub-atomic particles bombarded the DNA molecules and caused changes within families of species and also created new ones through genetic mutations. Considering the number of changes and new species in such short periods of time, it would have taken a major amount of radiation to effect this much change. However, medical science tells us that excessive amounts of radiation will cause cancer and cellular disruption, not evolutionary advancements. So, while I think that excessive radiation could have contributed to some of the extinction level events, I do not think it played a part in the recovery of life.
Consider this; if mutated DNA is the way that evolution works, then it would be necessary for both a female and a male to have the exact same mutation at the same time while in the same area on the planet in order for them to breed and start a new branch of the tree of life. Add in the fact that the mutation needs to create a viable species. Think about how many mammals[x] there are, and then think about the fact that the number of chromosomes is different in almost all of them. Even in species where the number of chromosomes are the same, like the human and the mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa), mating is not possible because the chromosomes do not line up. Even in chimpanzees, the closet DNA match to human, mating is not possible because the number of chromosomes are different. So in order for evolution to work, identical mutations, creating a new viable species, would need to occur in both a male and a female, in close proximity to each other, then they would need to mate, their offspring would need to survive the birth process and grow to adulthood, find a mate and breed to create the next generation. All of this needs to happen an average of thirty-three times a year for the three billion year history of life on this planet. Oh, and by the way, all this happens accidentally, without any help at all.
The chances of the DNA molecule forming a complicated life form by chance are about as good as the same person winning the lottery three times in a row using the same numbers. It’s like placing a wind chime outside and expecting it to play Beethoven. If this did happen by chance, then statically speaking there would need to be about 10 billion failures (non-viable mutations) for every successful species. That number is so huge[1][y] that at least a few million of the failures should have made it into the fossil record. Where are they?
Ford did not create a top of the line luxury car day-one and roll it out of his garage. The Wright brothers did not build an F-16 from bicycle parts. These advancements evolved. They did not happen as results of happy accidents. They did not develop in a void or in the absence of intelligence. They evolved by “Intelligent Design.” Any and all forms of life on this planet are far more complicated than a luxury car or a fighter jet. The chemical processes that occur at the molecular level within a living cell, and the mechanical/chemical functions of multi-celled organisms, are far too complex to be the result of happy accidents. Even if one of them (e.g. the simplest form of amoeba or alga) was the product of accidental creation, it is highly unlikely that 100 billion successful species happened completely by accident. To suggest such a thing requires a greater leap of faith than acknowledging the presence of God. Call it what you will (e.g. God, Supreme Being, Allah, collective consciousness of the totality, the “I AM that I AM”, Gaia, etc.), but the evidence to suggest the presence of God (i.e. a creator or intelligent designer) is greater than the evidence to the contrary.
One does not need to prove the existence of the creator or define his identity to come to the logical conclusion that an item (or items) in question has been designed. We all know that the wheel was invented, but we do not know when or by whom. If we use the logic of modern scientific thinking, then we would be forced to conclude that the wheel invented itself because we cannot prove the existence or identity of the one that created it.
It seems that we have come full circle. Hundreds of years ago the church was very dogmatic, closed-minded, and refused to acknowledge the findings and observations of the scientific community. They were rigid in their thinking and asked the people to accept a lot of things on faith. Now the scientific community has become rigid in their thinking and they are the ones asking the people to take a lot of things on faith. I am not a proponent of either side of the “Evolution vs. Creation” argument because I believe that the scientific findings and observations coexist with the reality of a spiritual presence and creative force in the universe. Anyone trying to prove one side of the debate, while ignoring the other side, is missing half of the story. I believe that the truth is evolution through the creative mind of an intelligent designer, and I refer to this creator as the Father/Mother God.
It is up to the individual to decide what to believe, but in the end, the truth of God is not dependent upon the belief systems of man.
Conclusion
There was no explosion of nothing (a singularity that was comprised of nothing) that became everything.
The source of all things in the universe is the eternal base energy that comprises everything, everywhere. It created, from its consciousness, the laws of physics that govern this universe. Over the course of billions of years, it brought all elements into being through the creative process of coalescing energy into simple matter in the vacuum. Clouds of simple matter coalesced into nebulae where the attractive force of gravity formed the stars that pressure-cooked the simple matter into heavier elements.
The eternal energy is conscious, loving, and creative. It is the source of our eternal spiritual consciousness. In creating us as individual expressions of itself, it gave us free will to create and share our ideas in a loving environment. As children of, and co-creators with the totality, we are responsible for the way in which we choose to use, manipulate, and qualify the energy that has been granted to us for our joy, learning, entertainment, and continued consciousness.
We are spiritual beings that live forever. We are not the animal, the beast we call “man”. We did not self-create from nothing, nor did we come into existence through some unbelievable chain of ‘happy accidents’.
As part of the eternal energy, we are one with the universe and we have the power to direct the energy and create from our imagination.
Space-time is our paper and the periodic table of elements is our box of crayons. We helped our Father/Mother God create the universe we see around us. We helped to create the different stages of live on this planet. We planned the extinctions so we could create more advanced live forms and eco-systems. And then, we stepped into the material world to experience it…but I am getting ahead of myself. I will discuss that in my next blog.
Written by Shainathan
Copyright Protected
[a] Try this little experiment: Watch a documentary from at least fifty years ago and pick out the “facts” that are wrong. Then, watch a documentary from today and try to figure out which “facts” (usually assumptions) will be considered wrong fifty years from now.
[b] The mass in the preceding illustration is then defined as finite due to its limited nature and the void is infinite. Any mathematician will tell you that when you incorporate an infinite number and a finite number in the same equation, the value of the finite number becomes 0.
[c] All rights reserved The Tee & Charles Addams Foundation.
[d] John 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (KJV)
[e] Albert Einstein was the first to suggest that space and time are actually one entity. He called it “space-time”.
[f] Microwaves that scientists believe to be the left over energy from the actual explosion they call the “Big Bang”.
[g] A light-year is the distance light will travel in a year through the void of space, so it not only describes distance, but also time.
[h] Deep space objects have been detected at greater than 12 billion light-years in almost every direction.
[i] We all know that we are not at the center of the universe. What are the odds? Besides, we tried thinking that way before and it didn’t work out.
[j] Richard Feynman was a physicist who was considered by his peers to be a genius of the same competence as Albert Einstein.
[k] In much the same way that solar systems coalesce from clouds of atomic materials.
[l] English Astronomer (1915-2001) most famous for coining the phrase “Big Bang” even though he was one of the theory’s greatest opponents.
[m] All Bible verses are taken from the King James Version.
[n] John 10:34
[o] For the sake of making the text easier to write, edit and read, I will be using the masculine form of all pronouns when referring to the Father/Mother God.
[p] Male superiority is a creation of the carnal mind, a.k.a. the ego.
[q] Consider this: He knew that if He placed this information in the first commandment it would never be lost. But it was also cryptic so men with corrupt agendas would not alter it.
[r] Psalms 82
[s] Do not misunderstand or allow the carnal mind to fool you. You are a god, but you are not the Father/Mother God Almighty. None of the children of God should be exalted to this level, including Jesus ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.").
[s] Do not misunderstand or allow the carnal mind to fool you. You are a god, but you are not the Father/Mother God Almighty. None of the children of God should be exalted to this level, including Jesus ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.").
[t] We are all unique but not superior. Superior
[u] Through meditation and prayer.
[v] The Abert and the Kaibab squirrels are both Tassel-eared squirrels. The Kaibab is a sub-species of the Abert.
[w] The estimated number of successful species keeps changing as science keeps finding more and more life forms in different habitats around the world. The number keeps going up, not down.
[x] This is just one of the branches of the tree of life. There are others to choose from but the analogy would remain the same.
[y] 100 billion times 10 billion equals 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
