| |
| Nature |  We showed how the nothingness produced a dimensional universe and made an ambit for god to enter: we said, as the universe opened through heat fusion, it created a fracture line in another part of a diamond nothingness. As the first hot universe contracted through cooling, the fracture line witnessed the difference and moved energy and matter to opposite ends of the spectrum. That gave us what we termed Quantum Gravity; an ability to create a strong kernel of gravity that decays as discrete quanta.
However, what we now have to ask ourselves is, if during this consolidation period, a pocket of residual energy or mass could have been formulated. You might like to visualise it as a system where either energy or mass moves at such a high velocity, that a pocket of the other, or even itself becomes trapped inside.
And if that said event did take place as we suggest, then logically there is no valid reason why it should not take place in a multitude of places. This would most certainly permit more than one God.
Some might even argue, those pockets of pure energy could be vital, as they might act as a counter balance to any regional volume of mass: A kind of self correcting body of energy to act as a counter balance, that ensures relative stability to specific areas. We might even argue that everything in life needs a clinical set of laws to govern it, whether they be the laws of physics, gravity or nature.
And if this played out that way, then what natural law might control a galaxy, or the universe beyond? Some might say the laws of physics themselves, but I think we do have to remember, that if that's the case, then why do so many people have such a strong belief in religion?
Even though we have examined, closely when necessary, most of the other factors in the equation, we are still left with an inexplicable desire.
Science informs us, that everything around us today is easily explained by those previous universal laws we have just mentioned: Physics, gravity and nature. But there is another factor in the equation science fails to account for, an explanation of what we feel. And if that is the case, then different entities, those we might term Gods, located in different regions of the universe could provide individual localities with very alternative outlooks.
While our God might harbour ambitions of love, kindness and helping those who cannot help themselves, other Gods might have more spurious desires, intent on carnage, evil and atrocity. So when we view governing laws, and science postulates credible theorems, we might have to pose a difficult question for science: Why do we feel what we feel?
We all know that science can explain mechanically the motion and movement of a universe, even if ambiguities do riddle the basic framework of their explanation: We know mathematics can accurately predict how a specific object will move within its own trajectory, and we also assume and understand that natural laws can govern the way an individual planet might develop to a more sustainable fruition. Yet none of these even when countenanced fully stop us believing in a more superior God: Why?
A simple answer from science has always been, 'the argument is complicated,' fraught with problems for the untrained, and simply too complex for the individual to understand. And some might say that arrogant, while others agree it's a fair point. We will not argue the generosity of it, but what we will ask, is, if they're right, why did Einstein believe God wouldn't 'play dice' with the universe?
Some may consider Einstein's remark tongue-in-cheek, a flippant statement. But I would assume it wasn't. I have naturally listened very carefully to lots of different academics, some with a revulsion of God, others with the same hostility, only less obvious about it. Yet all of these people refuse point-blank to have any truck with a God argument, even tongue-in-cheek.
Anthology forward one page back one page
|
|
| |
|
» 
