The truth is a funny thing. Everybody has a different take on it and everybody is convinced that they are right. So, here’s one version of the truth.
The truth is… that we are not physical beings, per se. All life forms in the universe are composed of energy which are vibrating at such a low level that they condense, so to speak, into matter.
The truth is… that our universe is mathematical in nature. For example, cosmologist Max Tegmark has stated that our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. Further, physicist James Gates says that his research shows that certain theories which describe the fundamental nature of the universe contain embedded computer codes (that’s ones and zeros, and nothing else).
The truth is… that your reality is simply what you perceive it to be. Perception is everything, as the mind can’t tell the difference between what is “real” and what is vividly imagined. In that regard, philosopher Immanuel Kant reasoned that time and space are not inherent qualities of the physical world but rather a reflection of the way the mind operates; that is, the entire universe exists within the mind, not the other way around.
The truth is… the world is holographic and we exist in a virtual reality matrix. Our perception of reality is what Einstein has referred to as an “optical illusion of consciousness.” This issue was brilliantly explained in the movie The Matrix where Morpheus tells Neo, “If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by the brain.”
The truth is… that our universe is, in actuality, a simulation. By that, I mean that we exist in a reality that has been artificially constructed, as evidenced by James Gates’ computer codes. Even our DNA is like a computer program, as Bill Gates has attested to. Further, the new scientific field of DNA Wave Genetics postulates that our DNA is a bio-computer. Of course, it was none other than Albert Einstein who said that space/time was a construct.
The truth is… that there is an intelligence in the universe (and/or beyond it) that is responsible for the existence of our reality. Great minds like Plato, Einstein, Planck, Michio Kaku, Arno Penzias and Francis Crick, among many others, have said as much. Even ardent evolutionists like George Wald and Antony Flew have admitted that intelligence is the most likely cause of life in the universe.
The truth is… that there really is no such thing as the truth. All things are allowed and there is an infinite number of possibilities for us to choose from. When you grapple with a major decision in your life, your choice has already been made. All other possible choices have also already been made (and chosen in some alternative universe). You are simply attracting into your life, and into this universe, that specific decision that harmonizes with your own dominant thoughts.
So if there actually is such a thing as an answer to your questions, the answer… is you. As physicist John Wheeler put it, “The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.” If that doesn’t work for you, simply take the blue pill and go back to sleep.
You may recall that I have previously discussed what I refer to as “the video game effect.” That is, we are all participants in a virtual reality matrix where all the characters are holographic (remember Tron). That doesn’t make us any less real, but it certainly does change our view of the world.
And that’s the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me….
“Life is the most mysterious of all the wonders of creation because atoms have been assembled in such a way so that they can ponder their own existence.”
– Martin Rees, astrophysicist
“A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses. It is an idea that possesses the mind.”
– Robert Oxton Bolt
Everyone has beliefs. Those beliefs are based on a person’s perception of reality which is, for the most part, limited to what their physical senses tell them the world is like. These physical senses give rise to logic, a reasoning process which is an intellectual exercise in taking the available information and then trying to determine the truth of the matter (e.g. what is reality?).
However, the best that we can do is come to some approximate understanding of what the physical world is like. That’s the best. Of course, we know that humans’ senses of hearing and seeing are very inadequate so our view of reality is also likely to be lacking.
Interestingly enough, quantum physics tells us that there is a reality beyond the observable universe. Our universe is not all that there is to creation!! Beyond our universe is a non-physical world where consciousness is all that is. As Max Planck, the father of modern physics, stated, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness.” Yet from a scientific standpoint, scientists cannot prove (scientifically) what lies beyond our universe – because it is not observable. That’s the dilemma that John Horgan discussed in his book The End of Science.
So, where does this leave us? All that we have to try to understand life is our physical senses. Yet, our physical senses cannot grasp the physical universe let alone the quantum world that our reality arises from. Michael Talbot, in The Holographic Universe, explained just how our reality is shaped by unseen forces from beyond, as follows: “Our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately projections from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time….” Carl Jung expressed a similar concept when he said that the psyche and reality are not limited to space and time.
Yet, people generally resist anything that they can’t see for themselves. Instead, they simply label things they can’t explain as “supernatural.” This is particularly true of atheists as they reject anything that smacks of the supernatural (which they equate with an admission that God exists).
However living, in my opinion, does require a leap of faith. By leap of faith, I’m not talking here about religion. Rather, I’m talking about having an open mind with regards to the unseen forces of Nature that shape our world. Unfortunately, though, if you’re looking for hard and fast answers you can forget it. There really aren’t any. The thing to remember, though, as Bernard Werber said is that, “The point is not to believe or not believe. What matters is to ask as many questions as possible.”
The human species has been taught to believe that it is a physical species. If so, then why do you not fall out of bed at night? Yes, the physical body is asleep but something keeps you from falling out of bed when you roll over at night. Further, what part of your body makes you human? If you lose a hand, arm or leg, do you stop being human? Of course not. Exactly what makes you human then?
So, why is man the only species that can ponder his own existence? The only one. What part of his physical body does man use to do that? His mind? Well, you should know that scientists have been unable to locate the “mind” in our physical body. However, they have determined that the “mind” makes decisions before you are even consciously aware of those decisions. So, where exactly do your beliefs come from? Better yet, who are you?
“The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.” – John Wheeler, physicist
“There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.” – Bill Hicks
Imagine that you are a TV monitor looking at another TV monitor. That’s exactly how one’s eyesight works. Of course, you have other senses and they all send messages to the brain where they are interpreted and communicated (fed) to your consciousness. Collectively, then, your perception of reality is defined as the sum total of all these electrical signals which have been transmitted to your brain and, then, subsequently interpreted by it.
Scientists say that our decisions are made in the brain (mind) before we are actually consciously aware of them. So, it seems that we need to reassess who and what we really are. Consider this – are we more than just our physical bodies, more than just our conscious minds?
Science is continually breaking new ground in their quest to define creation. For example, MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark believes the universe is a mathematical structure. Of course, mathematics, by definition, is information. More to the point, a mathematical structure implies intelligence. Then, there is a new scientific field of inquiry called DNA Wave Genetics which postulates that the genome of the highest organisms is considered to be a bio-computer which forms the space-time grid framework of a bio-system. The logical extension of that theory is that we exist in a bio-system created by a bio-computer which is none other than our own DNA. But, then, who created our DNA?
If you are religious, you no doubt believe that you have a “soul.” However, what then is a soul if not another layer of information which defines who or what we are? Indeed, that information/soul might even come from a higher dimension than the three-dimensional universe that we “exist” in. After all, some cosmologists and physicists believe that there are more than three dimensions in the universe (four counting space/time).
Since science has theorized that there are such things as parallel universes, perhaps we exist in more than one universe at the same time. However, if we are multi-dimensional beings, what then is creation? Well, no less than Carl Jung offered up that all of creation is subjective, a dream…and we are the dreamers. Maybe, Bill Hicks was on to something.
Everybody I talk to is so certain of just about everything. It certainly gives the impression that no one is wrong about anything. So, here’s a little pop quiz for those who think that they know everything.
What is a table made out of? If you answered wood, that’s fine. If so, then what is the wood made out of? In other words, what is the essence of matter? For those of you who answered the atom, very good. So what, then, does the atom mostly consist of?
Answer: Its 99.9% empty space. Show of hands. How many got that right?
Back to the original question: What is a table made out of? Best answer: Mostly empty space.
Then, what is reality you might ask. Good question. Karl Pribram, a neurophysiologist and physicist, says that we exist in a virtual reality matrix where our brains construct reality by interpreting frequencies that are projections from beyond space and time. In other words, the physical world is a projection from the quantum world. With regards to how we actually view our reality, science says that 2-D optical impulses are sent to the brain where they are converted into 3-D holographic images. So, where is it that we actually “see” an object? Perhaps, you can now see where I am going with this (no pun intended).
Sleep studies show that we roll over in bed at night, sometimes a lot. After all, we wake up in a different position than when we fell asleep. Since we’re asleep, who tells our body to roll over and why don’t we ever fall out of bed? For that matter, how would we even know where the edge of the bed is, since our eyes are closed? Obviously, we don’t understand what consciousness is and therefore we lack an understanding of who and what we really are.
Then there’s the curious case of our belief systems. Given what was just said, do we even have an accurate view of life? How can one make enough sense out of our perception of reality (since that’s all that it is) in order to make proper decisions (e.g. in order to be able to differentiate between right and wrong). Consider this: science has discovered that decisions are made in our mind even before we are consciously aware of them! So, who really made the decision? Who are we?
One of the wisest men in history was the Greek philosopher Socrates. Socrates understood that no matter how much he knew, his knowledge would be dwarfed by what he did not know. Today, science has confirmed what Socrates knew intuitively. That is, reality is not understandable. As Einstein said, man will never be able to grasp the magnitude of the Universe and we now can appreciate why that is. The source of matter, and therefore the origins of reality, can be traced to the quantum world. It’s a world that we cannot penetrate. We can only theorize what it is like and what kind of natural laws might operate therein.
So you can probably see why I am a little skeptical when people tell me with absolute confidence that they know an answer to a particular question. As a Greek philosopher once said, “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion” – and now we know that atoms are basically empty space as well.
Aside: Of course, there is no such thing as empty space as what we’re really talking about here is a quantum field.
Life is truly an enigma which scientists are still trying to figure out. As astrophysicist Martin Rees noted, “Life is the most mysterious of all the wonders of creation because atoms have been assembled in such a way so that they can ponder their own existence.” However, because we have a very limited understanding of reality, we can ponder our existence all we want but I believe that our opinions are just that – they are opinions, and not facts. After all, how can you prove something, indeed anything, that you do not understand in the first place? If you believe otherwise, please enlighten me.
“In the world of physics…the shadow of my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the shadow paper…the frank realization that physical science is concerned with a world of shadow…”
– Arthur Eddington, astronomer, physicist
Life is somewhat a question of time. That is, between birth and death all you have is time. It’s such a mysterious and elusive thing that no one seems to know exactly what to make of it.
Nevertheless, almost everyone seems to have weighed in on the subject. In the eighteenth century, the philosopher Immanuel Kant described space and time as a priori notions that allow us to experience the world around us. Then, Einstein came along with his theory of relativity and said that space and time (space-time) were mathematical constructs. So, does time really exist? That’s the $64,000 question. Apparently, physicists aren’t sure. Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, had this to say about the subject, “The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics. The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.”
In the field of cosmology, there is another factor apparently in play. In an article in Nature, two prominent researchers called out the scientific community for breaking away from science’s mandate of experimental confirmation in the development of new theories. This comes directly on the heels of exotic theories such as String Theory, the Multiverse and supersymmetry. The two researchers who wrote the article, George Ellis, professor emeritus of applied mathematics at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and Joe Silk, professor of physics at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics and at Johns Hopkins University, stated that “a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.”
Yes, falsifiable, just as science philosopher Sir Karl Popper stated in his groundbreaking work Conjectures and Refutations. Accordingly with respect to the Multiverse theory (for example), the additional universes of the multiverse would lie beyond man’s powers of observation, as they would be beyond space and time and, therefore, could never be directly investigated. So, a theory like the Multiverse Theory could only ever be, at best, an approximation of reality. At worst…well, let’s just say that it might make good science fiction.
As John Horgan discussed in his book, The End of Science, the conundrum for theoretical scientists is whether or not they can remain relevant. After all, there is a limit to knowledge as science attempts to push beyond what’s observable (beyond space and time). Theoretical science is almost by definition limited in that regard regardless of what scientists like Stephen Hawking might say. Quoting Stephen Hawking might make good press but it doesn’t necessarily make good science. For example, Hawking, in his book The Grand Design, said that, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” This is not a fact, but rather an unproven theory and, I would argue, tantamount to a declaration of faith (in an ideology). After all, Hawking has gone on record as saying that science makes God unnecessary.
So, from my perspective, scientific theory is a moving target and it’s only a matter of time before many of the current scientific theories get replaced with new ones. That’s why we have previously moved on from theories like the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. Since some current scientific theories are incompatible with each other (e.g. the rules of general relativity seem incompatible with those of quantum physics), it’s only a matter of time before the next shoe falls, or as Adam Frank said in his book About Time, “In an era in which the search for quantum gravity has multiplied dimensions and the discovery of dark energy has sent cosmologists back to their blackboards, all the fundamentals seem up for grabs.”
Despite all of the research, time is still an enigma and that may not be changing any time soon. Great minds like Einstein and Planck concur that the fundamental laws of nature are beyond man’s ability to comprehend them. Despite that, scientists claim to understand the cosmos – that things called dark matter and dark energy make up most of the known universe. However, they have yet to find either. Perhaps, it has something to do with what Confucius once said, “The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.”
“What a life in science really teaches you is the vastness of our ignorance.”
– David Eagleman, neuroscientist
An old proverb states that, like three wise monkeys, we should see no evil, hear no evil nor speak any evil. However, the question still remains: Where did evil come from?
Usually, the discussion about evil centers around a divine entity so let’s start with the assumption that there is a God and that he is all-powerful and all-knowing. Biblically speaking, God was said to have created everything. So, by definition, he had to have created even evil. What other explanation for evil could there be, other than he caused it? Of course, some people will no doubt choose to disagree.
Theopedia says that either (1) God created this world from nothing, or (2) he created this world from pre-existing matter and God was simply the organizer of that matter. However, it’s illogical to argue that matter preexisted the universe and had no beginning because that would imply that God is not the Prime Creator. As Thomas Jay Oord, a Christian theologian, has stated, the Prime Creator was responsible for all of Creation, be it inside or outside of this universe.
That leaves us with creation out of nothing which is frequently used by the Church to try and explain why someone who is presumably evil (man) was not created by someone who was presumably all-loving (God). If man was not created by God, or so the argument goes, he must have been created out of nothing. Such twisted logic is necessary to try to explain the faulty theology of Salvation. The problem is that if man was created out of matter which was created by God, then God is responsible for man’s creation and salvation is not required.
Aside: Original Sin is not a concept mentioned in the Old Testament. That really isn’t surprising since the Old Testament is actually the Jewish Bible; that is, it was penned by Jewish holy men who didn’t believe in the concept of Original Sin.
However, the concept of creation out of nothing is possible depending upon one’s definitions. For example, the universe could well have been created by energy whose origins were from another dimension or universe. Energy from outside the universe could be said to have come from nothing as there was nothing in the physical universe to account for its origins! As physicist David Bohm says, the universe comes from a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time. In other words, from nowhere (nothing).
Of course, there’s a twist to this story. Creation could be said to have come from nothing if it was created out of pre-existing matter (i.e. existing before our universe was created) … although there’s a catch… but only if our universe was created by an entity other than the Prime Creator. The offshoot is that, in this case, the God of the Bible could not have been the Prime Creator.
So, who could the God of the Bible have been then? Well, let’s start at the very beginning – of Creation that is. At that time, the Prime Creator could have been the impetus for the forces that would later fashion the Multiverse. Billions of years later, an advanced human species could have come to earth and created homo sapiens sapiens (i.e. Adam and Eve), mixing their own DNA with that of life forms which existed on the planet at that time. This line of thinking ties in nicely to the Directed Panspermia theory of Francis Crick who was awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering the molecular structure of DNA. Crick believed that life on Earth was intentionally seeded by an extraterrestrial race (read: the elohim of Genesis). Crick understood what Bill Gates (and others) have said recently: “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Obviously, then, it was created through an advanced form of intelligence. Even Nature apparently exhibits a form of intelligent design. As physicist Jim Gates has disclosed, scientific equations which describe the fundamental nature of the universe and reality contain embedded computer codes.
In that case, the chronology of the Bible might be somewhat believable although Adam and Eve would definitely not have represented the first man and woman. Creationism and evolutionary theory, then, could co-exist (at least to some extent). That is, the Prime Creator would have been responsible for the initial Creation. Evolution would have then have taken its course, albeit with large spikes as has been noted in the evolutionary record, due to the intervention of advanced species (the so-called Missing Link).
There’s just one problem, though. Like Mizaru (the monkey who sees no evil), most people are too afraid to seriously look for the truth. They are forever married to their own existing ideology. Maybe, the three monkeys really weren’t so wise. After all, they turned a blind eye to evil, all the while assuming that they already knew the truth.
“Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good?”
The next large California earthquake has been referred to as the “Really Big One.” However, for many people, the really big one refers to the question about one’s purpose in life. Who am I and why am I here? Without the answers to those questions, life often seems pointless.
On the TV series What We Still Don’t Know, cosmologist and astrophysicist Martin Rees did a program entitled “Are We Real?” As Rees said, life is the most mysterious of all the wonders of creation because atoms have been assembled in such a way so that they can ponder their own existence. It’s important to note, though, that such a process requires intelligent design.
However, the question should not be are we real. Of course, life is real, at least on some level. The question should be “What is Life?” Quantum physicists like Einstein, Planck and Bohm have stated that life is an illusion, that atoms are energy rather than matter. However, even these great scientific minds have been unable to grasp the mystery of life.
In The Republic, Plato argued that the objects we perceive are not the ultimate reality, but more like a shadow of reality. Lincoln Barnett similarly wrote in The Universe and Dr. Einstein, “ Along with philosophers’ reduction of all objective reality to a shadow-world of perceptions, scientists have become aware of the alarming limitations of man’s senses.” So all that we feel, smell, taste and see has been created from the information we receive through our sensory system. All we ever know of the world around us are the images produced in the mind. We never experience the physical world directly; color, sound and smell are not qualities of the physical world as they exist only in the mind. That’s all that our perception of reality is then – the mind’s interpretation of electrical signals.
Why is the human race unable to use its brain power to deduce the answer to this illusive question? Well, for starters science is limited to things that have both a cause and effect in this physical universe. The so-called scientific method is a process of measurement and observation. So with respect to what lies beyond space and time, science can only theorize about such things (like the multiverse or the existence of God).
Many prominent quantum physicists have come to the conclusion that the real mystery revolves around the idea that matter does not create consciousness but rather consciousness creates matter instead. Physicist David Bohm has stated that our reality is the result of the interaction of what he calls the implicate and explicate orders. Michael Talbot, in his book The Holographic Universe, described Bohm’s theory this way, “Our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately projections from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time.” The inference is that the quantum world is real and is creating the physical world as a virtual reality.
So, is Schrödinger’s cat dead or alive? If you don’t know, or care, just take the blue pill and go back to sleep.
From a scientific standpoint, Einstein stated that time and space are not natural (somebody constructed them). In a similar vein, philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that time and space are not inherent qualities of the physical world but rather a reflection of the way the mind operates. Bottom line: the entire universe exists within the mind, not the other way around.
“The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.”
– John Wheeler, physicist
Is scientific inquiry meaningful if it never leads to a discovery of what caused the universe to exist in the first place? That is, what’s the point (no pun intended) of proving that there is no point to life? In that vein, it was theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg who said, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.”
So here’s my question: Why does Weinberg, and scientists like him, keep trying? What is the objective of their scientific inquiries? Is there a purpose to any of it? In a perverse sort of way, I think there is. You see, there are many different disciplines in science, but really only two kinds of scientists – those who believe in a Creator and ultimately are trying to prove it through their research and those who don’t believe in a Creator and are trying to prove that one doesn’t exist – to wit, life is pointless.
Two rather interesting viewpoints on this issue from giants of the scientific community are those of Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein. It was Hawking who said that, “One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, but science makes God unnecessary” and Einstein who declared that, “Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man….” Oddly enough, Hawking’s comment does tend to somewhat confirm what Einstein said about a spirit being manifest in the universe. It was Dr. E, himself, who first posited that space and time were constructs (somebody built them). More recently, theoretical theorist Dr. James Gates said that his research shows that certain theories which describe the fundamental nature of the universe contain embedded computer codes. Then there is cosmologist Max Tegmark who says that our external physical reality is a mathematical structure and physicist Paul Davies who stated that, “The universe conforms to an orderly scheme.” More on them later.
Scientific American’s recent article entitled “2 Futures Can Explain Time’s Mysterious Past” is a fascinating article about two competing theories that would revolutionize our idea about time. The problem with the two theories is that they both assume that the universe is a closed system. Accordingly, both theories will always contain anomalies because they exclude that which exists outside of our universe. I say outside of our universe because even theoretical physics now encompasses ideas of other worlds, be they parallel universes, the Multiverse or whatever. So if you can’t incorporate what lies outside of our universe in your scientific theory, then you can never comprehensively define how the universe was created or exactly how it all works.
Aye, there’s the rub because science, by definition, can never prove anything that it can’t observe. John Horgan discussed this very issue of the limitations in science in his book The End of Science. The implication is that science will, if it hasn’t already, hit a wall beyond which it can only speculate. The upshot is that for scientists the rest of Creation (that which is beyond our universe) is unobservable and therefore God, if he exists, will forever be unknowable.
Aside: That is, you can’t scientifically prove whether God exists or not.
Of course, philosophers generally don’t have the same constraints as scientists. It was Time magazine which some years back published the story “Modernizing the Case for God.” In that article, it discussed that philosophers are reexamining the case for God. For many, that discussion harkens back to the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument which was named for its author Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who was one of the great thinkers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Leibniz posited that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence and since we exist there’s an explanation for our existence.
Aside: Another way of understanding the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is to say that our existence is not found in its own necessity and therefore has to have an external cause.
Today, many scientists painfully realize their dilemma. As Lincoln Barnett wrote in The Universe and Dr. Einstein, “ Along with philosophers’ reduction of all objective reality to a shadow-world of perceptions, scientists have become aware of the alarming limitations of man’s senses.” Despite that, it hasn’t kept them from trying to fathom the unfathomable and to comprehend the incomprehensible. However incomplete, the work of Einstein, Gates, Tegmark and Davies (see above) do have one rather remarkable thing in common – an understanding that there is an underlying order in the cosmos; to wit, somebody or something constructed space/time, was responsible for the computer codes embedded in the fundamental laws of the universe, and created mathematics and the structured order of the universe. In other words, there is an intelligence in the universe. In the words of Leibniz, the universe does not exist because of its own necessity so it must have an external cause – and that external cause implies intelligence (or even vice versa).
This intelligence has been downplayed by various people, in some cases referring to it as Nature or the Natural Laws of the Universe. But as Einstein observed, there can be no laws without a lawgiver. So, I think that it’s high time that this intelligence gets a name. As I’ve suggested before, perhaps we could call it Bubba. However, for some, God might do just as well.
“The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.”
– John Wheeler, physicist
The smartest man of all-time was arguably Socrates for he realized and acknowledged that, despite being one of the wisest men in history, he knew nothing at all. Fast forward to the 20th century and perhaps the smartest man of his time, Albert Einstein, who said that it was not possible for man to understand the Universe.
Nevertheless, many people today are seemingly sure of just about everything. Deists believe that the Garden of Eden was the place of man’s creation, scientists talk so knowingly about black holes, politicians carry on about global warming and atheists claim with certainty that God does not exist. My point is, as Voltaire once said, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” Nevertheless, people claim to be certain, even in the face of an endless stream of contradictory information. As Stuart Chase so aptly put it, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”
So, with apologies to Mr. E and deists everywhere, let’s try and break it down.
The universe consists of energy, and only energy. Familiar objects such as trees, rocks, animals and people are simply energy which have taken a familiar form, namely matter. A key component of energy is the rate at which it vibrates. As the rate of vibration changes, energy changes form. For example, ice has a very slow vibration rate and as you increase the vibration rate (say, through the application of heat) it changes form, going from ice to water to steam and then totally evaporating.
Everything in the universe is evolving, constantly changing shape and form. As Einstein stated, energy can be neither created nor destroyed, although it can change form. The Australian Aboriginals say that when we leave this world (i.e. “die”) we return home. In a religious sense, some people use the expression that we go to heaven. In actuality, we (i.e. our energy) merely change form and leave this dimension (Creation having many such dimensions).
Prophecy and the End of Days
People love to quote Nostradamus, Cayce or even biblical prophecy. It’s the End of Days, some would say. However, the End of Days was only necessary so as to redeem humanity from the Fall of Man which, in turn, was required to support the concept of Original Sin. All of this twisted logic was the result of trying to explain how God who is presumably good created man who is presumably evil. This concept is generally referred to as Creation Out of Nothing (creatio ex nihilo), as if anything could ever be created out of nothing.
The problem with prophecy, of any kind, is that science can’t even explain something so basic as how we can see. If you can’t correctly observe (see) Nature, how can you be sure of much of anything? So, perhaps A.E. was right after all. Besides scientists understand (by definition) that they can’t observe what exists beyond space and time. So no one knows what there is in the rest of Creation. That’s why all that so-called dark matter is “missing”.
The best that we can say about prophecies is that they may represent a possible future, as there are hypothetically an infinite number of possible futures. The interesting thing is that the timeline leading to the future is changing, if it hasn’t changed already. Consciousness is evolving rapidly. People are waking up to the virtual reality matrix that they exist in. Like Adam and Eve, we now realize that we are naked.
As for the End of Days, I’m sure that it will be the end for some. That’s the very nature of Creation, a circle of life that has no beginning and no end. However, in the bigger picture, we’re simply at the end of one cycle of life getting ready to evolve into the next. That’s the message of “My father’s house has many rooms” (John 14:2).
Yes, many people claim to already have all the answers. How sad! As Kevin Michel said, “Every conscious thought you have, every moment you spend on an idea, is a commitment to be stuck with that idea and with aspects of that level of thinking, for the rest of your life.” Of course, if you asked a thousand people the same question, you would no doubt get a thousand different answers from people who all claimed that they were certain.
But what if you weren’t suppose to know the answers at all? What if man’s purpose in life was to be an observer? For example, in quantum physics, the result of the experiment is changed by the observer. As they say, as above so below. So consider that man’s role is simply to allow Creation to observe itself, allowing it to evolve. Being an observer, man wouldn’t need to be certain of anything. Maybe that’s what was meant by the meek inheriting the earth.
“You are here to enable the divine purpose of the universe to unfold.”
– Eckhart Tolle