THE  GOD  THEORY


by  BERNARD  HAISCH (2006)




INTRODUCTION


Much of today’s religious dogma concerning God and the nature and destiny of mankind is flawed and irrational. It fails to resolve basic paradoxes—like why bad things happen to good people, and why some are born into privilege and some into starvation and misery. Moreover, the conflicting claims of the worlds religions contribute directly to the violence and hatred that afflicts much of the planet. On the other hand, rejecting anything pejoratively called supernatural in the name of science is equally flawed and irrational.


[AS  FOR  HIS  FIRST  QUESTIONS, GOD  IS  AT  PRESENT  MAINLY  LETTING  THE  WORLD  AND  ITS  PEOPLE  MOVE  ALONG,  AS  IT  WILLS,  BRINGING  FORTH  GOOD  AND  BAD;  GOD  IS  KEEPING  HANDS  OFF  FOR  THE  MOST  PART.  AND  HE  DOES  NOT  PROMISE  HIS  CHILDREN  WILL  HAVE  IMMUNITY  FROM  “TIME  AND  CHANCE”  THAT  HAPPENS  IN  LIFE  TO  THE  MAJORITY,  SO  IT  IS  ALSO  FOR  CHRISTIANS…..TIME  AND  CHANCE  HAPPENS  TO  THEM  ALSO. IT  IS  NOT  YET  TIME  TO  SEND  JESUS  CHRIST  BACK  TO  EARTH  TO  BRING  IN  THE  AGE  TO  COME,  THE  AGE  OF  THE  EARTH  BEING  FULL  OF  THE  KNOWLEDGE  OF  GOD  AS  THE  WATERS  COVER  THE  SEA  BEDS;  IT’S  NOT  YET  TIME  FOR  THE  PEACEFUL,  WONDERFUL,  HEALTHY,  NO  HARM  OR  DESTRUCTION,  THE  LAMB  AND  LION  DWELLING  TOGETHER,  AND  THE  AGE  OF  SALVATION  FOR  ALL  PEOPLES  -  Keith Hunt]  


After three decades as a professional scientist and a lifetime as a seeker, I have arrived at a personal worldview that offers a satisfying and hopeful explanation of reality—a worldview that is not only possible, rational, and compatible with modern science, but compelling and capable of resolving some of the most intransigent moral issues facing us today. It embodies a way out of our global dilemma and so I offer it for your consideration.


Let me make it clear that I don't claim to speak directly to God. I am too conditioned as a scientist for that. In fact, if God ever calls, my line will probably be busy . . . but he might try my email. Precisely because I am a professional scientist, this book represents a gamble for me.


[AND  FROM  WHAT  I  SEE  LATER  I  AGREE  THE  AUTHOR  DOES  NOT  SPEAK  TO  GOD,  AND  I  DO  NOT  THINK  GOD  HAS  SPOKEN  TO  HIM  EITHER  -  Keith Hunt]


I am gambling that there is a significant audience interested in a kind of rational spirituality that can nudge the world in a more tolerant and uplifting direction. I am gambling that, somewhere between the hardcore reductionists who explain all things as the sum of their parts and greet every suggestion of spirituality with a sneer, and the unquestioning faithful who receive their beliefs full-blown from prophets and preachers, there is a group of philosophical centrists—well-intentioned, open-minded, skeptical, but free spirits eager to investigate their own nature. I am gambling that these inquiring spirits, among whom I count myself, will join me as I explore the handiwork of an extremely ingenious God who, nevertheless, can only experience material reality by living in and through us and all beings everywhere.


To you, I propose a God whose purposeful ideas somehow became the laws of nature underlying our universe. I propose a God whose infinite diversity of ideas was capable of initiating the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago, and also of supporting all the other "multiverses" that astrophysical inflation theory has cobbled up over the years. The difference between my proposed worldview and the prevailing reductionism of modern science is that its theories rest squarely on enigmatically pre-existing and randomly distributed "laws of nature" mindlessly giving rise to universes that are utterly devoid of purpose. Mine rests on an acceptance of an infinite intelligence as the source of our universe and all the other universes that modern astrophysical inflation theory postulates.


[NICE…. I  CAN  AGREE  IT  IS  GOD  THAT  BROUGHT  INTO  BEING  THE  UNIVERSE  AND  MANKIND  -  Keith Hunt]


I am gambling that a closer examination of spiritual realities will also appeal to skeptical reductionists plagued by the (nagging and perhaps secretly welcome) suspicion that there may, after all, be more to life than the equations of physics. What I propose may also appeal to those who, although open to the idea of a benevolent deity, are put off by the dogmatism of organized religion.


[HUMMMM……WE  SHALL  SEE  SHORTLY  HOW  HE  DISAGREES  WITH  WHAT  HE  CALLS  “DOGMATISM  OF  ORGANIZED  RELIGION”  -  DISAGREES  IN  LARGE  WAYS  FROM  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLEARLY  SAYS  AND  TEACHES  -  Keith Hunt]


I am also betting that scientific discoveries in this new millennium will substantiate that the rich inner world of consciousness we all share is more than just a neuro-physiological epiphenomenon. I'm betting that, before too long, we will understand how consciousness, at a fundamental level, creates matter, not vice versa. This view has roots deep in ancient mystical traditions, but is currently heretical to modern science. My wager is this:


As science integrates the in-depth knowledge of the physical world accumulated over the past three centuries, it will he channeled into a new and exciting line of inquiry that acknowledges the expanded reality of consciousness as a creative force in the universe and the spiritual creative power embodied in our own minds.


This book summarizes the thoughts of an inquisitive, but open-minded, scientist. 


[GOOD  TO  HAVE  AN  OPEN  MIND;  BUT  NOT  SO  OPEN  THAT  YOUR  BRAINS  FALL  OUT;  OR  THAT  YOU  DO  NOT  BELIEVE  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  DOGMATICALLY  TEACHES  -  Keith Hunt]


What I present here is a theory that looks promising, not scientific proof. It should not be surprising, however, if some of what I propose coincides with theories propounded by others who claim a more intimate relationship with the Almighty. After all, if I am on the right track, and if they are, it would be worrisome if we were not, ultimately, in agreement. All I ask is that you seriously consider the logic of my theory, especially if it challenges you to question what you were taught—in Sunday school, in catechism or, dare I say, in physics class.


[SOME  OF  HIS  THOUGHTS  WE  ARE  TO “SERIOUSLY  CONSIDER  THE  LOGIC  OF  MY  THEORY”  ARE  SO  FAR  OUT  FROM  WHAT  IS  WRITTEN  IN  THE  BIBLE,  I  HAVE  TO  WONDER  HOW  MUCH  OF  THE  BIBLE  HE  HAS  READ,  OR  HAS  HIS  READING  BEEN  IN  ONE  EYE  AND  OUT  THE  OTHER,  MISSING  HIS  BRAIN  COMPLETELY  -  Keith Hunt]  


I offer this book, not as a theological treatise, but as a short, readable exposition of a worldview that can bring sense and purpose into individual lives, and tolerance and peace to a planet whose future is in serious jeopardy—in large part because of the irrational dogmatism of both religion and science. If I am correct, we are literally all one being (God) in many individual forms. Why, then, would we continue to harm one another?


[FOR  SURE  HIS  BOOK  IS  NOT  A  THEOLOGICAL  TREATISE,  FOR  SOME  OF  HIS  THEOLOGY  WE  SHALL  SHORTLY  SEE  IS  FROM  PLANET  PLUTO,  SO  FAR  OUT  FROM  THE  PLAIN  TRUTHS  OF  THE  WORDS  OF  THE  BIBLE  -  Keith Hunt]



PERSONAL JOURNEY


The seeds that gave meaning to my life were planted at an early age. I was born in Stuttgart, Germany to German parents who moved to the United States when I was three years old. They came to Indiana because my mother's sister and her husband had moved there after the war. Postwar Germany, even in the 1950s, was a pretty bleak place and America was the golden land of opportunity. My aunt sent glowing and exaggerated letters back to my mother about a bakery that was available on the south side of Indianapolis; it was cheap and they could all go into business together. When my parents arrived with a few trunks, a few dollars, and one kid—me—the bakery opportunity proved to be only half-baked. I'm glad. Otherwise, I might have been a baker and this might have been a cookbook.


My early childhood was shaped by a scrupulously religious Catholic mother and by the good Sisters of Providence at St. Catherine of Sienna parochial school in Indianapolis who started each school day by herding us all to mass, on the assumption that this was the best prelude to reading, writing, arithmetic, and, of course, catechism. In fact, my mother wanted me to become a priest, and I'm sure she sent a lot of prayers heavenward to that effect.


Now, being a priest would have been more exciting than being a baker, but as a child, I always loved science. I cannot remember a time when I did not want to be a scientist, and specifically an astronomer. There are some things that you just know, especially as a child, when your world is not yet filled with the ambiguities and doubts that grow and haunt you later in life. As a child of the Sputnik generation, I loved to watch the space-cadet programs on television. Years later, at the Museum of Television and Radio in New York City, I tracked down an episode of Buzz Corbin and Cadet Happy that I think may have helped launch my space career. It was unbelievably silly: one back-and-forth joystick seemed to be all the control Buzz needed to fly around the galaxy in his interplanetary rocket. Life was remarkably simpler for them than it was to be for Captain Kirk, Commander Scotty, and their warp engines only a decade later.


By the time I entered the first grade, I already had a curious certainty that I would grow up to be an astronomer. I vividly imagined exploring the surfaces of other worlds through a huge telescope, like the 200-inch reflector on Mt. Palomar. Although what I imagined far exceeded what even such a telescope could actually deliver, the dream was real. I was comforted by knowing that a grand destiny awaited me in astronomy—that there were discoveries just waiting for me to make.


Because of my mothers devout religion and my own fascination with space, I developed a strong conviction at a very early age that I would become a priest-astronomer like Father Giuseppe Piazzi, who discovered the first asteroid, or Father Angelo Secchi, who, in the 1800s, was the first to classify stars according to their spectra. I learned, as I grew older, that these two vocations are not, in fact, incompatible. There are Jesuits who are professional astronomers in good standing. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Catholic Church operated several observatories in Rome, and the official Vatican Observatory, founded in 1891, maintains a modern facility atop Mt. Graham in Arizona—adjacent to the prominent Kitt Peak National Observatory—in partnership with the University of Arizona. I relished the idea of being involved in something really grandiose, something having to do with God and space. How much bigger can a dream be, after all? Not even the sky was my limit.


I pursued the dream of the astronomer-priest for a few years beyond grade school. In high school, I attended the Latin School of Indianapolis, dedicated to preparing young boys for the seminary. I received a first-rate classical education courtesy of the Archdiocese that would have cost a fortune at a private East Coast prep school. Along with the usual English, History, Algebra, Biology, and Physics, I got a hefty dose of Latin, Rhetoric, and Gregorian chant. After high school, I moved on to a college seminary run by Benedictine monks of the St. Meinrad Arch-abbey in the rolling hills of southern Indiana. There, the dark-robed monks lent an almost medieval atmosphere to my world, especially on brooding, gray winter days when we all assembled for mass in our cassocks and Roman collars and sang the ancient chants with our Kyriales. Requiem aeternam, dona eis, Domine. It felt like the middle ages.


I attended the seminary for just one year, however. From the moment I arrived, the possibilities of a different kind of future (especially one involving girls) drew me away from the enclosed worldview of the monastery. Surely, I thought, computation had an edge over prayer in the technological world of the late twentieth century. I abandoned the priestly half of my dream when I was eighteen.


However the other half of my dream I followed all the way, becoming a professional astronomer. I have had a successful career working in the United States and in Europe doing research, frequently competing for and being awarded observing time on orbiting NASA telescopes, writing scores of scientific papers, chairing international conferences, serving as a scientific editor for a prestigious journal in astrophysics, refereeing proposals for the National Science Foundation, giving lectures, and the like.


FROM ARCHABBEY TO ASTROPHYSICS


My transition from archabbey to astrophysics took place the following summer. It was, by any measure, a memorable time. Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated. Vietnam and a tragic, divisive incoming president were polarizing the nation. Yet amid all this, we were going to the moon. The Apollo program had achieved lunar orbit and, on July 20, 1969, the moon landing took place. Human beings had reached another world. A turning point in civilization had been reached, or so it seemed. Provided you could look away from the raging chaos on the surface of our planet, the outbound direction into space and other worlds seemed full of promise. It had taken less than twelve years to go from primitive Sputnik (and Buzz Corbins one-joystick-does-it-all rocket) to landing astronauts on the moon. Surely another twelve years would be sufficient to take astronauts onward to Mars. That is how things looked to me as I went from the spiritual world of the St. Mein-rad seminary and archabbey to the scientific world of an astrophysics major at Indiana University. On the Indiana highway map St. Meinrad lies a mere hundred miles from Indiana University, but if felt more like one hundred light-years.


In my sophomore year at Indiana, I learned how to use a telescope and take photographic plates at the campus's Kirkwood Observatory. I became deeply involved with physics and its applications to astronomy in general. I began to study in depth the nature of stars, galaxies, planetary nebulae, the interstellar medium and the like. Before long, monasteries and the calling to a priesthood were remote and irrelevant memories.


When I graduated from Indiana University, I went straight into a graduate program in astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Wisconsin was one of the top ten schools in astronomy and astrophysics in the country, and had just launched a major NASA mission, the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory. They also had excellent beer up there.


Wisconsin had a fast-track astronomy program that enabled me to obtain my Ph.D. by the time I was twenty-five. My doctoral thesis dealt with radiative transfer, a mathematically oriented description of how light and other electromagnetic radiation passes from inside a star and out into space. This kind of inquiry requires huge supercomputers like those at Los Alamos or Livermore, where much of the work is very closely related to nuclear weapons. Since that didn't interest me, I grew away from the subject, which I had begun to see as just too technical and too complex, involving too much of what scientists call "number crunching."


LAUNCHING A CAREER


By the time I graduated, the job market was nearly saturated and unemployment a looming threat. I was lucky enough, however, to be offered a postdoctoral fellowship doing research for Jeff Linsky at the prominent Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics at the University of Colorado in Boulder, a world center for research in astrophysics.


Once again I found myself immersed in a belief system of sorts, but this time the decidedly secular one of academia. Here at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, with the soaring Flatirons looking like a Hollywood backdrop, was one of the top research institutes. Scientists from all over the planet came here to spend a summer, or a year, and I had been welcomed into this secular sanctum sanctorum and given a chance to start proving my worth as a modern researcher. Was this not heaven on earth?


Linsky’s work involved obtaining data from NASA satellites, especially those dealing with the ultraviolet and x-ray parts of the spectrum. I, along with his other postdoctoral fellows, analyzed and tried to interpret that data. Our job was to generate a flurry of research papers that coaxed every possible bit of astrophysical insight from the precious satellite observations. This established reputations, advanced careers, and kept the grant money flowing. It was Linsky who stirred my passion for a class of stars known as cool stars (by stellar standards, our sun is a cool star).


At about this time, I began reading about Buddhism. I remember thinking to myself, perhaps because I was an astrophysicist with some bona fides as a seminarian, that there was some connection to be made, some insight on the deepest nature of things to be discovered, that only someone with my background could uncover. But that interest was soon tabled as my personal and professional lives became more complex.


[AND  THE  RELIGION  OF  BUDDHISM  SEEMS  TO  HAVE  TAKEN  SOME  ROOT  IN  HIS  THEOLOGY  -  Keith Hunt]


I was offered a research position at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, which I accepted. The Dutch were very active in astronomy, doing ultraviolet spectroscopy from a balloon-borne spectrograph launched, oddly enough, from Palestine, Texas. Of course anyone who knows the dreary Dutch climate will understand why Dutch astronomers would spend their time under Texas skies. The Dutch get around. After a year in the Netherlands, I returned to the United States and rejoined Linsky in Colorado. Not long after, I was offered a job with the Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory.


My work at Lockheed allowed me to do a remarkable amount of astrophysics, thanks in part to a highly classified program that is now well known: the spy satellite program. They wanted me to provide them with astrophysical information in order to very accurately calibrate their telescope using star positions. I had nothing against surveillance: spying on each other is a reasonable way to keep peace. Essentially they wanted me to develop a very precise catalog of star brightnesses, so I created an elaborate computer program for them that was probably ten times more accurate than anything ever done for a classified program, though I can't be totally sure of that since all such stuff was, after all, secret.


Lockheed seemed to have lots of money back then—this program in particular—and didn't really care what I did so long as the star catalog was a success . . . and it was. So I spent a lot of my time doing astrophysics beyond what they really needed and no one seemed to mind. I even managed to initiate new stellar research by winning some NASA grants.


Perhaps as a result, within a couple of years I was invited to join a research group at Lockheed that actually made its living from NASA projects instead of classified programs. It was called the Space Sciences Laboratory at the time and later split and morphed into the Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory. They were, and still are, the world's leading group in solar physics.


I studied flares on stars, which had become a hot topic in stellar astronomy because you could see them with the new ultraviolet and x-ray telescopes launched by NASA. But I also became involved in the analysis of data from the Solar Maximum Mission, one of the first satellites to measure x-ray emissions from the sun in great detail. I enjoyed this work, because the sun is the prototypical cool star and close enough to analyze accurately—a mere 93 million miles away, or right in our own backyard by astronomical standards. Studying solar phenomena while publishing on stellar observations gave me a considerable advantage, because most stellar astronomers know very little about the sun itself. The proximity of the sun affords a very high level of detail that can, in turn, prompt ideas about what you can observe on other stars. And that is how I fulfilled my childhood dream of becoming an astronomer.


AGE OF DISCOVERY


Joining a community of scientists is not the same, however, as making scientific discoveries.


It is said in science that, if you haven't made a major breakthrough by the time you are thirty-five, you are probably too old and set in your ways to have the insight necessary to do so. By the time I reached that landmark age, I had only one minor discovery under my belt—the stellar "coronal dividing line." In the grand scheme of scientific discovery, this was not an earth-shattering record. It's a bit like writing a song that tops the chart at number ninety-seven—more gratifying than just performing it at the pizza place, but don't expect a Grammy. Moreover, I felt hampered by the paradoxical fact that young scientists are not encouraged to stray far from the prevailing orthodoxy in their given fields, even though free inquiry is the stuff of which innovation is made.


But about that time I was actually foraging across a pretty wide intellectual terrain. This was in no small measure due to the intellectually liberating influence of my wife, Marsha, who is metaphysically inclined. She had just finished a Masters degree in music and saw the world through very different eyes than the average atoms-and-molecules-explains-it-all scientist. With encouragement and prodding from her ("How do you know that for certain? Have you ever really looked at this from a new perspective?") I developed a healthy curiosity for things outside the narrow confines of my astrophysical expertise.


At about this time, I became active in the Society for Scientific Exploration, an organization founded by a dozen university professors led by Peter Sturrock, a renowned plasma physicist at Stanford University. This society was founded to provide a forum to "foster the study of all questions that are amenable to scientific investigation without restriction." I soon found myself editing the Society's peer-reviewed Journal of Scientific Exploration. It was through the work of physicist Hal Puthoff, a Society member, that I became interested in a branch of physics that emerged at the start of the twentieth century, but never entered the scientific mainstream. It had the most impeccable credentials, however, having been explored by Albert Einstein, Max Planck, and Walther Nernst. This field of inquiry is essentially the story of light—a very special light known as the electromagnetic zero-point field, or the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. The zero-point field is an important part of the God Theory. I will return to it in chapter 6.


RETURN OF THE ASTRONOMER-PRIEST


Throughout this long journey, and despite a successful career in mainstream science that spans three decades, I never stopped asking fundamental questions. Moreover, my science has led me full-circle to a search for answers to some most unscientific questions:


Is there really a God?

What am I?

What is my destiny?


In essence, I have become—perhaps despite myself—the astronomer-priest of my early dreams.


I now know that the answers to these questions cannot be found in astronomy—or indeed anywhere in modern science. Moreover, I believe these questions are not being answered correctly by the religions of the world either. Indeed, I think that some of the answers given by religion today are exactly the opposite of the truth and are responsible for the violence and hatred that engulfs the planet. Some of the purported answers are monstrously inhumane and unworthy of a real God.


I believe it is time to put medieval notions of divine fiefdoms— and all their attendant notions of allegiance, punishment, vengeance, and servitude—behind us and move to a more rational and inclusive view of spirituality, one based on compassion and unity.


I, therefore, propose the God Theory—a theory that is intellectually satisfying as well as spiritually enriching. The rest of this book will explore that theory: What is the evidence for it? What are its implications for us as human beings? What is our relationship to the God of the theory and Gods to us? How can we reconcile spirituality and science? How can we transform the world from one of suspicion, intolerance, and hatred to one of trust, tolerance, and love?



ASKING  FUNDAMENTAL  QUESTIONS


The God Theory is my attempt to answer fundamental questions about our true human nature in the light of modern science. It is based on the simple premise that we are, quite literally, one with God, and God is, quite literally, one with us.


What would you do with infinite potential, some literally unlimited ability to do anything? Or to back up and put it in more prosaic, but more easily comprehensible, terms, imagine having a billion dollars in your bank account. Would this give you pleasure or satisfaction if you could never spend a penny of it? I doubt it. Except perhaps for a Dickens miser, the joy of wealth is in making use of it.


So try, in your limited human capacity, to imagine the existence of an unlimited conscious being of infinite ability, existing outside of space and time. This being must transcend space and time, because otherwise, whatever created space and time would be still greater than it. Where does such an imagined being take us?


[YES,  A  BEING  THAT  IS  OUTSIDE  OUR  UNIVERSE,  BECAUSE  HE  BROUGHT  IT  INTO  EXISTENCE - Keith Hunt]


THE GOD THEORY AND CREATION


Some of the ideas of this being become our laws of physics as well as our dimensions of space and time. An infinite number of other ideas that this being must have play no role in this particular universe of ours. They may be put to use in creating completely strange other universes (so-called multiverses) that modern inflation theory postulates, perhaps adjacent to ours in some hyperdimension, that we would have no way of detecting owing to laws of nature totally incompatible with our physics and space and time.


The basic concept is that some combination of ideas within this infinite consciousness are compatible with each other and together result in environments in which evolution can take place and beings can live. Some, however, are totally incompatible and result in pure chaos and an inability to evolve and manifest materially. A square-circle universe, for instance, presents an irreconcilable paradox without possibility of development.


An interesting question to consider here is whether an infinite intelligence knows implicitly which ideas are compatible, or whether even an infinite intelligence resorts to trial and error to achieve its ends. Infinity being what it is, I think we can safely assume an endless number of congenial combinations capable of yielding universes with characteristics that are utterly unimaginable to us. Yet these unimaginable universes still fulfill the essential purpose of the initiating intelligence, which is to manifest all physical forms possible within a given universe governed by a given set of ideas-become-laws. In this way, the infinite consciousness moves beyond sterile potential to actual creation— to doing rather than just being. He gets to act out and live out his ideas ... his fantasies. He gets to spend his billion dollars.


Following this logic, the manifestations of this infinite consciousness in this particular physical universe are none other than all of us and all the things we perceive around us. The intelligence experiences itself through us because we are one with it. We are the creating intelligence made manifest—sons and daughters of that infinite consciousness, experiencing one particular creation that happens to consist of space and time and the laws of physics known and loved by modern science.


Also following this logic, religions claim that God knows our every thought begins to make sense. Our thoughts are part and parcel of this infinite consciousness. We just don't have direct knowledge of this in the here-and-now. Yet there is nothing fundamentally mysterious or invasive about this sharing of thoughts. It is no more mysterious than when we, as adults, remember our own thoughts as children.


This infinite intelligence is, therefore, a direct analog of the Creator of religious doctrine, one totally compatible with modern science be it the Big Bang, multi-dimensional string theory, evolution, etc. At some level, we know this to be true, because our consciousness is a part of the Creators consciousness. In some literal sense, we actually make our own universe and then enter into it. In this way, the Creator gets to experience one tiny part of its infinite potential through each of the billions of individual lives on this planet (and probably elsewhere). The infinite intelligence gets the joy of spending his billion dollars on all sorts of amazing experiences.


We are not fully aware of this, however, because the experience of physicality retains its infinite potential only when it is not fully defined. Our incomplete knowledge of physical reality enriches our human experiences by maintaining its novelty, its unanticipated outcomes, its newness. It allows us each to live our lives as a great adventure. What sense of satisfaction would a scientist derive from inquiry if the laws of physics were all clearly revealed as part of the act of creation? What joy would there be in searching for buried treasure if you knew all along where you hid it? It's the mystery that underwrites the joy of discovery.


One of the oldest of religious teachings is that "The One who became many is becoming one again." That is how I view what we are all doing right now.


[THE  THOUGHT  BEHIND  THOSE  WORDS  IS  CORRECT;  GOD  HAS  MADE  MANY,  WHO  CAN  BECOME  ONE,  WITH  HIM  IN  HIS  FAMILY,  HIS  KINGDOM  -  SEE  MY  STUDY  “A  CHRISTIAN’S  DESTINY”……. THE  FIRST  STUDY  UNDER  THE  SECTION  “SALVATION, LAW AND GRACE”  ON  THIS  WEBSITE  -  Keith Hunt]


THE GOD THEORY, KARMA, AND THE GOLDEN RULE


But what are we to make of lives that seem patently unfair? How do we account for those who are either agents or victims of evil? These questions are troublesome only if we assume that a given individualized consciousness enters into physical life only once. Our universe is approximately 14 billion years old and is expected to continue for many billions more. Why would an individualized spark of divine consciousness choose to limit its experience of physical existence to only, say, eighty years of life in Bakers-field?


[THE  14  BILLION  YEARS  IS  A  GUESS  BY  SCIENTISTS;  IT  MAY  BE  NOT  ANYWHERE  NEAR  THAT  LONG;  THEN  AGAIN  IT  COULD  BE,  THE  BIBLE  IS  SILENT  ON  WHEN  THE  UNIVERSE  CAME  INTO  BEING,  AND  IT  MAY  NOT  HAVE  BEEN  VIA  A  “BIG  BAND”  -  THE  BIG  BANG  IS  LOOKING  AT  THE  EXPANDING  UNIVERSE  AS  NOW  AND  REPLAYING  IT  BACKWARDS  TO  AN  INVISIBLE  DOT.  BUT  GOD  MAY  HAVE  CREATED  GALAXIES  AND  THEN  SOMETIME  LATER  SAID…. “MOVE  OUT,  EXPAND”  -  THE  CORRECT  READING  OF  “IN  THE  BEGINNING  GOD  CREATED….”  IS  “IN  THE  BEGINNINGS…..”  FENTON  TRANSLATES  THE  HEBREW  AS  “BY  PERIODS  GOD  CREATED  THE……”  -  Keith Hunt]


There is plenty of time in our imagined universe to achieve a balance of good and evil, of high and low, in the existence of each spiritual being. This is the meaning of the law of karma expounded by Eastern mystics—a law by which the good and bad in each individual spiritual consciousness is required to achieve balance, although not necessarily in a single lifetime. This karmic law may, in fact, be an intellectual and spiritual analog of the laws of conservation of energy and matter in physics, for example the rule that the sum of positive and negative charges must total the same before and after a reaction.


[THE  AUTHOR  STARTS  HIS  “KARMA”  RELIGION  IDEAS,  OF  BEINGS  LIVING  MORE  THAN  ONE  LIFE  TIME  -  UTTERLY  DEMOLISHED  BY  THE  BIBLE  -  Keith Hunt]


If the God Theory is correct, it has important implications for our everyday lives:


The God of the theory cannot require anything from us for his own happiness.

[WELL  TRUE  IN  THE  OVERALL,  BUT  THAT  DOES  NOT  MEAN  GOD  HAS  NO  EMOTION  AS  “HAPPINESS”  -  HE  MADE  US  IN  HIS  IMAGE;  THE  EMOTIONS  WE  HAVE  HE  HAS  ALSO,  ALL  BUT  SEXUAL  EMOTIONS  -  THE  BIBLE  IN  MANY  PLACES  BRINGS  THIS  TRUTH  OUT  -  AS  I’VE  PROVED  IN  OTHER  STUDIES  -  Keith Hunt]


The God of the theory cannot dislike, and certainly cannot hate, anything that we do or are.

[COMPLETELY  FAR  OUT  WRONG!  AS  I’VE  PROVED  IN  OTHER  STUDIES;  WE  HAVE  MANY  EXAMPLES  IN  THE  BIBLE  AS  TO  WHAT  ARE  THE  EMOTIONS  OF  GOD.  ONE  CLASSIC  IS  GOD  IN  THE  FLESH,  VIA  JESUS  CHRIST,  HATED  WHAT  SOME  WERE  DOING  IN  THE  FIRST  COURT-YARD  OF  THE  TEMPLE,  AND  HE  TWICE  IN  THE  GOSPEL  ACCOUNTS  TURNED  OVER  THEIR  TABLES,  AND  SPOKE  WITH  LANGUAGE  THAT  WAS  SHARP  AND  VERY  BLUNT.  THE  BIBLE  SAYS  GOD  HATES  6  THINGS,  YEA  7  ARE  AN  ABOMINATION  TO  HIM - PROVERBS  6: 16-19. THAT  IS  JUST  FOR  STARTERS;  I  HAVE  TO  ASK  IF  THIS  AUTHOR  HAS  READ  THE  BIBLE  -  Keith Hunt]


The God of the theory will never punish us, because it would ultimately amount to self-punishment.

[ONCE  MORE  UTTER  THEOLOGICAL  GARBAGE  -  FOR  STARTERS  SEE  HEBREWS  10: 26-31;  AND  THERE  IS  MUCH  MUCH  MORE,  BUT  ANYONE  READING  THE  BIBLE  CAN  SURELY  KNOW,  UNLESS  THE  WORDS  GO  IN  ONE  EYE  AND  OUT  THE  OTHER,  NOT  ENTERING  THE  MIND  -  Keith Hunt]


There is no literal heaven or hell.

[ONCE  MORE  AS  FAR  FROM  THE  TRUTH  AS  PLUTO  IS  A  PLANET,  WHICH  SCIENTISTS  NOW  SAY  IT  IS  NOT  A  PLANET  -  Keith Hunt]


These corollaries of the God Theory do not, however, relieve us of duty, responsibility, or ethical behavior. Quite the contrary. In fact, if you follow the God Theory to its logical conclusion, the golden rule in which we were all schooled—do unto others as you would have them do unto you—becomes far more than merely a pious maxim. It becomes a reflection of what I call the law of action and reaction in "spiritual physics." It becomes the essence of Eastern karma. Everything we do has consequences— for good or evil. If this simple maxim were universally accepted, it would essentially solve all the problems of humanity.


[OF  COURSE  IF  ALL  PEOPLES  WOULD  READ  AND  FOLLOW  THE  BIBLE,  THEY  WOULD  KNOW  WHAT  IS  GOOD  AND  RIGHTEOUS,  EVIL  AND  SIN,  AND  GOING  GOD’S  WAY  WOULD  BRING  UTOPEA  TO  EARTH  -  Keith Hunt]


Imagine the change in compassionate and ethical behavior if people knew for a fact that whatever they did unto others would, sooner or later, come back upon themselves full force: that there was no cheating possible, that the bullet dodged in this life would find its way to the target in some future existence. Now that's a motivator for good behavior.


[THE  AUTHOR  IS  BACK  WITH  HIS  “KARMA”  RELIGION  -  ANOTHER  LIFE,  OR  MANY  LIVES,  AT  SOME  OTHER  TIME,  TO  MAKE  SURE  YOU  DID  NOT  GET  AWAY  WITH  ANYTHING  -  Keith Hunt]


Good and bad are contentious terms, especially in the eyes of the righteous, who tend to prefer condemning the bad to praising the good. Ultimately, however, there is no absolute good or bad, no timeless right or wrong, only that which does or does not advance our (i.e. God’s) existential purpose. Rules of proper behavior depend upon time and place, because the consequences of the things we do largely depend on the context in which they are done. Consider how the sex act can be a crime or a consummation of love, depending solely on the context in which it is performed.


[TRUE  SOME  THINGS  HAVE  A  CONTEXT  AS  LIKE  THE  SEX  EXAMPLE  GIVEN,  BUT  NOT  ALL  IS  SO,  SOME  HAVE  THE  CONTEXT  OF  ANYWHERE  AT  ANYTIME,  I.E.  THE  SABBATH  KEEPING  COMMANDMENT  WAS  ALWAYS  SIN  TO  NOT  OBSERVE  IT;  BUT  THIS  TAKES  STUDY  FROM  THE  WORD  OF  GOD  TO  KNOW  WHAT  SIN  IS,  AND  TO  SEE  THAT  ONCE  SIN  ENTERED,  THEN  BREAKING  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT  WAS  SIN  FROM  THE  BEGINNING,  AND  WILL  BE  TO  THE  NEW  HEAVENS  AND  THE  NEW  EARTH  -  Keith Hunt]


What does have absolute meaning, however, is the way in which we treat others, including animals. We shape our universe by the love or malice, the compassion or indifference, we bring to our relationships with our fellow beings. Under the God Theory, the requirement that you treat others with respect and compassion is, for all practical purposes, a moral absolute, since all beings participate in the infinite consciousness that created them. 


[YES,  SO  THERE  IS  A  TRUE  ABSOLUTE  SIN  AND  RIGHTEOUSNESS,  AND  IT  WAS  FROM  THE  BEGINNING;  THE  BIBLE  MAGNIFIES  WHAT  IT  MEANS  TO  TREAT  OTHERS  LIKE  YOU  WOULD  WANT  THEM  TO  TREAT  YOU;  YET  THERE  IS  ALSO  INSTRUCTIONS  ON  HOW  TO  ACT  TOWARDS  PRACTICING  SINNERS  IN  YOUR  HOME  AND  COMMUNITY;  THE  BIBLE  COVERS  MANY  MANY  SITUATIONS  AND  HOW  TO  RESPOND,  BUT  YOU  HAVE  TO  READ  THE  BIBLE  TO  KNOW  IT  ALL,  WHICH  I’M  WONDERING  IF  THE  AUTHOR  HAS  EVER  DONE  -  Keith Hunt]


Other rules of morality may be judged by how well they do or do not serve the common good, which is not the same at all times and all places. Remember, tribal customs change. But if you accept the God Theory, compassion and love become moral imperatives, since to inflict pain on a fellow being is to inflict it on the universal consciousness, and thereby on yourself.


[WOW…… SOME  THEOLOGY!  SO  WHAT  ABOUT  THE  DEATH  PENALTY  IN  ANCIENT  ISRAEL?  WHAT  ABOUT  HOW  THE  CHURCH  IS  TO  ACT  TOWARDS  THOSE  IN  ITS  MIDST,  WHO  ARE  PRACTICING  GROSS  SINS  -  SEE  1  CORINTHIANS  5.  WHAT  ABOUT  GOD  DESTROYING  UN-REPENTANT  SINNERS  IN  THE  LAKE  OF  FIRE,  OR  THE  SECOND  DEATH  -  SEE  REVELATION  20.  THERE  IS  PHYSICAL  AND  EMOTIONAL  PAIN  IN  THIS  PRESENT  WORLD,  AND  GOD  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  GOD  ARE  IN  IT  ALL…..(not  that  the  church  should  ever  inflict  physical  pain  on  anyone), THIS  IS  JUST  THE  CLEAR  TRUTH  OF  THE  MATTER,  REGARDLESS  OF  WHAT  THE  AUTHOR  SAYS  -  Keith Hunt]


But under the God Theory, you never have to worry about whether God himself is offended by your behavior. That can never happen. 


[WOW….. SOME  THEOLOGY!  THE  GOD  OF  THE  BIBLE  SAYS  REPENT  -  TURN  AROUND  AND  GO  THE  RIGHT  RIGHTEOUS  WAY  OF  LIVING;  THE  GOD  OF  THE  BIBLE  CAN  AND  DOES  NOT  LIKE  YOUR  WAY  OF  LIVING  IF  IT  IS  NOT  IN  LINE  WITH  HIS  WAY  OF  LIVING  -  Keith Hunt]


The God of my theory cannot be made unhappy or angered by you, since you participate in his infinite consciousness and he in you. 


[SO  GOES  THIS  GUY’S  THEOLOGY  -  HEBREWS  10  WHICH  WE’VE  SEEN  IS  PRETTY  CLEAR  ON  HOW  GOD  FEELS,  IF  YOU  TRAMPLE  UNDER  FOOT  THE  SON  OF  GOD  -  Keith Hunt]


Think about it: how arrogant to assume that we could ruin Gods day! 


[GOD  DOES  HAVE  EMOTIONS;  WE  SURE  CAN’T  DAMAGE  HIS  HOLINESS,  BUT  HE  DOES  HAVE  EMOTIONS  THAT  ARE  SHOWN  VERY  CLEARLY  AT  TIMES;  SEE  ALL  MY  STUDIES  ON  “ALL  ABOUT  GOD,  CHRIST,  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT”  -  Keith Hunt]


When the minutiae of this particular creation have all played out, all will return to God, all will be well, the purpose will be fulfilled. 


[OH  YES,  ALL  WILL  BE  WELL  IN  THE  END  OF  THE  MATTER;  BUT  THE  BIBLE  DOES  NOT  TEACH  “UNIVERSAL  SALVATION”  -  THERE  IS  A  SECOND  DEATH,  A  PUNISHMENT  FOR  ALL  ETERNITY (SOME  NOT  EXISTING  AT  ALL;  GONE  FROM  THE  UNIVERSE  LIKE  THEY  NEVER  EXISTED)  -  IN  THE  LAKE  OF  FIRE,  THE  SECOND  DEATH.  ANY  THEOLOGY  NOT  INCLUDING  ALL  THIS,  IS  A  THEOLOGY  FROM  THE  MIND  OF  MAN,  WHO  IS  MAKING  GOD  FROM  THEIR  OWN  IMAGINATIONS  AND  PHILOSOPHICAL  SURMISING,  INSTEAD  OF  LETTING  GOD’S  WORD  TELL  US  WHAT  HE  IS  ALL  ABOUT  -  AGAIN  SEE  MY  ALL  MY  STUDIES  ON  THE  MATTER  UNDER  THIS  SECTION  OF  MY  WEBSITE  “ALL  ABOUT  GOD,  CHRIST,   AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT”  -  Keith Hunt]

   

Of course in the meantime, you still have the law of karma to contend with . . . 


[BACK  HE  GOES  TO  EASTERN  RELIGION  -  Keith Hunt]


and that could prove to be rather unpleasant if you have behaved badly toward other sentient beings. I would imagine Hitlers consciousness is having a pretty difficult time of it now. I suppose it is possible that even his karma can eventually be purged, but a rabbi with whom I studied esoteric matters for a time made the claim that a consciousness can become so corrupted by evil that no purification is possible; that such a consciousness can only be dispersed into its tiniest bits, losing all history and identity, effectively being recycled. I am agnostic on this point.


[HE  JUST  DOES  NOT  KNOW;  BUT  THE  BIBLE  GIVES  THE  ANSWER;  NOT  ANY  RABBI,  BUT  THE  BIBLE  GIVES  THE  ANSWER  -  SEE  MY  STUDY  “THE  GREAT  WHITE  THRONE  JUDGMENT”  UNDER  “SABBATH  AND  FEASTS  OF  GOD”  -  Keith Hunt]


So too with the fanatical bombers plaguing the world today, who are as close to my conception of evil as one can get, but seem to believe (in their deranged way) that they are doing what is right and good. Where will they find justice? Whether driven by pure malice or by the misguided view that they were accomplishing some good, consequences will follow which may well be hellish. Under the God Theory, that justice will be meted out by the action and reaction of the law of karma, which is built into the fabric of creation as surely as conservation of momentum is built into the laws of physics. It is only your snapshot view from the perspective of a single lifetime that outrages your sense of justice or causes you to demand a day of divine judgment and reckoning. Better to think of karma as a multi-lifetime process of reeducation, rehabilitation, and inescapable balance.


[INTO  HIS  EASTERN  “KARMA”  RELIGION  HE  GOES  ONCE  MORE;  MANY  LIFE-TIMES  FOR  ONLY  THEN  CAN  JUSTICE  COME  TO  EVERYONE,  SOONER  OR  LATER  -  Keith Hunt]


Some evidentiary support for the concept of multiple existences comes from those who have had near-death experiences. The life review associated with these experiences accords with the philosophical view that, when you die, your consciousness enters a non-physical realm where the consequences of all your actions come flooding in upon you. You then experience the pleasures or pains, the joys or terrors, that you have inflicted on others. As in the laws of conservation of energy and matter, the balance is simply inescapable. It is built into the creation process. So while you may avoid the consequences of your actions in one life, balance will be achieved in a future existence. This balancing requires neither divine retribution nor punishment; it derives from the fundamental laws underlying your existence as an independent entity. It no more requires God’s judgment or intervention than does the working of the law of gravity.


[HE’S  INTO  THE  LAW  OF  “KARMA”  -  EASTERN  RELIGION,  MORE  THAN  ONE  LIFE,  SO  YOU  GET  YOUR  “DUES”  EVENTUALLY  IN  “MULTIPLE  EXISTENCES.”    HE  TRIES  TO  GIVE  CREDENCE  TO  THIS  THEOLOGY  BY  THE  SO-CALLED  NEAR  DEATH  EXPERIENCES  SOME  HAVE  HAD.  IT  IS  CORRECT  THEY  CALL  IT  “NEAR-DEATH”  FOR  THAT  IS  EXACTLY  WHAT  IT  IS,  THEY  ARE  NOT  DEAD,  BUT  MAYBE  NEAR  DEATH.  THE  MIND  CAN  PLAY  ALL  KINDS  OF  “TRICKS”  ON  US,  SOME  JUST  IN  GENERAL  LIFE  HAVE  EXPERIENCED  THAT.  WE  HAVE  DREAMS  THAT  SEEM  TO  BE  VERY  REAL  WHEN  IN  THEM,  DURING  SLEEP.  AND  THE  DEMONS  CAN  ALSO  PLAY  WITH  OUR  MIND,  SOME  HAVE  EXPERIENCED  THAT  WHEN  NOT  IN  SLEEP.  THE  BIBLE  TEACHES  DEATH  IS  DEATH  WHEN  YOU  ARE  FINALLY  IN  IT.  YOU  ARE  NOT  IN  HEAVEN  OR  HELL.  WHEN  DEAD  YOU  ARE  DEAD  NOT  ALIVE  IN  SOME  OTHER  “SPIRIT”  WORLD.  YOU  NEED  TO  STUDY  ALL  THE  STUDIES  UNDER  THE  “LIFE, DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION”  SECTION  OF  THIS  WEBSITE  -  Keith Hunt]


You must be careful, however, not to attribute all your personal misfortunes to the action of karma. That can be a dangerous and slippery slope. Those living particularly unfortunate lives may be balancing and cancelling negative karma from a previous life. 


[HERE  WE  GO  AGAIN  WITH  EASTERN  RELIGION  -  KARMA  OF  MANY  LIVES  WE  MAY  HAVE;  I  MEAN  IT  MAY  TAKE  MANY  LIFE  TIMES  FOR  EVERYONE  TO  GET  THEIR  JUST  DESERTS  FOR  LIVING  THE  WAY  THEY  LIVED  -  TONGUE  IN  CHEEK  I  SPEAK  -  Keith Hunt]


On the other hand, they may simply have chosen a life of suffering for the benefits this can bring. Suffering and hardship can bring growth and wisdom, and this may be the path chosen by benevolent souls to advance their spiritual evolution.


[OH  LIKE  YOU  CHOOSE  IT,  RIGHT!  WHO  ON  EARTH  WOULD  JUST  CHOOSE  TO  HAVE  SUFFERINGS,  ALL  KINDS  OF  HARDSHIPS  ETC.  TO  STRENGTHEN  YOUR  INNER  SELF.  MAYBE  SOME  “TWISTED”  MIND-SET  WOULD  CHOOSE  SUCH  A  LIFE.  PAUL  HAD  SUCH  A  LIFE,  BUT  NOT  BECAUSE  HE  CHOSE  IT;  GOD  TOLD  ANANIAS  PAUL  WAS  CHOSEN  TO  SUFFER  MANY  THINGS  FOR  GOD’S  SAKE (ACTS 9),  BUT  PAUL  DID  NOT  CHOOSE  IT!  I  HAVE  TO  ADMIT,  I  LIKE  MY  LIFE  TO  GO  VERY  NICE  AND  SMOOTH,  JUST  NO  SUFFERING  PHYSICALLY  OR  MENTALLY  OR  EMOTIONALLY;  IT  MAY  NOT  ALWAYS  BE  SO,  BUT  I  WOULD  SURE  CHOOSE  THE  SMOOTH,  NO  RUFFLES  LIFE… NOT  ALWAYS  HAD  IT,  BUT  WOULD  SURE  CHOOSE  THE  NO  RUFFLES  IF  I  HAD  A  CHOICE.  I’VE  BEEN  ABLE  TO  FIND  WISDOM  AND  GROWTH  DURING  MY  LIFE,  WHEN  NO  RUFFLES  HAVE  BEEN  THERE….I  MEAN  WHO  IN  THEIR  LOGICAL  RIGHT  MIND  WOULD  WANT  TO  CHOOSE  A  LIFE  OF  SUFFERING?  Keith Hunt]        


The logical consequences of the God Theory lead us to some inevitable corollaries:


The purpose of life is experience; God wishes to experience life through you. 

[OKAY  I  AN  ACCEPT  THAT - Keith Hunt]


God desires your partnership, not your servility. If you choose to praise and worship him it should be out of love not fear, and is for your own benefit, not his.

[OKAY  I  CAN  ACCEPT  THAT  -  Keith Hunt]



The consequence of your negative actions is negative things happening to you, though not necessarily immediately; in this sense, you create your own hell.

[WELL  YES,  SO  IT  IS  “HELL  ON  EARTH”  IF  YOU  DECIDE  TO LIVE  SOME  REALLY  BAD  WAYS  OF  LIVING  - Keith Hunt]


Ultimately, your individual consciousness will be fully reunited with the infinite consciousness of God; this can be characterized as heaven (or Samadhi).

[BACK  INTO  HINDUISM  AND  BUDDHISM  -  EASTERN  RELIGION  -  TRUE  CHRISTIANITY  TEACHES  WE  SHALL  BE  WITH  GOD,  FULLY  PART  OF  HIS  IMMORTAL  FAMILY  -  Keith Hunt]


The point of a created universe is to experience it. Life is God made manifest.

[OKAY,  YES  CAN  ACCEPT  THAT  -  Keith Hunt]


It is in your own best interest to live a life worthy of the creating intelligence, because that is the path to spiritual evolution and ultimate satisfaction.

[YES  CAN  ACCEPT  THAT  -  Keith Hunt]


Your consciousness can be transformed, but it can never die. Your body and mind are merely tools for experiencing physical existence.

[NOPE!  JUST  NOT  SO!  YOU  CAN  BE  DESTROYED  FOREVER,  GONE  LIKE  YOU  NEVER  EXISTED;  THAT’S  WHAT  THE  BILE  TEACHES  -  Keith Hunt]


The pursuit of experience through physical life is how the infinite mind actualizes its infinite potential.

[FANCY  SENTENCE  HERE,  BUT  THE  MIND  OF  MAN  MUST  BE  NORMAL  TO  UNDERSTAND  AND  FINALLY  HAVE  YOUR  POTENTIAL  -  Keith Hunt]


Why should you believe this (some may say audacious) attempt to summarize an answer to the mystery of the ages? 


Well, certainly not because I claim to be any kind of prophet. I am not. As far as I know, God has not chosen me for any special revelation nor to be his enlightened spokesman. I am neither guru nor divinely sent messenger. [HE  GOT  THAT  RIGHT  -  Keith Hunt]  And I am certainly not attempting to organize any new religion. Heaven forbid! Indeed, it is my view that the probable facts of spiritual reality are at odds with a great many of the claims of religion. And I have no intention of adding to that confusion. I am interested only in exploring the nature of spiritual reality.


One reason to consider what I propose is that it is so beautifully rational. It answers key paradoxes of good and evil, of divine benevolence and human malice, of God's justice and the persistent Problem of Job. It transcends the impossible contradictions of competing religions. It opens the door to an unprecedented world peace based on universal self-interest. It is a worldview, I submit, that grows on you with time. It is elegant.


[OF  COURSE  HE  DOES  HAVE  MANY  TRUTHS  IN  HIS  THEOLOGY  -  ALL  FALSE  THEOLOGY  HAVE  TRUTHS,  HENCE  MANY  CAN  BE  DECEIVED  -  Keith Hunt]


But does this elegant construct contradict anything we know from modern science? 


I don't think so. 


I am not touting myself as any "great scientist," but I do know about the process and the philosophy of science, the nature of scientific evidence, the role of theory, all from years of first-hand experience. 


For nearly three decades I have been actively engaged in scientific research and in that time I have published scores of papers, many in top level journals such as Science and Nature, served as referee and proposal reviewer for NASA and the National Science Foundation, have been principal investigator on numerous NASA projects, have chaired conferences sponsored by the International Astronomical Union at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley. For ten years I served as a scientific editor of the Astrophysical Journal, and in that time I was responsible for accepting or rejecting somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand articles for that prestigious publication. All in all I have learned a fair bit about the structure and evolution of the Universe, the Big Bang, and the fundamental ideas embodied in relativity and quantum theory. Of course you will have to decide for yourself whether I am right or wrong, but I am pretty certain there is nothing within our modern corpus of scientific knowledge that contradicts the God Theory.


Ultimately, of course, you will have to decide for yourself whether or not the God Theory makes sense to you.


[THE  TRUE  GOD  OF  THE  HOLY  BIBLE  DOES  MAKE  SENSE;  BUT  TO  KNOW  THAT  GOD  YOU  WILL  NEED  TO  STUDY,  I  MEAN  REALLY  STUDY  HIS  WORD;  THEN  ALSO  TO  KNOW  HIM,  YOU’LL  HAVE  TO  LIVE  BY  ALL  HIS  WORD,  AS  JESUS  TAUGHT  US,  SEE  MATTHEW 4;4  -  AND  YOU’LL  NEED  A  VERY  PERSONAL  RELATIONSHIP  WITH  CHRIST  THE  SAVIOR,  AND  GOD  THE  FATHER,  FOR  “HEAD  KNOWLEDGE”  WILL  SAVE  NO  ONE  -  Keith Hunt]


The God Theory and Reductionism


There certainly are many hardcore dogmatic reductionists who scoff at the idea of any reality other than the purely physical reality of atoms and molecules and the four known forces of physics (electromagnetism, gravitation, and the strong and weak interactions). I use the term "reductionist" here to indicate someone who truly believes there is nothing beyond the physical. Reductionists, for our purposes, are those who believe that the greatest achievement of mankind will be to uncover some ultimate equation or set of equations that govern the fundamental particles of matter, and thereby, the entire universe—including us.


Reductionists believe that complex things or processes can always be reduced to the actions of their parts. To them, consciousness is nothing more than brain chemistry. When the ultimate equation has explained the tiniest particle, they claim, the job of science will be complete. In their view, there is nothing beyond the here-and-now; when your body dies, you are gone forever. If you point out that this seems fundamentally unsatisfactory, the best they have to offer is the tough-love maxim: "Get over it and move on."


The stoicism of those who believe this and still manage to live good, decent lives without promise of reward in the hereafter is, perhaps, admirable. And I freely grant that even reductionism is preferable to a belief that slaughter and destruction in the name of a vengeful God will result in immediate passage to heaven. But I think it is wrong nonetheless. In fact, in its most rigid form, reductionism becomes essentially a matter of faith and simply another kind of orthodoxy that goes by the name of scientism.


The word "science" is used today in two very different ways— in the service of epistemology, which is a way of investigating reality, and in the service of ontology, which is a conceptualization of reality itself. It is in this second sense that dogmatic science is invoked today and should more properly be regarded as the religion of scientism. While scientific orthodoxy boasts no churches, it is nonetheless a faith—a faith whose ritual is skepticism. Indeed those skeptics who scoff loudest at all things spiritual hold professional gatherings that bear an ironic resemblance to revival meetings, at which they pump up the faithful to go forth and combat anything that smacks of non-reductionism. I contend, on the other hand, that, although the material investigations of science are absolutely correct, they only penetrate the lowest level of reality—that of the physical and the material.


Russian astrophysicist Nicolai Kardashev introduced the idea of civilization types: Type I civilizations harness the energy output of an entire planet; Type II civilizations harness the energy of an entire star; Type III civilizations harness the energy of an entire galaxy. While this idea certainly prompts some exciting scientific speculation, it is ultimately just an expanded version of the same tired old reality. I propose a revolutionary idea: that a truly advanced civilization will not be classified on the basis of the physical energy it harnesses, but rather on its ability to understand and use the literal creative energy of divine consciousness that is the fundamental nature of all living beings.

………………..


THE  AUTHOR  FINISHES  WELL….. TO  BE  AGAINST  THE  SCIENTIFIC  ATHEISTS;  AND  THAT  I  CAN  FULLY  AGREE  WITH  -  Keith Hunt