God – A Work In Progress

By Max Musson:

Most people fall into the trap of believing that there is either;

1. A fully formed, often anthropomorphised, conscious, sentient, all knowing, all powerful, all loving God, who has a particular interest in, and cares for us; or

2. There is no God.

Dawkins is good at demolishing belief in the first of these possibilities and the mistake that most people make as a consequence is to believe that his arguments therefore prove that the second possibility is therefore correct.

Big Bang 4Science indicates that the universe came into existence with the ‘Big Bang’ approximately 13.5 billion years ago. No one knows what existed prior to the Big Bang and the Big Bang consisted of a sudden out-rushing of raw energy from a central point, filling the void of nothingness that existed beforehand.

Whatever existed in the void of nothingness before the Big Bang, and which occupied the central point, was the source of all of the energy from which our universe has formed.

Whatever existed prior to the Big Bang – the act of universal energy creation – no longer appears to exist. It appears that whatever it was became completely consumed in the act of universal energy creation.

That source of energy could be viewed as a ‘creator’ of sorts, because from the energy created during the Big Bang, all of the matter of the Universe has evolved, including us.

What we do not know at this stage, is what form the Creator took. We have no way of knowing whether the Creator was conscious, or sentient, or all knowing, or all powerful. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the Creator was all loving and certainly none to suggest that the Creator has or had any particular interest in, or care for us.

The universe, or the Cosmos as it should be more accurately described is an immense random generation device in which matter has formed from the energy that was created, and has evolved through many stages, gradually increasing in complexity and the level of consciousness achieved by the most highly evolved life forms.

In searching for the purpose of life and the purpose of the Cosmos, there are many as yet unknowns, but it is clear that the Cosmos is a mechanism that facilitates evolution – the evolution of inanimate matter, but also living matter, through ever increasing levels of complexity knowledge, power and consciousness.

We humans, as far as we can tell, stand at the pinnacle of that evolutionary process, but there is no evidence to suggest that we are the ‘end product’, in fact the contrary. All of the evidence suggests that we are as Nietzsche describes, a ‘stepping stone’ from sub-man to super-man and beyond.

Cosmotheism asserts that providing we continue the process of evolution, mankind, or at least the currently most highly evolved elements of humanity, such as the White race, will evolve through ever higher and higher levels of consciousness, power and knowledge until our future generations achieve a state of total consciousness and omnipotence. This will be the culmination of the Creator’s work, the metamorphosis of the Creator from a pre-physical state, either with or without consciousness, but with an indefatigable ‘will to be’, through many stages to his/her eventual complete self-realisation as a conscious, sentient, all powerful, all knowing entity – Godhood.

This belief is the fundamental tenet of Cosmotheism, which unlike any other religion, is completely consistent with science and nature, and does not rely on blind faith or superstitious mumbo-jumbo in order to attain credibility.

By Max Musson © 2013

# # # #

79 thoughts on “God – A Work In Progress

  1. Richard Beaudette

    - Edit

    Very interesting!
    I might suggest that the end result of the Cosmos will be the Creator just as the Creator was the initial cause of the Cosmos, and that we all are participants in the process of the Creator re-creating himself.

    1. Hubble Reveals Observable Universe Contains 10 Times More Galaxies Than Previously Thought

      “This is God. Your prayer is very important to us. At this time, there are 1,897,765,423,413 galaxies ahead of you. Please continue to hold. Your prayer will be answered in the order it was received.”

  2. Again this is something that you feel inside and I do agree with what is written here. This is

    something not easily explained but what you know to be right deep inside your soul, what is

    pleasing is that it seems that others have a similar feeling.

  3. Elite Commander

    - Edit

    Your article is well written and I agree with much of what you have written, Max, but I take issue with a few minor points. Firstly you have left out the possibility that “before the Big Bang” is a combination of words which simply doesn’t make any sense.

    If time is seen as a dimension in the same sense as spatial dimensions, then at the moment of the Big Bang, time and space all come into existence at once. If time comes into existence at this point, then how can it make sense to ask questions about what came “before” that point? The meaningful employment of the word “before” depends on there even being a timeline to discuss and I’m not sure this is by any means certain.

    On the subject of evolution, I will agree that there is no evidence for us being the “end product” as a species but for different reasons. I would seriously dispute the idea that we are destined to go on evolving into some sort of superman species. The society which we have created lifts us out of all sorts of natural selection pressures: we no longer live in a state of nature and the characteristics which determine the likelihood of your genes being passed on are thoroughly different to those which determined it in past eras.

    You would need to bring to bear a great deal of evidence that there is selection taking place in favour of superhuman traits. I strongly suspect that the opposite is in fact true. Natural selection simply encourages characteristics which are conducive to a greater chance of passing on your genetic material to future generations. It makes no value judgement and does not “plan” the beings it is going to produce based on human values such as intelligence, strength and power. We choose these, not nature, and it may simply be that they are not the most favourable traits.

    Regardless, if our ambition is to attain godlike powers our best chance of doing so is by developing our science and technology to the fullest possible extent and continuing to explore every means of manipulating the world around us as well as the world within us – and by this I mean the genome.

    The way in which you outlined and destroyed the false dichotomy at the beginning of the article was superb.

    1. Hi Elite, I did not mean to give the impression that the evolutionary forces acting upon us will inevitably lead mankind to a state of Godhood. Until the Neolithic, our evolution was moulded by environmental factors and as you quite rightly point out, we are now able to shape our environment to such a degree that the evolutionary pressures derived from our environment no longer apply.
      Therefore, we stand at the cusp between blind environmentally driven evolution and self-directed evolution should we choose to pursue it, that could take us along an ascending path to Godhood.
      By ‘self-directed evolution’ I mean of course evolution through a eugenic process of our own devising.
      As we are no longer subject to natural selection, the absence of selective pressure has resulted in the stagnation of our evolutionary ascent and if we do nothing to correct this then humanity will become an evolutionary dead-end.
      The next step if we are to continue our ascent, is for us to embrace self-directed evolution; selecting for physical traits such as strength, agility, endurance, disease resistance and physical beauty; and selecting for mental characteristics such as high intelligence, innovation, honesty, integrity, determination, loyalty, altruism, achievement drive and work ethic. If we apply such measures then with each successive generation our people will become progressively refined, more noble and more able and incrementally more God-like.
      Change of this sort can be achieved, but if we are to change, as the proverbial psychologist says, ‘we have got to want to change’. I believe there are enough of us who change such as this for it to become a reality.

      1. Elite Commander

        - Edit

        Well, thank you for your clarification. Your proposal – to ascend to Godhood via eugenics, effectively – is also something which would require a great deal of understanding in order to carry out. It may be that certain traits we desire aren’t genetic, or that our understanding of genetics has not yet advanced to the point at which we are able to encourage them. Selective breeding alone may not be enough. Technological augmentation seems to be the current path, if there is a current path.

        The only thing I can safely say is that we should always strive to learn more, and always remain skeptical until we are suitably compelled to accept something.

          1. Elite Commander

            - Edit

            I reject the idea that skepticism and open-mindedness are mutually exclusive characteristics. In fact, I think that one ought to be both skeptical and open-minded if one has any real interest in getting at truth.

            An open mind allows one to consider a particular possibility instead of immediately dismissing it out of hand. Meanwhile, skepticism allows one to withhold acceptance of that possibility, however appealing it might be, until sufficiently compelling reasons to accept it have been presented.

            In my opinion the two are of equal importance, especially when dealing with complicated, controversial and world-changing possibilities such as the one at hand.

            Too often, open-mindedness is simply used as a synonym for ‘believing what I do’ and closed-mindedness is a trait we ascribe to people who don’t share our own opinions. Could that be because it’s more comforting to believe that any contradiction of our own opinion stems from ignorance than to accept the possibility that we may be wrong? I think so.

          2. Elite Commander

            - Edit

            True, but you did say ‘rather than’. I will admit that this is a minor point to quibble over but I think what I said about the use of the term “open minded” and its antonym accurately reflects a condition of the movement which, if overcome, would make the movement an environment far more conducive to building a consensus on real, substantiated truths as opposed to pseudoscience and conjecture.

            I repeat my call for more skepticism from people who wish to examine critically any topic at all, but with special emphasis one those concerning nationalism, namely those commonly labelled as conspiracy theories and all points of view relevant to biology on which major ideological tenets of the movement must depend.

  4. How about a bit of moon worship or at least some recognition of the influence it plays in our lives?
    OK it’s not a God but a piece of rock.
    Besides the tides, women obviously work to a 28 day cycle & for a lot of people who are paid 4 weekly, their financial cycle is also synchronised to the moon cycle.
    I think the idea of 13 months of 28 days each in a year would be better too, I think it would provide a more natural rhythm to life.

    1. We should live in tune with Nature’s natural rhythms Steve, but if you are serious about your suggestion that we should worship inanimate objects then it shows that you have completely missed the point of this article.

      1. Well as I say it’s a piece of rock, I wouldn’t see much point in worshipping an inanimate article but I like the idea of recognising natural rhythms a bit more.
        Then there is that whole thing about Circadian rhythms & whether we affect those with our lifestyles leading to problems.
        I notice a lot of Nationalists or people inclined that way, tend to say get away from the TV probably due to the hypnotic effect of it on the subconscious.
        Which is partly the technology of it & also the content with varying forms of propaganda & reinforcement of the status quo which we’re not happy with.

      2. Elite Commander

        - Edit

        I really don’t care what people worship as long as it’s not a political leader (because that’s dangerous) and as long as their worship doesn’t have to impact on me or anyone vulnerable in any way.

        I think the question of what nationalists ought to worship is very much secondary to the question of how nationalists get themselves into a position from which their opinions – religious or political – matter one iota.

  5. Maybe because we have free will, God doesn’t seem to intervene much but obviously that doesn’t really apply to animals as they don’t have that belief, though good & bad things happen to them.
    Has a study been done to see if people who believe in God have better lives than those who don’t?
    My guess is that it would come out about even.

  6. anyone who believes the cosmos came into existance with the big bang has to answer the question what gathered all the matter and energy of the universe into this ball??

    Surely not entropy because this is the opposite of entropy Ok since entropy is the result of applying pure mathematical and physical laws to time space energy and matter how has that been contravened to gather all the matter and energy??
    That’s what science says. som scientists postulate that that happened, but cannot suggest how nor do they have any proof. And no physicist has provided anything but simply issues extremly limited speculations.
    Fortunately I am not one of the fools who disbelieves in a metaphysical universe, rather I find that self evident intellectually and more important I have experienced it spiritually and physically.
    That is why you cannot argue a Christian out of his or her beliefs. You are like blind people disputing sight. and after a while we weary of playing verbal ping pong with those who think if they say the last word in the back and forth game they somehow have won a logical victory.
    God is real!! Christ is real!! discover Him for yourself or keep on with your fruitless arguments and nonsense. suit yourself!

    1. JohnB, you state: “anyone who believes the cosmos came into existance with the big bang has to answer the question what gathered all the matter and energy of the universe into this ball??”, but by the same logic[sic] one could state that, ‘anyone who believes in God has to answer the question, of where God came from?’
      You go first. 😉

      1. Elite Commander

        - Edit

        I would add that believing the cosmos came into existence with the big bang is not a matter of faith similar to accepting literally the account given in Genesis.
        The Big Bang model is based on evidence, calculation and reasoning, whereas Genesis (or even non-literal Christian interpretations of the origin of the universe) is based on nothing. In fact, the evidence for the Big Bang is so strong that I would go as far as to say that ‘believing’ should be replaced by ‘accepting’ in this discussion when it comes to the Big Bang.
        It is not necessary to explain the origin of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang when showing that there actually was a big bang, in much the same way that proving the occurrence of evolution does not require a demonstration of how life came about in the first place, and proving that someone was born does not require a proof of his or her parentage.
        We live in this universe and we are products, one way or another, of the laws of this universe. We cannot observe this universe externally. Therefore we should not expect questions concerning the creation of the universe, or the time before the universe (if such a thing even makes sense) to be easy ones, and certainly we should not expect them to be answered in a collection of scripts which predate modern observations by several thousand years, and were composed at a time when man did not even know of electricity.
        If you wish to insist that the universe must have been created by God because all effects have causes, then you simply push back the problem and have to explain God’s cause. If you wish to then insist that God requires no cause, why not save a step and say that the universe requires no cause? In this argument God falls prey to Occam’s Razor which states that in explaining something, unnecessary elements of an explanation should be dispensed with.
        Despite your insistence that God is real and Christ is real, a billion others will tell me that Allah is real and Mohammed is his messenger. Many millions more will inform me that I should worship Hindu deities, and tens of thousands of pagans in this country advise me not to listen to any of the above. Who am I to believe if I wish to avoid eternal torture at the hands of a devil? By what method should I compare the proofs (if there are any) offered by each faith?
        To simply repeat ad nauseum your personal experiences of and faith in God to an atheist is to make pure white noise because your utterances will be matched with equal convincing power by a thousand other faiths, each as groundless as the next.

        1. God is the creator The only thing we really know without having the holy spirit in our lives is ” I think therefore I am “. That answers the question of being or nothingness, But in a physical sense we know that no human being existed before the sperm hit the egg and became zygote. That is a beginning for our physical being in this world But in a spiritual sense we know nothing and can say nothing about any beginning.
          God is eternal Physical concepts like beginning and end are mere constructs of the physical universe which was constructed by the Mind of the spiritual universe., The one that cannot be quantified by measurement. Or tell me how you would measure a thought. Or how physical movement of matter and energy create thought.

          Yet you insist upon limiting everything to physical rules of measure as though these concepts are some sort of absolutes. Einstein disproved that, yet you say you can time the “Big Bang” ?
          The Lord says before the big bang was I am,. He also says “Seek and you will find.” You do no seek Him so you don’t find Him.

          1. I’ll reply in parts.
            1.) “God is the creator”. And how do you demonstrate that this opinion is correct?
            2.) Actually, the only thing we can “really know” FULL STOP is “I think therefore I am” following the reasoning of Descartes. Having a belief in the holy spirit is something which you can be deceived about. Read what he actually wrote.
            3.) If in a spiritual sense we can know and say nothing about any beginning, how can you then go on to insist that you have the answer e.g. God is the creator?
            4.) “God is eternal” – again, please prove this. The physical universe (or, in other words, the universe) is what we can actually observe with our senses. If physics is constructed by the mind then religion is certainly constructed by the mind.
            5.) I don’t claim to be able to measure a thought. Maybe one day it will be possible to relate thoughts to neuroscience. I have no idea; it’s irrelevant. Just because something is not known gives you no excuse to fill the gap with God (as was done with the movement of the planets, the origin of man, etc etc).
            6.) No, I don’t insist upon limiting everything to physical rules. But I do insist on describing physical phenomena with physical rules. Unreasonable?
            7.) Please explain specifically what Einstein “disproved”.
            8.) What some stone age book claims some dreamt up deity said is completely and utterly irrelevant.
            9.) It doesn’t matter whether I “seek Him” or not. I have a thousand faiths telling me who to seek and no method for choosing between them since they are all as without foundation as each other. Besides, there are people who have become atheistic after once believing.

            1. I think God should clear up some of the confusion & tell us who has got it right!
              Though as I said before, a girl with a vision in France said we have all got it wrong!

      2. I feel that God could well be the product of a natural phenominon called ‘first sentient life form’. I think the answer lies not in whether we can or will know, but that we can NEVER know. We are after all, too complex ourselves to understand our own minds, or that of others. Presumably, God was the originator-creator of other sentient beings, including us, thus God is the father of us. What came before, is never going to be known.

        1. I think you can’t say with certainty that we will never know what came before God.
          An argument can be made that God didn’t exist before or until man believed in him/her/it.
          If God did exist before man, did God invent us, so as to have something that would believe in God?
          Would God be that vain?

          1. The Bible states that God created mankind so that we might love him and worship him. As far as Christianity is concerned, that our purpose to worship God and in the book of revelations it describes the scene in Heaven in which God sits surrounded by a host of angels and all of the souls of those who have been saved and they repeatedly sing throughout eternity, ‘Holy, holy, holy, praise be to the Lord God almighty’.
            My guess is that would get a bit dull after a while.

            1. God exists only in-so-far as he is immanent and exists in a state of partial development within us and every other entity within the Cosmos. Through Cosmotheism and self-directed evolution, we can over many millennia evolve to a state of total consciousness and omnipotence, and in that way, by achieving Godhood, make God in our own image.

            2. I think man made the image of God or Gods, God making man in his image doesn’t work as God, if existing, doesn’t live on Earth so being human would serve no physical purpose as the environment would be different.
              God might appear human for face to face meetings…maybe.

    2. A science programme I watched reckons that the entire universe is made of basically the same components but with the stars & planets all variations of that, using some or all the components in different mixes & that the Earth was one mix that produced something that changes & evolves.
      So because the universe is a big place I guess the same thing could have happened elsewhere in it but maybe with different results, though recognisable as life.
      Somebody once quoted a Biblical reference to me about Jesus being a shepherd with other flocks to attend to, meaning on other planets?

      1. So what would put a big hole in the theory, is if it turns out that there is something somewhere that is not found in the rest of the universe like a gas or some sort of material or that there was something else different outside of the universe.

        1. If there’s some material elsewhere that isn’t made of matter then we wouldn’t recognize it as a material, so that’s an oxymoron for starters. If it was made of matter (which it would have to be, for us to call it a material or a gas) then it fits into the current model nicely.

          If there is something different outside of the universe then it doesn’t require explaining by a model used to explain the origin of matter in this universe.

          So either way, what you suggest could never put a hole in the theory.

          1. What I mean is that the scientists say that the universe is all made up of the same basic components, so if something different was discovered such as new form of gas or a new element, that would blow a hole in that theory.
            I personally think there could be such a thing either in or outside the universe.
            The other thing is that on Earth, we are carbon based life forms & that produces a lot of variety but what if something was based on hydrogen or something else, that might produce something that was intelligent & a lot of people might mistake that for a God, as we would not recognise it as being what we are used to?
            Say a talking rock or cloud of gas but then we might not recognise its version of language!

            1. Actually, scientists have found new elements… that is why they created the periodic table… and when they find them they categorizes them into the periodic table. No holes were made in any theory because of new elements being found…

              Thing is, if you take a look at the periodic table, there are no holes in it any longer (and there was back in the days when people did not know what e.g. plutonium, ruthenium or americium was).

              Now they only newly “discovered” materials are made in laboratories and particle accelerators, but they only exist for less than microscopic amounts of time and are usually unseen by the naked eye because the quantities are so ridiculously small.
              Those newly “discovered” (read: created) are put in at the bottom, as they are always heavier than the last one they created, the one in prior order in the periodic table.

              Get to know basic chemistry and physics. Get to know the periodic table before you talk about elements. Mk?

              “Say a talking rock or cloud of gas but then we might not recognise its version of language!”

              Has nothing to do with new alien elements even if they were intelligent and social in some unknown way.
              Unless you are talking about matter exchanging information of some kind, like the spin of subatomic particles or radiation of isotopes, as being able to constitute parts of an alien language.

              If you want to pin a spiritual dimension to it, don’t talk about matter, matter has been categorized in all its natural forms already, only unnatural forms are still being “discovered” (read: created).

              A spiritual dimension however, could literally, be another spatial dimension of which we know absolutely nothing, cannot measure, cannot know if it contains matter (matter as defined in the periodic table), etc.

          2. Elite Commander

            - Edit

            First of all an element is just a name given to a type of atom with a particular number of protons in its nucleus. We already know of all elements found in nature because we can identify one in the real world for each number up to a certain point. The ones after that point, we can predict and attempt to form in experiments (they are very unstable and disappear quickly) – but they’re not made of anything new, just a different configuration of protons and neutrons which fit into the standard model as we already know it and which we can explain using that model.

            Anything which we could discover in space would have to be discovered via radiation of some form, be it light or any other part of the spectrum, reaching us – in other words, via the interception of particles already in the standard model. Anything else and we wouldn’t actually be able to discover it, because we couldn’t perceive it.

            Besides, if a new type of matter were to be discovered then to claim that the entire universe is no longer made up of the same basic components would be ridiculous, because you would have to prove that this new type of matter did not and could not exist anywhere else in the universe – an impossible task.

            We are carbon based life forms as you say: our biology is based on the chemistry of the carbon atom. It’s perhaps possible (we don’t know: it’s never been observed or tested) that life based on another element could exist, but it’s extremely unlikely to be hydrogen which forms a comparatively limited number of compounds and could not produce the variety of chemical interactions necessary for something as complicated as life to arise. A much more likely candidate is silicon which is in the same chemical group as carbon and can undergo much the same reactions to a certain extent.

            Silicon and hydrogen are both elements and as such they are perfectly well explained by the standard model as it exists today and are nothing new.

            I think you make far too many assumptions about what may we possible. If we could not recognize the language of a certain form of life because it is so different from us, then my guess is that we would never recognize it as a form of life in the first place or even be able to discover it, so the question is purely and forever hypothetical and not useful in any regard.

            If this other form of life is something we are able to discover then it’s very likely to be similar to us in physical composition and blows no holes in any widely accepted theories.

            1. Obviously you are better educated in this regard, I was pretty poor at physics & the like as I couldn’t relate to it as being something practical.
              But I think about these things now.
              I did pluck the idea of hydrogen as being a basis for a life form out of the air, so the idea of a silicon based life form intrigued me.
              Imagine some sort of silicon based life form comes to Earth, it might think that the phones & computers are the intelligent ones here!
              I suppose if my theoretical aliens came along & we didn’t recognise them as anything intelligent, they also might make the same mistake & then it’s “ships in the night” without the lights on & we are left still thinking we are the only intelligent things in the universe.
              But if they didn’t make the same mistake, then we wouldn’t know what just hit us.
              I guess a lot of scientific theory is just that until something better comes along.

          3. I’ve studied quite a bit, perhaps I’ve forgotten how little I used to know.

            Even not being silicon based, looking at Parliament you might well think the phones and computers are the intelligent ones.

            Scientific theories aren’t ‘theories’ in the sense you’d mean ‘theory’ in common parlance. A theory is in science a well-established model which has been proven through experiment; it’s not just conjecture.

      2. Three subjects one should never discuss, two of these are Religion and Politics. These are shaped early in life by ones parents, peers, or tutors and are passed genetically from father to son…….or daughter. Unlike Sex that one likes or one doesn’t.

        1. Well obviously a lot of people don’t agree with that, because they do discuss such things & can be very different to their parents for awhile at least.

    3. You are doing skeptics of Darwinism a disfavor.

      There was no “ball gathered” and there was no time in which to gather it.
      This is what came “before” (a useless term when talking about a time before time) and pay close attention, here it comes: ?
      Yes, exactly, nobody knows.

      The problem with many who are skeptical about Darwinism is that they jump too fast to other conclusion which are even less empirically likely, only because their bias tells them so.

      Let us just leave it at this:
      Darwinian explanation of evolution is unlikely because of entropy ruling the universe.
      Not implying anything else. Not even stating a counter-hypothesis. Just saying.

  7. “My guess is that would get a bit dull after a while.”
    Maybe that’s hell?
    It would be like being the parent of a lot of demanding children with the attention spans of gnats, all demanding contradictory things, the temptation would be to close the door on the nursery for awhile.

    1. Elite Commander

      - Edit

      I think theologically we are on shaky ground making this point – heaven is supposed to be a state of eternal bliss. Eternal means “outside of time” rather then “going on forever” as far as I am aware, so it can’t be compared directly to how the experience would seem to us on Earth.

      In any case, there’s absolutely no evidence that this is what happens to anyone after they die.

      1. So that would point to a different dimension outside of the physical universe that science recognises but I don’t have any evidence either way as well.
        A lot of religions seem to sell it as what people want, which appears to be an idealised version of Earth, which makes no sense to me, it would be an artificial construction, a fantasy.
        I think any further existence would be something completely different.

        1. Elite Commander

          - Edit

          Heaven doesn’t have to be physical. Clearly the soul (as Christianity would have you see it, and if there is such a thing) cannot be physical: it’s not made of anything, it can’t be created or broken by physical means, it can’t be measured or tested for or explained or even proven to exist by physical science.

          I imagine that a state of existence for a soul would not be physical either and so it would make absolutely no sense to describe it as a different dimension (a physical term) or as being outside of the physical universe (another physical expression). It would have to be described in entirely different language.

          1. Yes I assume heaven is not physical in the way I understand it, I assume also there must be a scientific theory for that one.
            But the way people or religion portray it, is as a replica of the physical world & that makes no sense or point to me if it’s not a physical thing.
            But it’s probably meant to be reassuring to the faithful.
            It brings to mind “2001” when the astronaut is evolving into the star child, he’s kept in a replica of a hotel room that the alien intelligence has constructed for him, presumably to make his passage into a new form more easier for him?
            So I think any afterlife would be very different to anything we know now or can comprehend.

  8. So in the beginning was a vast empty dead space apart from a large rock that somehow exploded & as it spread out the debris became the universe, stars & planets?
    It is reckoned at some point the universe stops expanding & will then pull itself together by gravity, while at the same time the stars will all eventually burn out & the universe will be completely dead at that point.
    Maybe if the big bang goes completely in reverse & the large rock reforms out of the fragments, then maybe the whole cycle starts again?
    Now whether you need God for that I don’t know.

    1. No, Steve, there was not a “large rock” that exploded, there was as far as scientists can tell a single point within the nothingness, from which all of the energy from which the matter of our universe is composed, exploded outwards in all directions.
      The sub-atomic energy particles collided and in some cases combined forming increasingly large particles; first atoms; then molecules; then composite matter; and so on, until asteroids; planets and stars formed, with weather systems etc.
      Some people do speculate that there will be a ‘cold death’ when the Cosmos has reached the fullest extent of its expansion and others speculate that it could collapse back in upon itself, but that will be many billions of years in the future.

      1. So that would mean all this matter, what we take as physical & solid came from nothing?
        Which makes no sense in physics, they also say energy doesn’t disappear but becomes something else, though I would have thought the universe will eventually suffer “cold death”.

        1. Every thing in existence, whether gas, liquid or solid is at its most basic level composed of sub-atomic energy particles.

          1. That reminds me of someone in a TV documentary saying that if you removed the gaps between the atoms or some such thing, that a battleship could be shrunk down to the size of a tennis ball but would still weigh the same.

          2. Removing the gaps between the atoms is essentially what happens in a neutron star, which is so incredible dense that a ball of neutron star material the width of a city would easily outweigh the entire planet.

        2. The conservation of energy is an inviolable law in physics. The Big Bang does not require a violation of the law: it only states that once, all the energy that there now is was contained within a single point.

          1. I accept that is a well accepted scientific theory that’s had a lot of thought & research put into it.
            I don’t have any better theories to suggest but do find it difficult to understand why the entire universe & its energy would have been within a single point, whether it was in that state for awhile, maybe the concept of time was different & why did it suddenly explode?
            But maybe we won’t know that in our lifetimes.
            Also if the universe decays to a cold death, where would the energy go to?
            I guess if there’s solid matter the atoms are still vibrating/moving slightly?

            1. A clue Steve could come from the fact that all sub-atomic particles have a property that is described as ‘spin’. Physicists say that ‘spin’ in this sense does not mean the same a ‘spin’ in the normal sense of the word, simply that the particle has the same mathematical properties as a ‘point rotating about an axis’. That doesn’t sound to different to ‘spin’ in the normal sense of the word to me, but what physicists also state is that most sub-atomic particles have ‘no rest mass’.
              Now, I may be completely wrong here and perhaps someone more knowledgeable in this field can put me right if I am, but I interpret all this as meaning that the sub-atomic particles only have ‘mass’ when they are ‘spinning’, and should they stop ‘spinning’ and come to a ‘rest’, they appear to have no ‘mass’.
              You can get an awfully large number of sub-atomic particles into a single point if they have no mass and therefore, perhaps the universe came into being, when ‘something’ made a large number of resting sub-atomic particles start spinning?

              1. Nobody knows why the universe has mass, but theories are pointing to something called a Higgs field (or many such with different properties, giving rise to different sets of natural laws in different universes, in multiverse theory), something like a revival of the 19th century conception of “Aether”.
                They are looking for this bad boy of physics:


                They think the Higgs Boson is the reason the universe has mass, but they don’t know.
                They have not even proved the existence of the particle.

                “The presence of this field [Higgs field], now believed to be confirmed, explains why some fundamental particles have mass when, based on the symmetries controlling their interactions, they should be massless.”

                1. Sorry, I need to correct myself here.

                  I said: “They have not even proved the existence of the particle.”

                  They have found some footprints of what they think is the particle, because it matches the description of what it should look like according to the theories of extrapolation. More like the shadow of the particle.

                  “in an attempt to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study. On 4 July 2012, the discovery of a new particle with a mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c2 was announced; physicists suspected that it was the Higgs boson.[11][12][13] Since then, the particle has been shown to behave, interact, and decay in many of the ways predicted by the Standard Model.”

          2. Max, the simple explanation: in the beginning there was only pure energy, which eventually condensed into subatomic particles and then some of those particles were able to assemble into more complex structures (atoms, molecules). The particles didn’t exist at first.

      2. Actually, scientists can’t tell.
        Nobody knows. It is not measurable, it is not possible to extrapolate.
        The definition of Big Bang is that it not only originated matter but also time, since spacetime and matter/energy are hinged upon each other.

        It is unknowable. Only faith can give a human any type of answer. Even if it is faith in science.

  9. Anyway imagine that humans are the most intelligent things in the universe!
    That would be the biggest cosmic joke going.

      1. Some would say that’s why there must be a God!
        I think there are probably other intelligent beings but they avoid us.
        My theory on the UFOs & alien visitors is that they are probably humans from the future trying to work out at what point things got screwed up!

        1. My theory on UFOs and alien visitors is that probably no such things exist on or near Earth. If in the future we have the amazing capability of time travel then I’d estimate that things don’t get as screwed up as you fear.

          1. I admit I’ve never seen a UFO or a ghost but I think such things could exist & be explained.
            The interesting thing about the time travelling aliens or humans is that they appear to be white!
            I have never heard of an African or moslem type of alien space visitor.
            But maybe in those countries they might have legends of that sort.
            Also mohammed is said to have split the moon but I don’t believe that for an instant.

            1. The hypothesis I was suggesting is that if sub-atomic particles have no mass when they are at rest, it is almost the same as them ceasing to exist and in one sense a sub-atomic particle could be regarded as a ‘little pinch of nothing’ that has been made to spin. In this way, the entire universe could indeed ‘spring out of nothing’ if countless billions of ‘little pinches of nothing’ began to spin simultaneously – matter composed of a ‘soup’ of sub-atomic particles would explode outwards as all these particles acquired mass.
              Are not these sub-atomic particles of which we speak just ‘pure energy’?

              1. That’s an interesting idea, a bit like the idea of a balloon being inflated, visually at least.
                What got them to spin in the first place I guess we might never know.

          2. I really haven’t learned enough yet to say whether that hypothesis is valid. However, I know that matter can be converted into energy in fission and fusion reactions, and I have read that only energy is said to have existed in the moments after the big bang, and that the energy condensed into matter.
            I think spin is a property particles have which isn’t able to be changed, like mass.

            1. Then what does the term mean when a particle is described as “having no rest mass”?
              My impression from what I have read as a lay-person, is that most sub-atomic particles are exceedingly difficult to isolate and observe because of the great speed with which they move and their incredibly small size and that when scientists attempt to bring them to a rest so that they can be examined more closely, they effectively ‘disappear’.

          3. This conversation is only going to get more complicated and less relevant, and we are already at the limits of what I can currently explain. Suffice it to say that particles can emerge from energy, and that this process can be applied in explaining the origin of matter after the Big Bang.

  10. So the original point of energy would weigh as much as the entire universe does now?
    As it is basically the same thing but with moving particles that have formed into matter?

    1. That’s a possibility Steve, but if all of those sub-atomic particles are at rest, have no mass and effectively cease to exist, then possibly not.
      It would seem to me that this property of ‘spin’ may be the key to the existence of matter as sub-atomic particles have this property, and the structure of an atom is in microcosm similar to the structure of our solar system, each having a central element (the nucleus/the sun) with particles/planets orbiting around it, and with each particle/planet spinning about an axis. Furthermore, individual planets spin about an axis and many have spinning moons orbiting them. We also have individual solar systems grouped together to form galaxies that also spin.
      As galaxies rotate, they throw out long trailing ‘arms’ composed of millions of solar systems and in this way take on the form of a spiral or swastikoid. See: http://www.swastika-info.com/images/kosmos/galaxy/gal_M100.jpg
      Interestingly our pagan ancestors created a symbol to represent what they saw as the sun rolling across the sky from east to west. They recognised that the sun gave warmth and light and therefore life and energy to our planet and that symbol, the sun-wheel or swastika became a symbol of good luck and wellbeing.
      Interesting also is the fact that our DNA is composed of base pairs of Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine arranged as base pairs in a double helix, which is again suggestive of turning or spinning.

    2. Weight and gravity is the relation between and force that mass exerts on other mass.
      There was no mass and there certainly was no “other” so there was no gravity at work before the Big Band.

      Gravity is also the suspected product of a force carrying particle called a graviton (not proven to exist yet).
      If no such particles were in existence there was no gravity and no weight.

      Your question is irrelevant.

      1. The question is not irrelevant as it got answers & some more theories were expanded on.
        I like the idea of a big band though, much nicer than a big bang.
        But we still don’t know for certain either way & we have more pressing problems to worry about in the short term.

  11. I think Cosmotheism, while excellent thinking, requires a large dose of the wisdom of conservatism, since Cosmotheism is a revolutionary not evolutionary change in religion going against the long traditions of what people think of religion. This is no small problem, and this also is a problem with racialism, it has lacked the prudence of conservatism when it comes to making changes. I believe we need to revitalize Christianity to bring it up to speed with the sacredness of evolution, and with the natural evolutionary principle of ethnopluralism, and not reject this ancient religion. Uniting the new with the old has always been the wisest way to proceed, it’s not easy but it’s easier than revolution, which almost never works..

  12. The problem of “scientifically inclined” deism, and pure darwinian thinking as well is exactly this: “gradually increasing in complexity”

    A random process “gradually increasing in complexity” in a system of natural laws that entails what we call entropy, is contrary to logic and intuition.
    Now science seems to explain this away by saying there are zones of “negative entropy” like for instance the surface of crystals, whereupon life could have randomly formed.
    That just skews the issue chronologically backwards, how did these zones of “negative entropy” even form in a universe where entropy rules?

    The problem is this:
    The universe seems to generally promote what we call chaos.
    That is, the devolution of order into less orderly states.
    Intelligence and life runs contrary to this. Intelligence and organisms fights this at all levels, creating order out of chaos, like taking a sea of totally random amino acids and ordering them into proteins e.g.
    So how did something more complex arise out of a less complex state if the less complex state is the naturally promoted and original state?
    It is like the equivalent of saying; “mathematics discovered itself”.

    And over to consciousness, which is also totally dependent on faith. Why is that?
    Because science does not know how the brain, nervous system, endocrine system and the body in general produces a consciousness, or even if the body is the producer of consciousness at all.
    There is the problem of qualia, known as the Hard Problem. No existing scientific model explains it, all religions do, but they, of course, lack the empirical models to make it epistemologically sound.


    And over to evolution. We don’t know for sure if Darwin uncovered all the mechanisms, he probably did not.
    His principle “Survival of the Fittest”, usually misinterpreted as “Survival of the Strongest” only seems to cover certain lone wolf predators, unless one counts socializing and group tactics as being “fitter” than species who lack it. Now there is genetic drift, there are new findings in epigenetics that seem to revive Lamarck’s theories and new findings about how genetic material can be transferred by ways of what is called microchimerisms, which revives theories about telegony.
    Evolution is utterly complex and even more so when it comes to our species and especially our race that most frequently uses domestication and eugenics to shape other species, other races and itself, even domesticating itself (think: liberal democracy). And domestication is not necessarily eugenic but many times dysgenic.

    But I think we can say this for certain:
    Some type of cultural (i.e. intelligent) eugenic effect produced the unique qualities of our race. It was not just harsh weather and natural selection but a conscious choice that we should group together and start planning ahead to make food caches, to make weapons, to improve hunting tactics, etc, in order to survive this climate.
    There is a spiritual dimension to the creation of our race, something destined and teleological about it. If we want to call it “A Call of the Gods” or whatever is just semantics in the end. What matters is that there is more purpose to our race than sheer random events creating and leading us. There is a higher purpose.

    So eugenics undoubtedly produced the Aryan Race and that is why it is essential to advocate the reinstatement of proper eugenic programs on a conscious level.

    What defines and sets us apart from the rest of mankind? Is it really our closeness to nature?
    No, unless you define our way of studying and understanding the mechanisms of nature to be “closeness” to it.
    Our innovative and creative spirit, our way of creating means of conquering and taming the world and its raw elemental powers, that is what sets us apart.
    Superior technology is what makes us a superior race and we all know it.
    Intelligence sets us apart. And thus it naturally follows that intelligence (in the form of eugenics) also created us.
    So what I want to say wit hall of this is; no, evolution is not blind, a blind evolution would not have created us.

  13. I would like to say thank you to Elite Commander, Patrik Fridén & others for the great explanations of the various theories about why our universe is the way it is.
    It’s a complicated subject, well explained in a concise form.
    It proves that we have some intelligence on our side.
    No doubt more information will be added to the debate in future.

Comments are closed.