The Revealing Science of God © 2000 The Church of Yahweh

PART 3: DID GOD CREATE?

The fundamental postulate upon which all of this material will be based is that

a) God is the creator of this universe.

b) We therefore can learn about him through the creation.

We must examine the likelihood and probability of this postulate. Because all of the revelation of God, all of the science of God is useless if this is not true.

So the first question we have to deal with is, did God create the universe? You have several different theories in the world. Some say that no, all we have is matter and that matter has exploded through a big bang and is now dancing throughout the universe. And due to laws of physics the different atoms are collecting and recollecting in different fashions. The result is eventually universes, galaxies, stars, planets, oceans, frogs and people.

Others say no, everything has come down from above. That the matter is a reference of other non-physical beings. The two views are absolutely opposite. And to clearly distill the difference, I think is to frame it in this manner. To camp #1 consciousness is a result of matter. To camp #2 matter is a result of consciousness. This is actually a chicken vs. the egg question. And upon it hinges all other discussions.

And it seems to me that this is a very, very good question to have the ability to focus upon. You see, the entire religious debate, the entire debate between the religious and scientific communities, revolves around this one postulate.

Is matter a result of consciousness, or is consciousness a result of matter?

Inside of the human being this is the difference between seeing that human knowledge resides in the brain vs. the brain is simply the organ through which human knowledge (mind) expresses itself.

In camp #1 when you are dead there is nothing left because your biophysical organism is the totality of your being. For camp #2 when you die very little happens other then the loss of one part of your organism.

Life is More Than Chemical Interactions

From my studies and research it is clear, at least to me, that the absolutely overwhelming body of evidence is that matter is the result of consciousness, and not the other way around.

The primary reports and ramifications, and experiential data that I have for this comes from a cross cultural report of events which happen to the human being after their death.

The Tibetan Book of the Dead, written centuries ago, accounts in symbolic language the same exact steps that human beings go through who have reported events after their death, upon being clinically resurrected. Some people have been dead for as long as 2 hours. And have come back to report astounding things. The details do not concern us here. You can do the research yourself.

Next we add evidence which we find in cultures world-wide: the encounters, in one form or another, that people have had with non-corporeal beings, such as what we call demons and angels.

Finally we have the experience of astral projection or soul travel, wherein the person leaves their body & travels in the next world.

I therefore concluded that the overwhelming evidence is that consciousness is primal. That there is a non-physical counterpoint to all that we see. We are, in short, more than our bodies.

Life, in other words, will never ever be found in a laboratory, because there is no thing, no chemical interaction which defines life. We have organisms, very, very, small organisms, one cell bacteria and other amoebae, that science has been able to chart completely. And science has been able to map out every single molecule in the body of that unicellular organism. We actually have worms that we have the entire DNA chain mapped out and understood. And there is no visible chemical interactions which can create life.

Life, whatever it is, is a non-physical force which finds itself expressing through matter.

But we don't have to go simply by the evidence of visions or dreams or after death experiences. The totality of our lives also indicate to us the primacy of consciousness. Every single creation, every single man made object, every single animal made object. And there are many of them, there are bird nests, there are rabbit holes, there are beaver damns, there are many constructions, not just from the human world. Every one of these is based upon a preceding consciousness, a knowledge, a plan.

Even if we go so far as to speak of random art where the painter is simply throwing paint upon a screen, there is still a consciousness, a plan to perform this random act. And every single enterprise we have ever seen in this world shows us that consciousness comes first and matter comes second!

First we have the idea for a book, then we have the book. First we have the idea for a restaurant, then we have the restaurant. First we have the idea for a candle, then we have the candle. It is never the other way around.

As it comes to nature then, we have a choice. We can theorize that nature has become as it is, due to a series of the exact same processes that have resulted in everything else in the creation. Or that they are based upon processes which are completely absolutely and utterly foreign to them. In other words, since everything in nature, as it manipulates nature's energies creating dams and bombs and sparrows nests, always begins with a intellectual consciousness, preceding the physical creation, then either there is some unseen creative intelligence which is manifesting this universe, or, all of nature exists from a fundamentally different perspective and different avenue of creation then everything else that we see.

In other words, if the sparrows have some form of consciousness before they build their nests, how did the sparrows get here? Doesn't it seem reasonable to at least theorize or perhaps postulate that some creative guiding intelligent force led to the existence of the sparrow? For me the answer is overwhelmingly yes.

The Fractal Universe

One thing which we have seen, especially recently in nature, in the revolution going on in the sciences through fractal geometry, and the application of fractal mathematics to all fields of science, is that all of nature a reflection of itself. Cycles which occur on a microscopic scale, occur on a macroscopic scale. The same factors of gravity which hold the moon in rotation around the Earth, hold you to the Earth.

The scale is different, but the result is the same. The same mathematical structures which are inside of the roadway system of the human race also exist inside the arteries of the human body. As above so below. The air turbulence which helps create our weather patterns also affects the flow of liquid into your bathtub.

These mathematical structures show across widely disparagingly different systems, fundamental underlying mathematical harmony. The same process of photosynthesis exists in the tallest mighty pine trees and hundred foot tall oak trees. And 300 foot redwood trees, as it does in the tiniest blade of grass.

And that has been part of the delight and ecstasy for the human race over the centuries as seeing the oneness of nature. And yet the scientific community today is unable to make the connection and find any comfort or allow the realization that, based upon all the evidence from within the creation, that all beings use consciousness to form and create. They're unwilling to accept that this can indicate that there is indeed a higher consciousness which is forming and creating the entire universe. Fractal. As below, so above.

Modern science is completely incapable of dealing with non-physical entities. Therefore they must state with their fundamental postulate that there is nothing outside of matter and that matter is the only reality.

The Astounding Nature of Order

There is one final piece of evidence which for me is absolutely conclusive, to state that everything has a conscious creation, and that is the nature of complexity. A bird is not a simple thing. And if you remove even 5% of the bird's feathers that bird will not be able to fly. If you remove 5% of the bird's muscles, that bird will not be able to fly.

The structure of DNA alone is so unbelievably, incomprehensibly complex that to theorize that all of the immense incalculable complexity of the universe results from chance manipulations of eons of time, results for me and millions of other people in a complete paradox.

If structure has resulted from chance interactions cast throughout the ages of time, then there must be 2 equal tendencies: toward order and disorder. But if these 2 tendencies are only equal (as pure chance would require) then nothing could exist at all!

Grant right now a function, wherein during the first cycle the function adds 10% and during the 2^nd cycle it subtracts 10% and then it repeats. If you begin with any substance and pass it through that function, the result after an infinite series of reiterations is absolutely zero!!

For example, if you start with $100 and come noon each day I give you an additional 10% of your money, come noon you will have $110. And if come sundown everyday we remove from you 10% of your money then at sundown we take out $11 and you are left with $99.

Notice, please, that these are two absolutely equal functions. Let us assume that the forces of creation are part creative and part destructive, tending toward & away from order. And that they are absolutely equal, for the laws of chance would require it. The limit of the function plus 10% minus 10% as the function moves toward infinity is zero. It will not take very many years until you have no money at all and I have all of it.

Now, the paradox is that this function leads to zero even after it has started with $100. If you are not going to be able to start at that point then how in the world will you ever get the $100 dollars? Since equal functions will always destroy more then they create, how do we ever get to the point where we have anything to be destroyed?

This problem has not been addressed by the evolutionists. If we are going to have any order at all, then the forces of creation are going to have to be stronger then the forces of destruction. If that is true, then the forces of creation must be mathematically, statistically unequal to the forces of destruction. And by its very definition, then, creation is stronger then destruction. The tendency to order must be greater then the tendency toward disorder. Yet this is not a simple random chance. This means that flipping heads will come up more often then flipping tails.

The mechanism that "sees to it" that heads comes up more often, that sees to it that the forces of creation are stronger then the forces of destruction, that sees to it that the forces of ordering are greater then the forces of chaos, must lie outside of pure chance.

So what we can say is, due to the incredible complexity of the material world, if there is not going to be some form of creative intelligence guiding it, then at the least there must be a skewing of the results so that equal cycles of order and disorder are not in fact equal but are favoring order.

That force favoring order, that part of the creation that tends to make things more ordered then disordered, is exactly what we call God.

So, based upon the evidence of those who have physically died and have come back to talk about it, based upon the experiences that people have had throughout the years with non-corporeal beings, based upon the nature of all creative processes that we can witness have a intelligent antecedent, and based upon the overwhelming complexity of the universe, and the necessity of having some skewing of the forces of order and disorder toward order for anything to exist at all, I conclude that:

1) It is at least reasonable to state that the entire universe has a creative, intelligent source.

2) Consciousness precedes matter.

3) God is defined as the agent which has shaped and molded nature.

If none of this makes any sense to you, or you disagree with it, then there is simply no point in continuing to read this. This is my starting point. This is the postulate, if you will. I cannot actually prove to you that two parallel lines stay forever equidistant. In the same way I cannot actually prove to you that God made the heavens and the Earth. But I can give you reasonable evidence as to why it is acceptable to define the terms this way. And I can state that, based upon the totality of my experiences, it is much more consistent within nature. It is much more rational. And it is much more cohesive and justifiable to state that God is the creative force which has shaped this universe then it is to state that God is merely an idea that is the result of consciousness bubbling up from the interaction of matter.

That being said, the most difficult part is over. Because, this postulate leads us to many conclusions which we can draw based upon it. If we are able to be comfortable postulating that God created the heavens and the Earth, then we can in fact learn much, much, much about who He is. That leads us to our next section, who is God?

[Home] [Colorful Introduction]  [God's Name] [The Revealing Science of God] [Jesus Died for You] [Contact] [Support] 

 (c) 1996-2010 The Church of Yahweh. All rights reserved. May be freely distributed, but never sold. 
If you are going to use this material in your web page or ministry, wonderful. But please have the honor to attribute where you got it from. Thank you.