Adjusting to Creation
Created | Updated May 1, 2002
The writer is no scientist professionally but has something to say about theoretical physics that, if taken seriously, could have a profound effect on future science. In order to give reason to the writing of this paper, there is need to describe a personal experience of growing up.
'When I was a little boy living on Walney Island, I used to be encouraged to go to Sunday School. Mum had always taught me to say my prayers before getting into bed and I did so with feeling, in a simple belief that it would do good if Mum said it would and it always ended, I remember, 'God bless Mummy and Daddy and make Austin a good boy'. It was only when I got to Sunday School that I got a first glimmer of the idea of organised religious thinking and, even so young, found myself puzzled.'
From then on (but I only recognise it now I'm old), I was an undeclared agnostic. All through the bulk of my life I felt I had no direct evidence from God of His, Her or Its existence and no
convincing evidence from anyone else that they had been told the reality of God from the Source.
We were told things like 'the Bible is the Word of God' but we knew it was written by man (using that word in its ungendered sense, although it was indeed mainly males of the Jewish race who originated it - 'how odd of God to choose the Jews', as a Mr Ewer wrote in 1924!). Also, without us having any direct instructions from a recognisable God about sins as seen by God, most
Churches of my country have long insisted on the idea of being condemned to Hell after death if we did too much wrong. My view was 'how could an omniscient all-wise God be so unreasonable?'
After Olive and I wed in one, she showed no more wish than me to go to church to worship. We saw good in going through the routines of the Church over marriage, christening and confirmation of children and death. In that attitude we showed little religious logic, of course. We saw little odd in putting both Peter and Michael into the choir of St Albans Abbey, when we lived in St Albans. It was a mark of progress and a potential help to being accepted by desirable schools. Throughout our life together, until Olive died, we continued in this half-disconnected way over Church. From that period of life, I do not recall much serious discussion between us of fundamentals of belief and suppose we were too busy with just living.
Yet, my own disillusion with organised religion in no way diminished a constantly strong personal interest in the 'what's it all about?' of Creation. All through life since Mum taught me to pray I kept saying 'God bless' in leave-taking, without a clear meaning in mind. Inside, I felt there had to be some superior power for existence to exist, yet I could, also, say to myself 'well, what does it matter if this life is all there is and it's just curtains when we go'. Behind that thought was the
question 'is there an ultimate purpose for existence?'. Of course, assuming a higher Power of Creation, simply living might be that purpose set by the Power but if so, to what end and is it ultimate anyway? I supposed for our time on Earth that just ourselves must set our purposes in living, if free will means anything. If there is a larger purpose beyond life on Earth, it remains to be explained.
The big change in my view of higher power behind Creation came from Peter's giving me a copy of the book 'Conversations with God - An uncommon dialogue' by Neale Donald Walsch, completed in
Oregon at end 1994. That was the first book of a trilogy, completed in 1998. In 1999, Walsch issued a new book 'Friendship with God', which I find makes some points a bit clearer. From here on, if I need to mention something said in these books, I will refer to them as 'CWG' for short.
CWG gave me, for the first time, a concept of God that made sense. After discussions with my sons I became convinced of the way of our being, of why we are the way we are and of the reality of the
spiritual background to our Earth life. I have realised, also, that what I saw as a new view of all that is has really been widely understood all round the World through the ages. In the ego-led human
way, however, the message became confused as various religious dogma formed.. Walsch's book is, then, simply the best explanation around for someone like me, interested in grasping essentials rather than wishing to be part of the mode of presentation of God by any given Church.
CWG's central message is that we living creatures carry within us the vital creative force of all there is, the life force if you prefer it or, indeed, God. This is what we also call our soul. Put another way, we are all, in our spirits, part of God and have eternal existence.
The wonders of the created Universe are so immense in scope, so fascinatingly complex in detail, yet seeming so straightforward in achievement, that any man-made idea is tiny and laborious by
comparison. Yet, this writer finds himself lost in admiration for the ingenuity of humans with their Earthly capabilities, working within constraints that, apparently, do not apply at the spiritual level
of Creation.
Our wonder-working scientists, picking to pieces and explaining the practical realities of the way we exist, have shown that the basis of our reality is made from energy. What we see as substance is
built up from atoms of various kinds of matter, constructed from and attached together by energy forces in various styles. That substance, 99 percent of which is simply space between energy particles or waves, is a translation in our brains from the energy information that comes into our eyes. Nobody has a provable explanation for what energy is in itself, though we recognise and measure it in manifold forms, such as sub-atomic particles, light waves, heat, electric power and so on. What is recognised (via Quantum theory) is that underneath all substance is a world of uncertainty, varying according to the wave or particle view that we adopt of any given form of energy.
A popular current of belief in Science is that there can be a grand unified theory (GUT) of physics, a 'theory of everything' to do with matter and energy. It has not been suggested that the theory will explain the fact of existence. So the 'everything' needs to be understood as 'everything within the limits set by existence' and, so, means explaining how matter, energy, forces, etcetera behave and can be used.
Ability to explain the behaviour how of existence but inability to explain why existence exists is a paradox recognised by leading scientists.
Stephen Hawking, a leading light in GUT thinking, tells us Einstein rejected the biblical idea of God but also records Einstein’s famous statement 'God does not play dice', when he voiced his doubts about the uncertainties created through Quantum Theory. Apparently, Einstein would not reject a concept of a power behind Creation. Similarly, Hawking comments that discovery of a complete unified theory would be to explain how the Universe works. It would not, however, explain why it works. Hawking says 'that would be to know the mind of God'.
If Science has yet to find a demonstrable explanation for existence, how might it be explained, without being able to prove it here on Earth?
The concept I fancy starts from the point just made, that the forces we recognise and scientifically measure are limited to the physical how of existence. Yet there are forces we cannot measure. A
most notable one is the life force, which keeps creatures pressing on with living and, for the most part, mating to bring more life into being. Clearly we are getting into the CWG region again and into
envisaging forces outside definition. This suggests that some sort of unknowable force, perhaps we might just call it a thought from the eternal and infinite spiritual power, has conceived a condition
for physical energy to exist and so make possible the Creation of the Universe as we experience it from Earth.
What did the Creative-thought force do to make energy? An appealing idea is that it started with a totally neutral field, within an eternal and infinite spiritual consciousness, where thought force operated in some indescribable way. The Creative thought forced the neutral field to split into positive and negative energies, possibly forming positive and negative Universes at the same time.
It seems clear that this Creation concept cannot be taken further, from where we find ourselves. There is no restriction implied upon continuing scientific research into making better sense of the
reality that our Earthly consciousness presents us with. No obvious contradiction arises, for instance, in relation to the 'Big Bang' concept of the creation of our Universe, or with research
findings on positive and negative existence of particles or in theoretical physics concepts of multiple universes. Science indicates that positive and negative matter cancel out when they come together.
'Positive' and 'negative' are, of course, simply words with no meaning except to say they are opposite. If our Universe is called the 'positive' one, the idea of a 'negative' one formed at the same 'Big Bang' split of the neutral field is appealing, since the same amount of positive and negative matter energy must, presumably, have been created and must somehow be kept separated. Finally, Creation split apart matter that has a constant pull to join back into the harmony of the original neutral field. No scientific explanation exists for that pull we call Gravity. There is a theoretical physics concept of curvature in the space-time continuum reflecting the working of Gravity, which presents a mathematical picture of how Gravity works but does not explain why those effects exist.
One of the greatest acts of human Science has been world-wide adoption of scientific method, that seeks to make all scientific findings objective and confirmable. That makes it very difficult for our scientists to grant rationale to the idea of Thought Power giving rise to physical existence.
Modern Science recognises four basic forces in nature, namely, Gravity, strong nuclear, weak interaction and electro-magnetic forces. The weakest force Gravity has an infinite range, that
cannot be cancelled by a 'negative force' in the same way as electromagnetism, nor negated after a short distance like nuclear forces. Gravitational pull is proportional to the mass of the object
exerting it. In sum, Gravity is a general effect deriving from the physicality of being, whilst the other three forces derive from the atomic structures behind physical reality.
Gravity seems different in character to the other three basic forces. However, Albert Einstein chose to search for a unified field that would extend his general theory of relativity and link
electromagnetism with gravitation. He failed but a worldwide scientific effort continues to show Gravity force waves exist as Einstein predicted, so far with no promise of success. On the other
hand, a relationship in nature between the three other forces looks persuasive. By 1979, an 'electroweak theory' was developed, which links electromagnetism and the weak interactive force. This was demonstrated by practical experiment.
The foregoing suggests an hypothesis, that Gravity has a special place in Existence, being at the interface between the Creation act of spiritual Thought Power and the resulting Quantum realities of life on Earth that Science evaluates. That could suggest an opening up of totally new fields for exploration by Science. Of course, there is a doubt – we are clearly involved here with the workings of the Almighty and we have no idea yet if Thought Power leaves space for the Earth-state human race to extend its view of the Universe and Creation in ways we have not yet conceived and that would fit with the ways of spiritual being. Heaven knows where initiatives of this kind might lead.
