Where Did God Come From? (Philosophy Of The Science Of God's Realm)

            It has before been observed that humans are always seeking out origin.  This is innate.  When seeking out the origin of the universe, the two main schools of thought are that the universe came about either by the Big Bang or by God.  At this point the question that inevitably follows is, "Where, then, did IT come from?"

• In the Theory of Evolution, it is often asked, "What happened one second before the Big Bang?
• In theology, it is asked, "What was God doing before He created the universe?

These questions are nonsensical.

           Whether the Big Bang Theory is true or God is true (for I most assuredly reject that both can be true, since the original text of the Pentateuch does not allow room for the Evolutionary Theory in the history of the creation of man), there is one truth that is an inexorable fact: There was no time before the universe was created.

• If we assume that the Big Bang Theory is true and ask, "What happened one second before the Big Bang?" the answer is: There is no such thing as "before the Big Bang."  Time began with the explosion of matter.  If no time exists, then there is no principal of cause and effect.  This principal only became universal law with the creation of the universe.
• If we assume that God created the universe, we cannot ask, "Where did God come from?"  This implies that God has origin, and origin is unique to our universe.  God does not have origin because in His realm there is no time, no cause and effect, no before and after.

    As an example, think about how every human action requires something to precede it.  I cannot walk through a door before opening it.  I cannot open the door before turning the handle.  I cannot turn the handle before extending my arm to it.  I cannot extend my arm all the way before extending it partway.
This line of thought is endless if carried on to the smallest degrees of measurement and beyond.  But imagine a world where there was no cause and effect or before and after; where I could turn the door knob with my arm before extending it, or extend my arm all the way before having extended it partway.  This makes no sense to us, but it describes as closely as possible the nature of God's habitat which is not bound by the constraints of time.

    It is our inability to know what God's world is like that causes us to ask questions that make no sense in His world: mainly 1.) questions of motive and 2.) questions of origin.

1. Questions about divine motive are indeed sensible, though they usually go unanswered as the motives of God are very involved and more intelligent than the mind of the wisest man can conceive.
2. Questions about divine origin are not sensible as there is no such thing as birth or creation in a realm where time does not exist.

     If the Big Bang Theory is correct, the only philosophical/scientific problem becomes: can time be brought about without causation?  The answer of the evolutionists is yes.  This answer is good and also difficult if not impossible to negate based on the fact that the exact instant of creation was the bridge between two eras: 1.) when causation brought about an effect and 2.) when it did not.  Based on this principle, it might be possible that once, and only once, something can come from nothing.
            - The above concept is a difficult one, and I am not completely convinced as to its veracity as I am of its logical legitimacy.

• Einstein proposed that time was like a flowing river and that space and time were mutually inextricable.
• Because of this, pockets in space (black holes) are also pockets in time.  Think of these as whirlpools in the river of time: the water (time) goes faster around them.
• He also theorized that if one could stand on the edge of a black hole without being sucked into its vacuum, one could theoretically look at Earth and see civilizations rise and fall in just a matter of minutes to his perception.

This may shed some light on the definition of eternity because we see time in the shape of a vector: linear and only moving one direction at one speed.  Who can say what God's timeline looks like?
        - It may travel in two directions, perhaps three or any number of directions.

        - It may not be linear in shape, but spherical or morphed into any other form.

        - It may have characteristics that would require abstract description:

            - Malleability, strength, smoothness, etc.

Everything of God's realm is so far divorced from our thoughts that it is vain to expect any fruitful answers upon mere contemplation of them.

          Since we as humans tend to compare time to bodies of water it may be most effective to compare God's time world to that of a lake or pond.  When we speak of eternity, we naturally suppose a place where the river of time flows endlessly, but this preserves the characteristics of time, which play no role in eternity.  Time in eternity is stagnant, dead, and unmoving.  There is no cause and effect.  This is why God wasn't alive 15 trillion years ago.  There never was a "15 trillion years ago."  He was merely inhabiting a place of timelessness prior to the universe, if "prior to the universe" were a legitimate concept.

         Time is a river, eternity is a great, still sea.  It is believed that one day the river will flow into that sea and be eradicated.  Otherwise stated: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

Life's Second Question: Who Or What Is God? Part II - How To Ensure Admittance To Heaven

    If there is indeed a God who is involved in the affairs of man, we must conclude that (since he is involved) he has established some communicative means of expressing to humankind his existence and his will.  In most if not all religions, this means is through a document or set of writings.  The writings of each religion clearly identify who God is, what He is like, and what His desire is for man.  But which one is correct?

• A very pervasive belief of this age is that all religions basically teach the same thing, and therefore all are equally valid, and all equally speak the truth.

This simply cannot be the case.

1. In the teachings of the Jewish religion, a Messiah is prophesied to come and sit on the physical throne of David to liberate God's people of the literal, temporal oppressions they suffer at the hands of other nations.  This is not supported by Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or any other major religion, yet it is the crux of the Jewish faith.
2. In the teachings of the Christian Bible, Jesus is quoted as saying, "I am the door...no man cometh unto the father but by me."  This precludes every other religion, major or minor, from doctrinal compatibility with Christianity as the whole of the religion is predicated upon the premise that cohabitation with God is unobtainable without Jesus.
3. The Qur'an details that the angel Gabriel, sent from God, visited the prophet Muhammad and recited to him the teachings of the Qur'an.  This is why Muhammad is the greatest prophet of Islam.  As non-Muhammadan historians and religionists consider Muhammad abusive of women and a murderer of men, it is hardly conceivable that any other religion could deem him inspired of God.  This is not to cast a blemish upon the character of Muhammad, but rather to illustrate the discontinuity of other religions with this one.
4. Though the Good Book (of Buddhism) teaches of spirit and a supreme existence, it is considered today (by its followers and theologians) an atheistic religion.  Needless to say, no other major religion could bear such a contradiction to its own teachings.

So we must conclude that it is impossible to reconcile the religions of Earth as being all simultaneously true.  Most or all are wrong.

How then can we know which is right?

  We must first assume the following about God:  If He truly cares for mankind equally, as all religions assert, he would have designed the path to Heaven (i.e. His will for man) to be obtained by the most brutish and simple minded.  So, in order to understand it, we must cast off the ornamentation of earthly intelligence and think in simple, child-like terms.

• Q: Who goes to Heaven, and who goes to Hell?

                  A: The good people go to Heaven, and the bad people go to Hell.

• Q: What makes you good, and what makes you bad?

                  A: Sin makes you bad, and not sinning makes you good.

    If this is true, then the religion that makes you sin the least is the highest (holiest) way, and therefore closest to God, and therefore the one offering the correct depiction of God.

          So which religion causes people to sin the least?
For this answer, we must examine their books.  

• The Torah: This teaches us to make atonement for sins, since complete abandonment is not carnally possible.
• The Qur'an: Also frowning on sin, it does not hold a higher standard than that of the book of Jewish law
• The Bible: Does the Bible require men to commit no sin?  The shocking answer is yes!

    Though 99% of ALL Christians would refute it, the evidence is so overwhelming so as nearly to become proof that the Bible teaches that men should give up their sins never to commit them again.  This makes a difficult point:  that logically, the Bible holds the highest standard and is therefore correct, but that Christianity is not fulfilling its own Book's teachings, thereby condemning itself.

The following Biblical references all call for immediate cessation of sin:

• II Timothy 2:19
• I John 3:6, 8, and 9
• Romans 6:1 and 12
• John 8:11

    There are several passages of the Bible misused to condone sin, among them Romans 7 where the apostle Paul speaks of sin saying, "...the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.  For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."

    Contextually it is exceedingly clear (especially within the context of the preceding and subsequent chapters) that he is not here speaking of himself and his present condition, but that he was assuming the persona of a carnal man for the purposes of his topic.  Paul was, at that point of his life, no longer sold under sin and did not that which he hated.

 Other scriptures are used as well but will not be referenced here.

     In an effort not to elongate prolixity, I will merely state that the Bible does hold the "holiest" standard for man to live up to and is therefore the surest means of achieving Heaven and understanding what parts of the nature of God we can.
             It is a fearful thing to delve into the depths of the science of God.

Life's Second Question: What Or Who Is God? Part I

    If we assume that there is a God, one of the first questions we ask is, How do we know which God is the true one?  This question is in need of a little modification, because the question is not which god or gods exist, but which religion if any has identified correctly the supernatural force which created the universe.

    First we must establish that God will be referred to in the singular, as even in the polytheistic religions there is always one God that is supreme above the rest.  In the end, everything centers around one God.

    There is always the possibility that, if the agnostics have it right, a God exists, but does not concern himself with the affairs of man.  In other words, he does not watch nor intervene.  The first issue that is brought up in opposition to this argument is the problem of: if that is the case, why create man?  Why would God cause there to be a kind of creation if not to observe and/or influence it?  

• This question is a weak point for the opponents of agnosticism because it assumes that God has the nature of man, to wit, he operates with motive, and we do not know this to be so.
• Man always operates with motive.  It is what convicts criminals.  No human will ever do even one time what he has no motive to do.  I will go so far as to say that it is not humanly possible!  Even things which have been done that seem 100% disadvantageous for a person to do have some real, albeit irrational, impetus behind it, even if it is merely to prove a point.
• We cannot assume that God works as man does because his reality is so far removed and advanced from ours so as to preclude even the slightest of human comprehension.

    Nevertheless, some agnostics have attempted to explain God's apathy toward man as a result of his attention being enveloped in other matters, perhaps other creations.

• This argument is flawed as well because it imposes boundaries upon God, while, prior to the universe*, it is not at all probable that the concept of boundaries or limitations were in God's vocabulary.  God cannot be made busy by any number of events because he is infinite.  He equally inhabits not only all space, but all times and can do and know all things.  The scientific words for these properties of a being are omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience.
• We do not have a word for being in all times equally, but if occupation of all places is called everywhere, then the word for occupying all of time would be everywhen.  Perhaps the scientific word would be omnitemporal, if the English language would bear it.
• These are attributes of one who experiences no physical, mental, or spiritual boundaries, and as such, they must be ascribed to God

    There being insufficiency on both sides to prove accurately whether God is concerned with this world or not, we must assume that he is indeed concerned, for 3 reasons:

1. It is not unlikely that the principle of operating only with motive permeates through our reality to God's reality, and therefore He created us to watch us and extend his will to our realm.
2. The idea that God is completely aloof and either apathetic or "an observer only" leaves much to be desired.  The questions will remain, what then will become of the Earth and mankind?  Will there be an end?  Will anything follow our end?  There is no way to know these answers and therefore: The whole of agnosticism rests upon the one principal that there is no physical evidence of a God.  This is why it is often and properly categorized next to atheism.  The premises and conclusions are identical (the premise listed above, the conclusion being: Man should do whatever he pleases).
3. The consequences of being a deceived agnostic are grave.  The consequences of believing God is involved when he is not are light.

    The purpose of this dissertation is to establish that there is a God who is interested and concerned with the affairs of man.  From this we can say that those who seek after him are classified as members of certain religions.  How then do we know which is correct?  This will be discussed next.

Final thought: On which side of this discussion is it best to err?


*The phrase "prior to the universe" is nonsensical and only used for lack of more accurate language.  This will also be expounded upon in a later article.

Proof vs. Evidence (as it relates especially to the origin of the Universe)

    It has before been stated that the burden of proof or disproof of God's existence rests upon the theists and not the atheists because it is impossible to prove that something does not exist.
    It has also been stated that the claim of the theists is that no one will ever be able to prove or disprove God's existence because God prefers it to be that way.

    This brings us to an important note of life: The difference between proof and evidence.

    The difference between these two words is very noteworthy and imperative to understand because failure to comprehend their proper respective meanings can result in a plethora of incorrect assertions.
To illustrate this I will refer to a statement made by a former professor of mine named Spear:

    Professor Spear, a geologist (and a man of great erudition in my estimation), erred in a definition he gave attempting to clear the air on the shadow of doubt regarding what we call the Big Bang "Theory".  He said, "Most of you have an incorrect idea of what a theory is because you've watched too many detective movies where they say, 'I have a theory about what happened.'  The detective doesn't have a theory, he has a hypothesis."  Then he continued, "A theory is defined as a conclusion drawn from a hypothesis to which there is no contrary evidence."

    Now this statement is erroneous.   How do we know?  First of all, if this was the case there would be little to no theories in existence.  There is always contrary evidence.

• There is contrary evidence to the existence of the God of the Bible in that the book, written allegedly by the inspiration of God, gives a timeline from the beginning that equates the age of the Earth to close to 6,000 years, while scientific evidence (plate tectonics, folded rock layers, radiocarbon-dating, etc.) suggest the Earth to be closer to 4.5 billion years old.  This is evidence in opposition of God, but the evidence is inconclusive
•  There is contrary evidence to the Big Bang Theory.  According to the Big Bang Theory, a spinning dot smaller than a typed period exploded at the beginning of the universe, disseminating matter in every direction.  It is because of this spin that all of the planets now rotate.  This, however, defies the laws of physics since two of the planets in our solar system do not spin in even a conceivably similar direction, and the law of the conservation of angular momentum would decree that if the origin of the motion was the same, then all projectiles of that force must behave in the same fashion.  This is evidence in opposition to the Big Bang Theory, but the evidence is inconclusive.

Why then is the evidence inconclusive?  Answered simply: because it is incomplete.

Evidence is always incomplete.

This is because of a rule of science never to be forgotten: There is always something as of yet undiscovered or unconsidered.

So the statement that should have been made by Professor Spear is: A theory is defined as a conclusion drawn from a hypothesis to which there is no contrary proof.

• There is no contrary proof to God, nor to the Big Bang Theory

    It needs not to be stated that there is certainly evidence for the Big Bang Theory, for there are copious amounts of classes dedicated to its research.  But is there evidence of God?
    Yes there is.  Though the evidence is of a base nature, not one of sophistication.  If we assume that God is a master craftsman of life and nature, then we can make the assertion that God wove his evidence into the fabric of creation in a subtle manner so as not to be perceived by the eye of the scrutinous, the mind of the educated, or the heart of the proud.

    Picture an extremely simplistic scene of a person whose entire existence has been in a sealed glass cube in the middle of a natural environment.  Would that man know that there was such a thing as wind?  He would not be able to experience it with any of his five senses - He could not taste, smell, hear, see or even feel it .

Yet the answer is YES, he would know that there is wind because he would see the leaves blowing in it.  Or in essence, he would see its effects.  He may not even understand what he is seeing but he would know that something is causing it to be so.

    This is the type of evidence that speaks of God's existence.  He is imperceptible, yet to the innocent heart, the effects are visible.  And God is not found but by those who have learned to seek honestly, earnestly, and innocently.

Life's First Question: Is There A God? Part II - Answer

    A reasonable theist must concede the following point: No one will ever be able to prove the existence of a God.  This is nearly as sure as our inability to disprove a God.   

• Since the rules of logic dictate that it is intellectually and literally impossible to prove that something does not exist, the burden of proof rests upon the theists.

    Theists will claim that God prefers to operate in shadow, just outside the visibility of man, and just inside the realm of possibility so as to remain aloof.  His motive for doing so is because of his desire for mankind to reach him exclusively through faith (which is an amalgamation of the two separate concepts of trust and confidence).

    Atheists believe that it is all too convenient to claim that the only God in the whole of creation just happens to have the personality that keeps him obscured from man's vision; and since there is no evidence in favor of such a claim, there is no reason to suspect that the universe functions in any other capacity but one independent from a superior being.

    These two viewpoints could be pitted against one another in an endless loop.  The side with which I agree is supported by one fact that, though not proof nor disproof of God, I find irrefutable.  The chain of reasoning is as follows:

•  We continually  ask the question, where did we come from for a purpose.  It is innate to realize that all that is had some sort of origin.  Somehow, no matter how many times we answer the question of where we came from, we continue to ask, "Then where did that come from?"  We continue to ask this because we, somehow by instinct, know that we had a beginning.
• Everything that is has three phases: initiation, duration, termination.  In plain English: beginning, middle, end.  This is true of:
• Life: birth, life, death
• Ideas: Inception, meditation, realization/disremembrance
• Productions: edification, utilization, decomposition
• etc.

    This is true of everything that is peculiar to our universe.  Of those things which do not pertain to the universe, we cannot speak since they do not exist or we are not in the least aware of them.

• If everything in our three dimensional reality rests on this principle, then it must also apply to the Earth, the Universe, time, and matter itself, since they are all of this dimension.  Yet the law of conservation of energy clearly states that energy and matter can never be created nor destroyed.

    Here we have a clear conflict since reason clashes with physical law in that matter must have had a creation (which is what the Big Bang Theory has attempted to explain) and yet it is physically impossible for it to have had that stage of initiation.

• Since we have a concept irreconcilable in our universe, the only possible explanation is the following:

Matter could indeed have been "created" if by means of intervention from another dimension.

    If the laws of our universe prevent us from knowing or doing certain things, who can say but that the laws of a higher dimension may allow for the spanning of dimensions and defiance of laws rigid to us who are bound by three dimensional limits?

    Some might call this alien life, but what is alien life but existence of non-earthly origin?  And what is God if not a force with greater capacity than nature?

    It is inexorable that by the very existence of matter in this universe (matter being the universe), a God must exist.

    Certainly if he does not exist, the consequences of the route of theism are not much more notable than fleeting.  If he does exist, the consequences of the route of atheism can be sufficiently catastrophic so as to instigate the gravest of considerations.

Life's First Question: Is There A God? Part I

    There is one question that divides every other question about life into two very separate answers, and consequently must be the first question asked of all the questions of life.  That question is:

Is there a God?

    Whether the answer to this is yes or no will change the answer for every other issue of mankind.  For example, let us take one of the most commonly asked philosophical questions by all of mankind:

• What is the meaning of life?

    1. If there is a God, it depends on which "religion" if any is correct.

• Agnostics would state that God is aloof and not concerned with the affairs of man, so their answer would coincide with that of the atheists.  For that answer see 2.
• Buddhism is a religion that has (in older times) been theistic and (more recently) atheistic.  Their answer would be that the meaning of life is complete enlightenment in a state of nirvana which can be achieved through the Sevenfold Path.  This enlightenment is not unlike the breaking of a vessel.  The man is the vessel.  The air on the inside and the outside of the vessel is the same, though separated.  Upon enlightenment, that vessel is broken and the two realities (interior and exterior) are now unified.
• In Hinduism, one must find perfect knowledge and understanding of universal truth, much like the enlightenment of Buddhism.  If death comes before this is achieved, the soul is reincarnated to be further educated.  In both Hinduism and Buddhism, the equivalent of "Heaven" is reached when full enlightenment has satisfied the soul from all suffering, (also known as desire), and upon death, the energy of the body is one with the energy of the universe.

            All other major religions can be answered simply:

• The meaning of life in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is twofold: 

                           -Do what God wants
                           -Love your fellow man as yourself

    2. If there is no God, the question [of the meaning of life] is in error.  If there is no God, there is no destiny, design, or motive to anything creative.  With no motive or purpose behind anything which is or was brought to be, why then do we ask for what purpose it is?  Is this not so illogical as asking why time travels at the rate of 60 seconds per minute?  We do not question its motive, we simply accept and know that it is so.  In an atheistic reality, that is what life is: technically purposeless.  So atheists do not question the meaning of life.  They are content to know no more than the fact that life IS.

The purpose of this treatise is no more than to show the importance of answering this question before every other question of life can be answered.  Is there a God?  There is certainly an answer to this question, though it will be dealt with in a later article.

    To finish off the meaning of life, there is one generally accepted truth between theists and atheists alike.  If there is one thing that gives life "meaning," it is found somewhere in the realms of love.  Some say it is in the love of God, others in the love of a spouse or child.  This is the one reoccurring theme for which nearly all would give their lives, and nearly all would agree that life has little meaning unless lived for the very thing for which one would surrender their life.