Letter 9: We've Reached a Pivot Point

In the previous letter, I stated that I would analyze the major theories of science against the Matrix Theory. These theories are the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and the Theories of Quantum Mechanics. In that letter, we covered the Theory of Evolution, and so in this letter we will move on to the other theories.

 

The Big Bang Theory is based upon the concept that the universe, which consists of at least 100 billion galaxies that are spread out over at least 93 billion light years, was at one time condensed into a single point in space. This theory is tied to Einstein’s discovery that mass and energy are actually the same thing in different forms and that energy can be converted to mass and vise versa. Thus, this theory postulate’s that all the universe’s energy was at one time concentrated at a single point in space, but then expanded very rapidly (like an explosion, earning it the name “Big Bang”) and it thereafter converted into mass and eventually various forms of matter as it spread out and cooled, forming the galaxies.

 

This theory sits better with me than the Theory of Evolution does, or at least I do not find issues with it that are altogether unbelievable. However, the problem that the Big Bang Theory has is that it only explains the existence of the inanimate universe. It does not attempt to explain how life came into existence in the universe. On this topic, the Big Bang Theory simply defers back to the Theory of Evolution, thus linking the two theories together and consequently leaving me with something that I can’t believe. Thus, given that the Big Bang Theory is not able to stand on its own, it has the same problem that the Theory of Evolution does, and will until science does one of two things: (1) sure up the Theory of Evolution or (2) replace it with something better.

 

Option one, however, is a lost cause because of the logical loops that evolution is stuck in. It’s a dead theory. Science instead needs a theory or theories that can explain life in general, including how it began and the condition of life, meaning consciousness, intelligence, and emotion. This is where quantum mechanics & quantum physics enter the picture. These disciplines have done a good job of providing data about the subatomic world that includes a link between human consciousness and matter (as we discussed in Letter 4). Thus, it seems logical for quantum mechanics to use this data to devise a theory that explains the existence of intelligent life. However, my observation of their attempts to do so leads me to conclude that they have gotten lost in the complexity of the science. For instance, a theory that has evolved is the String Theory. This theory may someday explain the existence of life and its conditions: our hearts (emotions), our minds (intelligence), and our souls (consciousness). However, so far it only offers insight on things that are inanimate while requiring too many dimensions of space to do it (I believe they are up to 11 now, which has pushed them past the point where the data is mathematically and/or analytically useful).

 

Other theories have evolved from quantum mechanics, but they are more philosophical than scientific, and when I sift through them, I come to an interesting observation. Though they differ in theory, they share a common thread, for they appear to be saying, “Though there may be some form of intelligence responsible for life and the universe, it is not the God(s) of religion.” In other words, my observation is that these scientists are conceding (just a bit) that there is some form of intelligent creative force or some form of mysticism present in the universe that is responsible for the origin and existence of life. However, they do not agree with religion regarding what it is. Thus, their argument with religion appears to be shifting from “there is no God” to “whatever it is that is responsible for creation is not your God.”

 

This brings us back to what I mean when I say that people are trapped in the argument. The Matrix Theory is founded on the same data that science/quantum mechanics have founded their theories on. Therefore, they could use that data to postulate the Matrix Theory for themselves if they wanted to, but they can’t or won’t do it. They are locked on their side of the isle and they won’t even consider the possibility that a God could exist who is their Father. Their theories go so far as to speculate that “We are our own Gods” or “The universe is its own conscious collective God.” Really? Do I even need to write a letter covering how illogical those concepts are? However, I will take a positive sign from this nonetheless, being that both sides of the isle are at least now offering theories that include some form of intelligent creator or God. Thus, with respect to the question, “Is there a God or some form of intelligence the created all things?”, it would seem we can just barely agree enough to say yes, and move on to the next question, which is what the argument has been about all along: “Who is God?”

 

This however brings me to a pivotal point in my letters. I am at the point where I will likely lose the other half of my readers (assuming the science crowd left the lecture hall a while ago). When I study the details of the debate between science and religion, I do not blame science for taking the stance that they have taken, for I myself find that religion has offered theories on God that are less believable than what science has offered regarding the origin of life. In the next letter, we will start to explore who God is.

 

Until next time,

 

Joshua

 

Reviews

[Idiotekque]

Since you did request that I read one or more of these letters, I'll just say this: I don't enjoy the sort of thing where someone winds on and on about personal views and inspections and opinions. There's nothing essentially wrong with this philosophical type of thing, but it feels indulgent to me. When someone drones on and on about this sort of thing, it's almost as if they feel their thoughts are so darn spiffy that everyone else should listen to them. No offense, perhaps you have a different objective entirely, but that's just my view on this sort of thing, so I likely won't be reading many of these.

People love this sort of thing here though, so if you wanted reviews, you'll get em (I don't need to tell you that, though). Concerning this subject, it's not entirely that complicated in my opinion. Human understanding is essentially flawed. We use a miniscule fraction of our brains, and no matter how intellectual any given person might be, and whatever "theories" they may produce, it's going to be the relative equivalent of a three-year-old telling you how to build a supercomputer. Science is figurative Swiss cheese when it comes to origin theories; I watched something on the Big Bang once and a "respected" scientist and theorist described the Big Bang of consisting of "some kind of weird energy". Weird energy? Is that a technical term?

In any case, the institution of Christianity is riddled with human tradition, Pagan influence from the first century, and general misinformation. It's a shame that human incompetence has cast such a bad tasting murk against the Bible itself, but that's just human stupidity. Can't escape it.

Have fun with your writing.

[CHRIS ANDES]

after a long journey of reading,...it re echoed through my soul!!

[Coffee Vampier]

I have always wondered who God is personally. In my church we believe we are children of God. This being said.... wouldn't that make us potential God/Goddesses yourselves? I am sure you must have wondered this before but your writings strike the question.. why is he testing us?

[CrimsonBlaze]

All I can say is: wow.... Awesome write :D

[~ Stefanie ~]

This was fascinating!

[EMF]

Absolutley, metaphisically fascinating. A stunning write. Superb work

[Kat Wildd]

you raise some very good questions and some of them are ones that I've been wrestling with for years. It's nice to know that others have these questions also