| |
| Hollywood Movies |  And although science refuses point-blank to have anything to do with an ecumenical G God argument, the former is not an inquiry they can shirk. Believe me, if they could, they would.
But by asking where all our universe originated, which is a fair question, most scientists feel obliged to find a respectable answer. So far a big bang is probably the best they've managed. It sounds plausible, gives the media wonderful soundbites, and allows Hollywood movies spectacular special effects. And in some respect satisfy's certain scientific predictions. The fact it fails abysmally in other areas appears irrelevant. But more important than all that, it prohibits God, the term science refuses, rather ridiculously in my opinion to discuss, from being allowed to enter the universe.
By making creation a scientific event, rather than a biblical, natural occurrence, science seeks to protect the esoteric high ground. And as long as the big bang theory remains unchallenged by a theologian doctrine this belief will continue.
There is of course another reason, specifically designed to appease those from a scientific background. And that reason is, as long as they can show a justification of specific events, then an ability to progress might continue. In others words foundations are laid and a construction can commence. But with no foundation they would always remain at that initial point, bogged down with a problem that stopped their progression.
We can see there is a natural necessity to endorse something, anything, to allow them to venture forth to more tangible evidence. Some people might say that is devious; and perhaps in a way it is. But I am sure it is done with the best of intension.
There does seem no logical alternative. If anybody is presented in life with an obstacle, then the seemingly easiest explanation, is the one to grasp. If a smoke screen is thrown-up at that time, they might advance undetected. Unfortunately though, the satisfaction of the few excludes the many.
It would appear that a modern, secular society has forgotten the basic principles of decency. When others hold such a strong religious belief it might seem more courteous to abandon the mercenary element science holds. We might even be forgiven for saying science is selfish to a fault; but no doubt they already know that.
Therefore, in conclusion, we have to view the analogy presented before us and calculate its potential from a logical position, and ask did it meet criteria we believe it needed to meet to produce a productive universe? And the answer to that is an emphatic no. A big bang singularity failed abysmally in key areas: There was no reason for it to consolidate. There was no reason for it to explode. We could not show what it might have expanded into, or why it should detonate at that precise time.
There is no tangible evidence to suggest this event took place, except a low background radiation in the universe that some might suggest is the early echo of the big bang.
But we should always remember in life there are alternatives to modern thinking. And so, if we don't believe the big bang did happen in the way we are told, what do we have to show ourselves, as the proverbial alternative?
Well, in our next chapter we must show credible theories to explain the logic of events. We must look for that general rule used for basic reasoning that produces cause and effect. In essence we must show the universe came in to being at the point of creation through a chain reaction. A definitive sequences of events that permitted existence in the first place.
In retrospect we must also remember, that an explanation is not the preserve of the few, but the desire of the many. Therefore we must determine a religious aspect to creation. As so many people believe in God, and we won't shy away from the term, it is our moral duty to help those people. That would appear a decent thing to do. The simple principle of the good samaritan.
But we must also reflect on other individual groups who seek definition: Those of the wider Ufo community. They also have a right to understand our universe might not be an accident created at a specific period in history for some inexplicable reason.
But pure theory would be useless on its own, therefore as we progress through the next chapter we must also offer a reasonable ability to show what we talk about to be accurate. And that means to build a few predictions in to its framework.
What will we look for in the next chapter, then?
That is simple, we will be looking for a productive nothingness as promised in the bible. We will be searching for the very foundations of creation.
Anthology forward one page back one page
|
|
| |
|
» 
