WHAT IS GOD
Age Old Question What Is GOD
Everyone asks this dull, drab, boring question. Therefore, it should be dealt with immediately, which is not to trivialize this all encompassing query. Here's the problem. It is just too large of a question. What's the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything? TOO BIG of a question is the dilemma we face in trying to answer.
Why not ask how suns and planets are created? Why not ask how humans can be created? Instead, people want to understand the big picture, so they question 'who is the Architect of it ALL?' Who is the overall Builder? People ask 'what is God' as if they can understand the answer. They cannot even understand the question. The problem is the 'question of God' is not understandable. The problem is the 'answer of God' is truly incomprehensible.
We are but microscopic insects in the grand scheme of things in this vast universe. How could such small creatures such as us expect to understand the thing, being, force, entity, alien or whatever you choose to call GOD? We cannot. The question becomes nearly moot.
Who says there is only one Universe? Why believe there is the singularity of only one Big Bang? If the cosmos teaches us anything it should be the fact of a limitless, boundless, regenerative infinity. Nothing stops and simply comes to an end; there is always a beyond, a flow, a change or a recycling. A re-Genesis of you will. There is always many in one and one in many.
Atoms are not the smallest bodies; they are composed of infinitesimal 'quarks.' Quarks are probably composed of even smaller bits. The universe is not like China; its borders do not end with a wall. In fact, there are no borders. There is not one Universe and one Big Bang. The ultimate, overall, Super-Universe contains endless worlds and an infinite number of Big Bangs ... Multiverses.
Please, think on this point for a moment. Let the idea of many, many universes sink into the minds that may never have contemplated the possibility. 'An infinite number of Big Bangs' is a big one to swallow in one gulp. Our Big Bang is merely that ... 'OUR' Big Bang. That primordial explosion, that was our world's physical beginning, is our Big Bang ... like we have our cluster of galaxies, our galaxy, our sun and our planet Earth.
It is not THE Big Bang and there is not a single universe or a single Big Bang. Why not clusters of Big Bangs? And clusters of clusters of Big Bangs as there are clusters of galactic clusters? This larger picture of 'worlds within worlds' is the PATTERN ... the archetype. That concept probably applies to the idea of many Big Bangs. So, if true, what does that do to one's standard or alternative view of God?
Consider the amazing possibility that our Electro-Magnetic Spectrum are more worlds, physical universes with their own Big Bangs, relatively traveling by us at such high velocities that they are only perceived as light-speed frequencies. Light is the only visible portion of the EMS. The other bands are different EM frequencies such as infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays, television, microwaves, cosmic rays, short and long radio waves.
In physics, we ask 'how can an object act as particle AND wave?' The answer has to do with relative MOTION. Take particles, like atoms and molecules, and move them very fast (light-speed) relative to stationary atoms and molecules ... and you get this RAIN of Electro-Magnetic energy from space. Space is not an empty void of nothingness. Our radio telescopes do not detect the observable universe. The huge dishes and arrays are constructed to record the RADIO or EMS universe that exists of micro 'quanta' moving along different wavelengths at light-speed. Radio sources are everywhere in the universe, in all wavelengths and in all directions. Real, physical worlds are warping by us so fast that we only detect them as EM energy. Think about that.
Let the idea that the energy received by radio telescopes are actual solar systems sink in ... that real, physical universes, like and unlike ours, could be zipping by us so fast that it is only possible to perceive them as EM waves. This certainly does not break the Energy = Matter equation. The speed of light is the limit for each universe. If you, in a light-speed saucer, reach light-speed ... then, you run-off and no longer exist in your universe. Your ship has caught up with a particular light-speed universe ... and it now appears stationary to you. Certain saucer vehicles may change universes as easy as hitting a button on a remote control. What does that do the picture of God?
The truth is Church officials should never be 'speaking FOR God.' How can they? We know so little of the universe ... and yet we think we can conceive of its overall CREATOR? We are so unaware that our entire universe is probably only a microscopic particle of far greater Universes and still there is no end. Worlds to the 'micro' and worlds to the MACRO, endlessly, is the probable composition of the UNIVERSE.
The only philosopher that had it astronomically correct was Dr. Seuss in his book 'Horton Hear a Who?' The universes never end. If Albert Einstein was only alive long enough to read Dr. Seuss, then maybe he would have understood the 'Unified Field.' Stars or suns are really positively-charged, atomic nuclei. The planets in solar system patterns are really negatively-charged electrons in their orbits around their suns (protons). Our cosmic bodies are but micro particles in a physical Universe on an incomprehensible, larger level above us. And still, that larger world is only a small particle of something far greater.
Another consideration is the link between Black Holes and quasars. Not only do Black Holes suck everything from all sides into one point, they also SHRINK the objects or ships caught within the powerful vortex. Unlike popular belief, you are not crushed upon entering the Black Hole. Also, (this could be a hard one to grasp) you and your ship survive the complete journey through a Black Hole. You are not destroyed in a 'singularity' as Professor Hawking suggests. Once more, universes do not come to an end. There is all the reason to believe that ... if you go into a Black Hole ... you exit another universe's quasar. If there is a 'yin,' then there must be an equal and opposite 'yang.' This is Universal Law.
Quasars are White Holes. Enormous amounts of energy/matter eject out of these spherical, white objects at the farthest reaches of our observable universe. More energy than entire galaxies flow out of a quasar. We have photographed vast jets of matter millions of miles in length shooting from quasars. As strange as matter curves, flows and disappears into a Black Hole ... incredible amounts of energy/matter appear and shoot out from the 'quasi-stellar' mysteries known as quasars. What astronomers do not realize is that it is easier to explain the enigma of quasars as HOLES. Everything pours OUT of a quasar (not in) at all directions, even light, from a single point. This is the exact opposite of a Black Hole.
'Go into a Black Hole, come out a quasar' is a logical assumption. Imagine entering a Black Hole. You are being SHRUNK into the next level down, to the MICRO universe. You safely emerge out of the other end as if it were a wormhole. Looking back, you see a view from the other side or micro-world. That tiniest vortex of the Black Hole is now the MASSIVE APERTURE OF A SPHERICAL GUSHER OF ENERGY AND MATTER KNOWN AS A QUASAR.
From that microscopic universe, the White Hole quasar is an incredibly large structure. It all depends on your point of view, doesn't it? When we photograph far-out quasars, we are actually viewing objects, ships, matter, debris and energy exiting out after being shrunk down from the MACRO universe above us. When they entered their Black Hole conduits in the MACRO universe, they were shrunk down to our microscopic level. The world is amazing ... much more expansive and multi-layered than you could ever imagine.
Black Hole - Quasar flows may be normal conduits between worlds. They are unfathomable phenomena to Earthlings, but they could be normal space ways for life forms that know how to travel the curves of space.
Before we try to understand the Architect (God), maybe we should attempt to know a bit about the architecture (the Universe). What of parallel worlds? There could be universes existing in different dimensions; invisible realms, different times? Why bring up the God question when we are so blind to true reality? Einstein called us 'feeble creatures' that are blind to the full spectrum of the Universe.
Who says the CREATOR of all things was the Creator of the Earth? Possibly, life forms on an enormous level are responsible for the existence of many universes. Other life-entities could be the galaxy-makers. Another level of life entirely could be the makers of solar systems. God, whatever you believe it to be, might have had NOTHING to do with the formation of the planet we walk upon.
Who says the manufacturer of the Earth created human beings? We may not have been magically created by a mystical God or by the same thing that formed distant galaxies. Humans may not be natural by-products of the planet. We may be strangers here on this planet. We may be the result or end-product of a long-abandoned Earth colony. By the same logic, the seeder of life on Earth might not have been the builder of the planet. The creator of human Life in the universe may not have been the creator of human life on Earth. The creator of human life on Earth might not have been the same ones responsible for the plants and animals on the planet. One could even extrapolate and say 'the CREATOR of EVERYTHING, ALL, the real SUPREME ... might not have been the Being that created something as small and insignificant as our particular universe. Valid statements and questions, no?
The question becomes 'gods or God?' There is an eastern philosophy that every cluster of galaxies has its god; every galaxy has its god; every star system has its god and every planet has its god. Every Big Bang could also have its god. Could these be alien life forms that rule in larger and larger cosmic Hierarchies? Are the angels aliens?
God was once plural; there were multiple gods as in 'Chariots of the Gods?' In books of India that predate the Bible, GODS flew in the sky and waged terrible wars. There were the 'giants,' the 'titans,' the Children of Heaven and the Children of Men.
Before Biblical editing, the word 'gods,' plural, was in the Old Testament. Editors changed 'gods' to the simplified version of 'God' in the Bible. You see, the once enlightened masses fell to the Dark Ages; people became simple and actually descended to primitiveness. They could no longer comprehend complex things or a universe of many gods. Gods became the single GOD. Hundreds of years ago, the masses became indoctrinated on a simpler view. We have regressed as a result.
Today, we should question the concept of one God. Are you so sure Church officials have the correct and true answers? Is it as simple as one God or is that all that your mind can handle? Possibly, we should explore eastern philosophies and the idea of a complex, multi-leveled, multi-faceted Universe? Same can be said for God(s).
A lot of science has been covered on the subject of 'God.' Would not God be the Ultimate Scientist? Scientific facts should not scare or intimidate God as they might bother the Church clergy. Would not God be the ultimate geneticist and know every code of everyone's DNA? Then, why are religious leaders so angry when scientists use stem cells or genetically engineer a clone ... because the geneticists dared to dabble in the realm of God? It would seem as if genetic scientists are emulating God ... and what's wrong with emulating God? Isn't this the goal? (Apotheosis - elevation to Divine Status)
Does GOD exist? 'Yes, but not as the Church and numerous religions perceive Him to be.' For one thing, God is not male and should never be referred to as some kind of bearded man in the sky. What kind of chauvinistic, macho, woman-hating, male priest came up with the nonsense that the Supreme GOD is male? Do not look for simple answers to complex questions. So, why look at God through the eyes of medieval men and women? Come into the modern age. View religious things scientifically and view scientific things religiously.
The Bible in Exodus Chapter 15, verse 3 reads that 'the Lord is a man of war.' This is wrong on so many levels. A hint of historical Truth may be gleaned in the quote as we realize that the god of these people was a 'mountain god and god of war - Yahweh.' The 'war' reference makes no religious sense (unless God is not good), but supports the concept that technology explains many Biblical events.
Consider the idea of CLONING as a possible and reasonable Creation-theory. Now, if this were the case ... that the genesis of humankind on Earth was a result of human cloning ... then, our progenitor, or Creator, would indeed be a human being. And, yes, that would mean that our god could have been a man.
If human, space travelers landed on Earth a very long time ago and cloned themselves ... then, later, those clones stayed and inhabited the planet ... then; our god (small 'g') could have been any human with the ability of space travel and the knowledge of cloning. Possibly, we were not created. Rather, we were Xeroxed.
Another answer to the question of 'What is God?' is also anyone that ruthlessly has ultimate control over another. Too often, in the history of the human race, fascist authorities have played GOD and exercised total dominion over another country/race or culture. Too many wars have been fought in the name of God. Do you really think God is on your side as you shed blood for your country or religion? Maybe God sides with your enemy? Maybe God supports the rebellious, conscientious objector?
We obviously should not negate a wonderful, celestial, spiritual belief system of Higher Beings. One should be in greater and greater awe the more they learn of the world. But, why speak of things we do not understand? Why give the impression that we know something that we could not possibly know? Why use the G-Word at all? In reality, we are all gods.
During World War II, modern military units established bases on numerous South Sea Islands. Primitive Polynesian natives had never seen technology before or people of the outside world. The simple islanders did not understand what they observed. Airplanes, guns, grenades, torpedos, radios and television were beyond their experience.
After the war, people flew back to the islands and made a remarkable discovery. They saw effigies of airplanes. The natives prayed to large models of the airplane. A simple and pure culture on remote islands had been contaminated by the presence of the military. Ever since the bases were dismantled and the servicemen had left, the Polynesians searched the skies. They waited for the return of their new gods and built airplane-idols in their honor. Imagine this same scenario thousands of years ago?
Anyone can become GOD if they have the power to control another group that sees their overseers as gods. Too often in human history, the powerful have ruled over the helpless. Too often we pray to God when we are in great need or desperate trouble. Maybe it is time to take responsibility for ourselves. Maybe it is time to be strong rather than weak? Maybe it is time to rely on ourselves rather than wait for some kind of guidance that might not ever come? Maybe it is time to realize the greatness of ourselves, a new potential for the human race and know that there is god-like power within us all.
Many religions (and the Bible) suggest that we give up our Earthly possessions, the ways of the world, physical pleasures and accept a life in complete servitude to "God." Only a selfish, egotistical God would want such a thing. Why would a loving God, make robot Slaves to serve him as a Master. Personally, I would not want anything to do with a God like this.
What kind of God would create creatures whose ONLY purpose it is ... is to serve and worship God? The answer is an egomaniac of a Creator. Whatever 'God' is to me, that thing, would appreciate diversity; unique/creative art and the power of the individual. Maybe God respects the rebel and critic over the unquestioning slave? Why not use what exists in the world, including physical pleasures? Maybe we are supposed to exercise in the ways of the world. Also, my God would not want or desire to be SERVED by its creations. My God would rather we turn that love and servitude toward each other; love each other ... and be compassionate for all living things and our environment.
Just a thought ...
~Justin Taylor, ORDM., OCP., DM.
My thanks to Doug Yurchey