From  parts  of  the  book  “THE  GOD  THEORY”


by  Bernard  Haisch (published 2006)





EXPLAINING CONSCIOUSNESS



The challenge for science is to free the tools, experiments, observations, and logic of the scientific method from the shackles of reductionist ideology, which cannot tolerate the concept of a real and primary, and therefore non-epiphenomenal, consciousness. The challenge is to think like a scientist without being trapped in the assumption of the present-day physical model of reality that matter is all there is and all there can be.


In the God Theory, consciousness is the primary stuff of reality. Consciousness is able to shape and direct matter. Consciousness, in fact, has created this universe—the planets and stars, the plants and animals, and you and me. 


This is not accomplished by the kind of miraculous construction-out-of-nothing beloved by fundamentalists, but rather by an infinite intelligence dreaming up an infinite variety of laws and values for physical constants, and then letting those laws and values evolve into the stars and planets and life forms of an infinite number of universes. 


The Big Bang and evolution are just tools whereby our particular universe and its conscious life forms become actualized, actualized in open-ended, novel, creative ways, not by detailed design.


[NOW  WE  SEE  CLEARLY  THE  AUTHOR  IS  NOT  LIKE  MYSELF  -  A  FUNDAMENTALIST  -  BUT  AN  EVOLUTION  CREATIONIST;  FOR  HIM  GOD  USED  THE  SLOW,  VERY  SLOW,  PROGRESS  OF  EVOLUTION  TO  BRING  ABOUT  WHAT  WE  HAVE  ON  THIS  EARTH  TODAY  -  Keith Hunt]


Through creation, an infinite consciousness provides a kind of a playground for itself. Having done that, it incarnates as individual beings—plants, animals, human beings, extraterrestrials— thereby experiencing diversity and enormous ranges of complexity. In this view, we are all little pieces of the same consciousness that has deliberately fragmented itself so that you can be you and I can be me. Why? The initiating consciousness creates your whole world for its own evolution, its own growth, and, perhaps, its own amusement. This is the essence of the God Theory.


[GOD  WAS  USING  BITS  AND  PIECES,  DELIBERATELY  FRAGMENTED  TO  BRING  ABOUT  THROUGH  EVOLUTION,  WHAT  YOU  SEE  AROUND  YOU  TODAY;  AND  AMONG  OTHER  THINGS,  FOR  THAT  GOD  BEING’S  AMUSEMENT  -  Keith Hunt]


How does this happen? New discoveries in physics may now be pointing, for the first time in human history, toward a mechanism of creation in its most basic form.


INTO THE VOID


"God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." This simple but profoundly elegant statement from Genesis has, for three millennia, revealed an insight into the mysterious nature of our material world. It portrays light as the first manifestation of creation. Great Gothic cathedrals—Chartres, Notre Dame, Cologne—were built to let light stream in through magnificent stained-glass windows, in which halos of light surround the countenances of saints. As faith gave way to scientific rationality in the era of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, however, there was no longer any getting around the apparently blatant contradictions between the newborn science and the ancient scripture.


[NO,  TRUE  SCIENCE  AND  THE  BIBLE  DO  NOT  CONTRADICT  EACH  OTHER  -  Keith Hunt]


Within the scriptures themselves, there are contradictions. 


[NO!  JESUS  SAID  “THE  SCRIPTURES  CANNOT  BE  BROKEN”  -  THEY  DO  NOT  CONTRADICT  EACH  OTHER  -  THERE  ARE  NO  VERSES  IN  THE  BIBLE  THAT  CONTRADICT  OTHER  VERSES  -  Keith Hunt]


How can light have appeared on the first day of creation when the sun, the moon, and the stars—obvious sources of light in the sky—were not created until the fourth? 


The sequence is wrong; it is out of order. Regardless of what astronomical unit of time—perhaps billions of years—you substitute for the allegorical "days" of Genesis, the chain of events is wrong at the most fundamental level. One could well imagine outspoken Wolfgang Pauli, a revered father of modern physics, blasting such a retrograde notion of creation with his legendary dismissal: "It's not even wrong!" By that he meant: It's beyond wrong.


[THE  AUTHOR  IS  NOT  A  THEOLOGIAN.  I  HAVE  DOUBT  HE  HAS  DONE  MUCH  RESEARCH  INTO  THE  BIBLE.  THE  SUN,  MOON,  AND  STARS,  WERE  NOT  CREATED  ON  THE  FOURTH  DAY;  THEY  HAD ALREADY  BEEN  THERE  FOR….WELL,  WHO  KNOWS  HOW  LONG,  WE  ARE  NOT  TOLD.  THE  FENTON  TRANSLATION  GIVES  THE  ANSWER;  HE  GIVES  THE  HEBREW  AS  “HAD  CREATED”  -  PAST  TENSE.  THE  SUN,  MOON,  STARS,  BECAME  VISIBLE  AS  LIKE  TODAY,  EVEN  BETTER  THAT  TODAY  AS  THERE  WAS  NO  POLLUTION  -  Keith Hunt]


I was not particularly concerned about this scriptural discrepancy when I was eighteen years old and immersed in the spiritual life as a fledgling seminarian. The surprisingly modern position of my monk-teachers was that this was an ancient allegory whose purpose was to elucidate the workings and consequences of good and evil, not define the laws of physics. Such an enlightened attitude struck me as a welcome sign of progress since the dark days of Galileo's persecution for heresy. Besides, as important as light is, it comes and goes at the flick of a switch. It was surely matter that mattered. That is the stuff of which the stars, planets, and we ourselves are made—atomic matter, the stable stuff of the universe.


Is there any insight into the nature of matter in sacred scripture? Are there any tangible, quantifiable physical laws expressed there? I was not aware of any, and felt I had better things to explore than ancient mythology. In the context of modern astrophysics, the perceived shortcomings of Genesis were an absolute non-issue to me. Cosmology was explained by the Big Bang, the Hubble expansion, and the cosmic microwave background, not some implausible creation myth. One could, of course, generalize light to mean simply energy and thus claim a reference to the Big Bang. That seems like more of a stretch than a revelation to me, however. After all, God didn't say, "Let there be energy." That would have been different.


[CREATION  MYTH,  OR  HAND-ME-DOWN  TALES  OF  CREATION  IS  WHAT  HE  THINKS  OF  GENESIS  1  AND  2  -  Keith Hunt]


KABBALAH


The Loma Prieta earthquake, which badly damaged the building I worked in in Palo Alto and sent my colleagues scrambling under their desks amid a shower of objects, was a turning point in my life. The seismic waves of the quake happened to focus in the area surrounding the lab and seemingly solid buildings in that usually safe and tranquil section of Palo Alto undulated like ocean waves.

The Lockheed building was declared unsafe and my colleagues and I were shoehorned into a nearby building in a considerably less attractive part of town right next to the railroad tracks. My new temporary office was a large converted storage room with no windows. The thought of spending months working in this environment was rather depressing. I no longer rushed back to work after lunch and instead spent a lot of time walking around, sometimes strolling into a nearby bookstore.


One day as I was browsing through the shelves, I happened to pick up a book called The Other Bible, which is a collection of ancient scriptures that did not make it into the Bible as we know it today. Many ancient texts are part of what is called pseude-pigrapha, biblical-like texts that were not incorporated into the canonical Old Testament. In fact, some religious traditions include some of the pseudepigrapha in their accepted canon; there is not 100 percent agreement among different religious traditions as to exactly which writings belong in the Bible.


[OH  YES  THAT  IS  TRUE  IN  SOME  PARTS  OF  CHRISTIANITY;  BUT  YOU  CAN  KNOW  HOW  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  WERE  “CANONIZED”  -  IF  GOD  EXISTS,  AS  HE  SURELY  DOES,  HE  HAS  THE  POWER  TO  GIVE  US  HIS  INSPIRED  WORD.  THE  CANON  OF  THE  BIBLE  IS  FULLY  EXPOUNDED  UNDER  “HOW  WE  GOT  THE  BIBLE”  ON  THIS  WEBSITE  -  Keith Hunt]


As I opened it, I came across a startling passage in a text known as the Haggadah, a collection of legends within the Jewish Kabbalah. The text seemed to comment on the well-known opening line from the Genesis, "Let there be light," which to a scientist, makes little sense. As discussed previously, how can light be made on the first "day of creation," when the sun and the moon and the stars—the plainly obvious sources of light in the sky—were not brought into being until the fourth? As an astrophysicist, of course I dismissed the divine workweek cosmogony of Genesis, including God's overtime on day six. If you really wanted to force fit things you could always reinterpret days as eons, billions of years long if necessary. The problem with Genesis was more fundamental though: Things in the let-there-be-light department were fatally out of order.


[NO,  THERE  IS  NO  OUT-OF-ORDER  IN  GENESIS 1.  THE  AUTHOR  IS  JUST  NOT  A  “BIBLE  STUDY”  MAN  -  HE  HAS  NOT  SEARCHED  TO  SEE  WHAT  GENESIS 1  IS  REALLY  TEACHING  -  Keith HUNT]


The remarkable passage from the Haggadah addresses the very issue that seems so blatantly nonsensical in Genesis. As if to patiently explain to the foolish (like astrophysicists, I suppose) who may have missed the point, the Haggadah forthrightly states: "The light created at the very beginning is not the same as the light emitted by the Sun, the Moon, and the stars, which appeared only on the fourth day."


[INDEED  SO  -  THE  LIGHT  OF  THIS  FIRST  DAY  WAS  NOT  THE  SAME  LIGHT  AS  THE  FOURTH  DAY  -  Keith Hunt]


It's almost as if the ancient author had anticipated this modern objection to the passage in Genesis: Well, of course you can't have the light coming before the sun, moon, and stars; it's ridiculous, and even I, writing this a zillion years ago and still a scientific ignoramus know that. Then it says: “But let me tell you, there's a different light.”


The passage continues: "The light of the first day was of a sort that would have enabled man to see the world at a glance from one end to the other. Anticipating the wickedness of the sinful generations of the deluge and the Tower of Babel, who were unworthy to enjoy the blessing of such light, God concealed it, but in the world to come it will appear to the pious in all its pristine glory."


This passage is nothing less than stunning. There is even an implication of hidden and potentially useful power. And as in the passage from Genesis, light is once again implicated as a key to the creation process itself. But could this possibly mean anything real and substantive? Could it be anything other than mere ancient allegory?


[INDEED  IT  IS  NOT  JUST  MERE  “ALLEGORY”  -  Keith Hunt]


THE BIG BANG


Mainstream science traces the history of the cosmos back to a Big Bang some fourteen billion years ago, a theory that is correct as far as it goes. The question not addressed by the theory, however, is what caused the Big Bang? Where did the primordial stuff of that explosion originate and when did time begin? There is no single widely accepted answer to these questions. Some scientists simply say that no one knows and admit that the questions lie beyond the scope of science. Others take a stronger position, claiming that these questions are actually devoid of meaning and as nonsensical as asking what a round square would look like, or how red would taste.


Ironically, however, by casting these questions beyond logic and the scope of science, science, in a sense, admits the possibility that the riddle of the origin of the universe requires that we look beyond the laws of science, at least as they are defined today. Of course, this route takes us directly into the realm of creation and religion—an approach that scientists, in general, abhor.


Assume, for the sake of argument, that the reference to light in the Haggadah is to some actual fact relevant to the creation of the universe in the Big Bang. What might that represent in modern scientific terms? 


One possibility, of course, is the radiation-dominated era of the universe following the Big Bang. Modern computations show that, for the first 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe was devoid of stable matter, but filled with electromagnetic radiation.


[WELLLL……SOME  SCIENCE  WANT  TO  TELL  YOU  THAT  IS  SO,  BUT  IT  WAS  NOT  NECESSARILY  THAT  WAY  AT  ALL  -  Keith Hunt]   


Again for the sake of argument, assume that an ancient reference to light is equivalent to a modern reference to electromagnetic fields. After all, visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the only difference between microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma-ray emissions is the wavelength, or equivalent energy, involved. All are a form of electromagnetic radiation; all can be said, in a generic sense, to be light.


At first glance, this is a plausible interpretation. Leaving aside questions of how such knowledge was revealed and to whom, it is natural to equate the light of Genesis with the electromagnetic radiation accompanying the primordial fireball of the Big Bang revealed by modern computations and astrophysical observations.


If you take the Haggadah passage literally, however, there is a problem. There is no possibility of "seeing the world at a glance from one end to the other," even in principle, since the primary astrophysical characteristic of the radiation-dominated era of the universe is opacity, exactly the opposite of end-to-end visibility. Cosmologist Joseph Silk, in The Big Bang, notes:


Of course, we cannot directly observe the primeval fireball, and in fact direct observation would have been impossible even by a hypothetical human observer, for the universe did not become transparent until after 300,000 years. Direct observation of the early universe could not be feasible until the density and temperature had fallen to the point at which matter could form and radiation could propagate freely. Before 300,000 years had elapsed, observing the early universe would have been like trying to peer into a dense fog.


[AGAIN  THIS  IS  EVOLUTIONARY  SCIENCE  -  Keith Hunt]


This contradiction between the "revealed" or spiritual, and the calculated or scientific optical, properties of the universe suggests that we are on the wrong track. Most scientists would probably attribute the contradiction to the mythical nature of the ancient legend.


Moreover, the end of the radiation era is in the remote past by almost fourteen billion years (depending upon the value of the Hubble constant), and its remnants are both minutely feeble and plainly visible to scientists today as the 2.7-degree cosmic microwave background, the telltale radio signal permeating the entire universe left over from the Big Bang.


On the other hand, perhaps this reference is to an entirely different universal light radiation that does not originate in the sun, the moon, or the stars, but rather in the electromagnetic zero-point field that may be involved in the origin of the properties of matter in a fundamental way. Perhaps there is an important clue here—an insight into the creation process itself.

………………..


I  HAVE  IN  OTHER  STUDIES  GIVEN  YOU  HOW  THE  BIBLE  ITSELF  PUTS  ALL  THESE  THINGS  IN  ORDER;  BUT  YOU  HAVE  TO  SEARCH  THE  BIBLE  TO  FIND  IT  ALL  -  A  LITTLE  HERE  AND  A  LITTLE  THERE;  THIS  TRUTH  HERE  AND  ANOTHER  TRUTH  THERE.  I  WILL  STATE  IT  WITHOUT  GOING  INTO  THE  PORTION  OF  SCRIPTURES  THAT  TEACH  IT;  OTHER  STUDIES  ON  THIS  WEBSITE  DO  ALL  OF  THAT.


GENESIS  1:1  SAYS  “IN  THE  BEGINNINGS”  OR  AS  FENTON  TRANSLATES  THE  HEBREW  “BY  PERIODS  GOD  CREATED  THE  HEAVENS  AND  EARTH.”  IT  DOES  NOT  SAY  HOW  AND  WHEN  GOD  DID  ALL  THIS;  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  THOUSANDS  OF  YEARS,  OR  MILLIONS  OF  YEARS,  BILLIONS  OF  YEARS.  GOD  DID  CREATE  THE  EARTH,  AND  THE  “SONS  OF  GOD”  SANG  FOR  JOY,  AS  RECORDED  IN  THE  BOOK  OF  JOB.  ANGELS  BY  CREATION  ARE  SONS  OF  GOD,  IN  A  SENSE.  THE  EARTH  WAS  NOT  CREATED  IN  CHAOS,  DISORDER  AND/OR  CONFUSION.  THE  EARTH  WAS  CREATED  TO  BE  INHABITED.  WE  HAD  THE  DINOSAUR  WORLD.  THE  COVERING  CHERUB  OF  HEAVEN  WAS  WAS  GIVEN  AUTHORITY  OF  THIS  EARTH,  PROBABLY  WITH  SOME  ANGELS  TO  HELP.  THE  COVERING  CHERUB  WANTED  MORE,  HE  WANTED  TO  BE  GOD,  TO  SIT  ON  GOD’S  THRONE.  HE  REBELLED  AND  ONE  THIRD  OF  THE  ANGELS  REBELLED  WITH  HIM.  THERE  WAS  WAR  IN  HEAVEN.  THE  CHERUB  BECAME  SATAN  THE  DEVIL,  AND  THE  REBELLIOUS  ANGELS  BECAME  DEMONS.  SATAN  WAS  THROWN  OUT  OF  HEAVEN.  JESUS  SAID  HE  SAW  SATAN  FALL  FROM  HEAVEN.


THE  WAR  IN  HEAVEN  BROUGHT  DESTRUCTION  ON  THE  MOON  AND  EARTH.  WE  SEE  THE  MOON  PITTED  WITH  SCARS;  WE  DO  NOT  EVER  HEAR  ON  THE  NEWS  TODAY  “WELL  A  HUGE  ASTROID  JUST  HIT  THE  MOON  TODAY.”  BUT  MANY  SURE  DID  HIT  IT  IN  THE  PAST.  WE  HAVE  EVIDENCE  OF  SOME  METEORS  HITTING  THE  EARTH,  ONE  VERY  LARGE,  WAS  PROBABLY  THE  MAIN  ONE  THAT  DESTROYED  THE  DINOSAUR  AGE.  THE  EARTH  BECAME  ENCASED  IN  WATER,  THE  ENTIRE  GLOBE.  BLACKNESS  WAS  UNDER  THE  WATER;  BLACKNESS  WAS  ABOVE  THE  WATER.  


GOD’S  SPIRIT  THEN  MOVED  UPON  THE  WATERS.  WE  ARE  NOT  TOLD  HOW  LONG  THE  WATERS  HAD  COVERED  THE  EARTH.  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  LONG,  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  RELATIVELY  SHORT.


IF  YOU  HAD  BEEN  IN  A  BOAT  DURING  THAT  TIME,  THERE  WOULD  HAVE  BEEN  NOTHING  TO  SEE,  IT  WAS  UTTER  BLACKNESS.  GOD  USES  LIGHT,  WHITE,  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES  TO  REPRESENT  HOLINESS,  RIGHTEOUSNESS;  BLACK  WOULD  REPRESENT  THE  VERY  OPPOSITE.


GOD  SAID,  “LET  THERE  BE  LIGHT.”  IT  WAS  NOT  THE  LIGHT  OF  THE  FOURTH  DAY;  IT  WAS  A  LIGHT  WHERE  BLACKNESS  WAS  GONE,  SOMETHING  LIKE  BEING  IN  A  FOG;  YOU’D  NOW  BE  ABLE  TO  SEE  VERY  CLEARLY  THE  WATERS  BELOW  YOU  AND  YOUR  BOAT,  IF  YOU’D  BEEN  THERE  IN  A  BOAT.


THERE  WOULD  NOW  BE  A  DIFFERENCE  OF  LIGHT  BETWEEN  THE  NIGHT  AND  THE  DAY.


END  OF  THE  FIRST  DAY.  


SECOND  DAY:  GOD  CONTINUED  TO  MAKE  THE  WATERS  OVER  THE  EARTH  SEPARATE  FROM  THE  FOGGY  WATERS  ABOVE  THE  EARTH.  BUT  STILL  NOT  CLEAR  ENOUGH  TO  SEE  THE  SUN  OR  MOON  OR  STARS.


THIRD  DAY:   GOD  BROUGHT  FORTH  THE  LANDS  FROM  BELOW  THE  WATER,  AND  MADE  THE  LANDS  AND  SEAS  LIKE  AS  TODAY.


FOURTH  DAY:  GOD  BROUGHT  FORTH  THE  HEAVENS  AS  WE  HAVE  THEM  TODAY;  LIGHT  AS  TODAY  DURING  THER  DAY,  AND  LIGHT  AS  TODAY  DURING  THE  NIGHT.  WE  ARE  NOW  ON  AN  EARTH  RESTORED  AS  BASICALLY  LIKE  THE  DINOSAUR  EARTH.


FIFTH  DAY:  GOD  MADE  ALL  THE  CREATURES  THAT  ARE  IN  THE  SEAS.


SIXTH  DAY:  GOD  MADE  ALL  THE  LAND  CREATURES  AND  HE  MADE  ADAM  AND  EVE.


GOD  DID  ALL  THIS  IN  SIX  LITERAL  DAYS.  AS  WE  SEE  FROM  THE  BIBLE,  GOD  ONLY  HAS  TO  SPEAK  AND  IT  IS  DONE!


SO  MAKING  THE  UNIVERSE  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  DONE  IN  MANY  DIFFERENT  WAYS.  SPEAKING  “LET  THERE  BE  A  BILLION  GALAXIES  OVER  THERE”  AND  “A  BILLION  GALAXIES  HERE”  ETC.  GOD  COULD  PUT  “AGE”  INTO  SOME  OF  THEM,  SO  SOME  STARS  WERE  READY  TO  EXPLODE  AND  DIE,  SOME  READY  TO  BE  BORN.  THEN  HE  COULD  HAVE  SAID,  “LET  THEM  ALL  EXPAND  AND  LET  THE  UNIVERSE  BE  EVER  GROWING.”


IT  IS  FUTILE  TO  SPECULATE  HOW  GOD  ORIGINALLY  CREATED  THE  UNIVERSE  AND  LAWS  WITHIN  IT.  IT  IS  ENOUGH  TO  KNOW  THAT  AS  THE  BIBLE  TEACHES,  OUT  OF  NOTHING  CAME  THE  PHYSICAL  UNIVERSE…… WELL  AS  WE  COUNT  “PHYSICAL”  -  AS  WE  SEE  WHAT  TO  US  IS  PHYSICAL,  FOR  SCIENCE  NOW  KNOWS  THERE  IS  NO  REAL  PHYSICAL,  EVERYTHING  IS  ATOMS  OR  SMALLER  YET  THAN  ATOMS;  SO  “PHYSICAL”  IS  A  RELATIVE  TERM  WE  USE  IN  OUR  LIVING  ON  THIS  EARTH  AND  PART  OF  THE  UNIVERSE.


THIS  ALSO  EXPLAINS  HOW  GOD  CAN  MAKE  HIMSELF  INTO  WHAT  TO  US  IS  FLESH  AND  BONE [HE  NEEDS  NO  BLOOD  BEING  ETERNAL],  AND  BE  TOUCHED  AND  EAT  A  MEAL,  AND  APPEAR  AND  DISAPPEAR  AT  WILL,  AS  JESUS  DID  WITH  HIS  DISCIPLES  AFTER  HIS  RESURRECTION  BACK  TO  ETERNAL  IMMORTAL  LIFE.


AS  STATED  BEFORE,  THE  AUTHOR  OF  THIS  BOOK  “THE  GOD  THEORY”  DOES  NOT  BELIEVE  IN  THE  LITERAL  READING  OF  GENESIS  ONE.  HE  IS  NOT  A  FUNDAMENTALIST;  HE  IS  AN  EVOLUTIONIST  THEORY  OF  GOD  MAN,  AS  ARE  MANY  OTHERS  WHO  CLAIM  TO  BELIEVE  IN  A  CREATOR  GOD.


Keith Hunt