through
The Creation of All That Is
by Ra-Harakhte
As science progresses and unravels certains laws of nature and existence, does it not lay tribute to the debunking of a religious deity? Obviously the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages thought so. When Copernicus announced his discovery of the earth rotating around the sun and not the universe rotating around the earth, he was hounded and persecuted by the Catholic domain, "treading on heresy" as it were. In fact, history reveals a slough of scientific facts that the Church tried to sweep under the rug because the evidence weighed in against the centuries old doctrine that was supposedly "written by the hand of God."
Again, simply man's ignorance and/or desire to control his fellow man by ways of foolishness have left humankind's development in a slumber. The Greeks, prior to Copernicus, knew that the earth was round and that it traveled around the sun. Aristarchus in 3 b.c. developed the heliocentric theory (ascribed to Copernicus nineteen centuries later). Also in 3 b.c., Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth, and in the second, Hipparchus invented longitude and latitude, determined by the obliquity of the ecliptic and discovered the precession of the equinoxes. In the fifth century, Democritus and Leucippus taught the atomic theory of matter and the evolutionary theory of life. Unfortunately, when Christianity took over and the Dark Ages settled in, the "blackout" of all science was complete -- performed by the "light of the world", the Church. In fact, in the Middle Ages, the church was against allowing the common person (or peasant) to even learn how to read. Why? Because of the possibility of knowledge overwhelming their god of supernatural and "unexplainable" forces. Things are only "super"natural and unexplainable until someone studies them and discovers the mechanics of its being.
Had such great thinkers and the development of knowledge not been subverted, how long would it have taken to make ships that could cross the ocean to discover the Americas? Probably much sooner than 1492. And what about other technology, such as lunar modules capable of going to the moon? If they were studying atomic theory in as early as the fifth century before science was replaced with superstition, I would venture to say much earlier than the 1960's.
In each case of man's eventual progress, a clue is given regarding the true nature of existence . . . That man is not always "at odds" with what seems beyond his comprehension. Or that even what is beyond his comprehension is even beyond him as a being. It is simply fear of the unkown or lack of knowledge (in other words, ignorance).
Take the moon, for example. In ancient times the moon was worshipped as a deity. Even the Bible says the moon was created to "rule the night." This celestial body has captivated us for millennia. Wouldn't ancient man be stunned to learn that we can now walk on it? That astronauts can drive stellar machinery on its crevice-filled surface? We have discovered that the moon is by no means a god, and that it does not rule the night. We see the moon simply because of the sun's reflection bouncing off its surface.
The laws of nature tell us that at one time there was no life on earth; that the planet was a mass of gases and wicked cataclysms which eventually settled and created our current environments. Basically, science has led us to believe that everything in the universe has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Yet the Bible tells us that, although "physical" and material bodies exist in this fashion, God does not. We've been told God has always been and always will be. Now, in order to have an all-powerful and eternal God, this statement reinforces that goal. However, a look at other mythologies paints a different picture.
In other religions, like the ancient Egyptians for instance, prior to material creation and emergence of gods, the universe was nothing but a primordial ocean. However, this ocean had no surface. Eventually, the god Atum sprung, by the sheer force of his own will and created materiality, starting with a hill for which he could stand upon. In certain Chinese creation stories, we have Yin and Yang combined chaotically in a primordial egg which is then broken and eventually, through years of separation and aided by a supernatural deity that existed in the egg, the universe is formed.
Other mythologies lay creation as an act of dreaming by ancestors, secretion of bodily fluids from a source deity, creation by word, even dismemberment of a primordial being. All of these show us the richness of human imagination.
Science tells us creation came from the Big-Bang. From this single explosion materiality sprang. Though this is a compelling physical hypothesis, the question still remains of what created the Bang? And, from that Bank, is it just sheer luck that any life came from it? Couldn't it have been just as easy to have an explosion that would create lifeless, floating debris and no sentient properties? It is here at this moment that we must focus, for if God or a supernatural force exists, this is where the proof resides.
At this point, prior to the Bang, we must assume the universe was a void. However, when we humans think of a void, we either invision black nothingness, or maybe even white, like a sheet of paper. However, even these are inaccurate. For a void to exist, it must be void of everything, including color (such as black or white).
For sake of convenience, let's describe the void like this:
Now, without any stars and planets, space would not have light, so our eyes could not see depth, nor height or width, nor would we hear anything either. Without the fives senses, the darkness would take on a whole new meaning. We, as humans, would be void without them, wouldn't we? The universe would be Nothing.
In Nothing, how could there be creation? Especially everything the modern universe holds? Well, the universe itself is a process of evolution. In the three dimensional universe, evolution is dictated by Time, so it is safe to assume that the universe, at its very early stages, was nothng like the universe we know now since Time dictates growth. In its infancy the universe was probably nothing more than a series of gases and other anomolies that eventually coalesced and formed into planets and stars.
In Nothing there exists the potential for everything. I'll say that again:
If the void is empty of everything, it would be lacking the necessary ingredients to even "think" creating a single element, right? Wrong. This is where the paradox begins, for in Nothing, there exists no limits. In Absolute Nothingness, Nothing knows no limits. It's as though it were a lone man in a deep, deep slumber that, upon appearance of this sleeping giant he seems harmless and uselss, almost dead, but upon awakening, he can perform wonders -- walking, talking, building with his hands, etc. And so it is with the Force of Creation.
Prior to the universe, there was Nothing. And it existed like a pool of water that was completely calm, it's surface like glass. Then the potential inherent in the Nothingness became kinetic, meaning active.
As the outpouring of creation continued, natural laws of change and flux were observed, namely evolution. From this design, the creative energy would become anything and everything -- and hence we have not only non-physical dimensions and universes, but also spirit-forms as well. All of these are derived from the same creative source which, by its own design, is meant to change and evolve continuously and would naturally give birth to these things.
God is Nothing and, at the same time, everything that sprang from the Nothing is also God, but God as a kinetic force.
And the Bible confirms this, if you must know. If Elohim were to create the universe from mere words ("Let there be light"), it still does not negate the fact that the light would have to come from, at the very least, His mind, and that alone is from within. Again, the universe is an outgrowth of God and his potential (from a Biblical standpoint). If God took elements from outside his body and hand-crafted the universe, where did those elements come from? Had to come from Himself for He is the only "alive" force in the universe -- He is the universe.
Does all this answer the nature of the Divine? Well, partially. It shows us, at the very least, one of the divine's functions: Unbounded creativity.
In three dimensional universe, the function of Time allows us to see that evolution, thus evolution is a major law in the book of Divine Nature. This is the evidence that every living thing's innate purpose is to evolve and become greater/better; to become more adaptable and be a more quality lifeform that is less inhibited than those before; To better deal with the univese, whether this adaptation be physical, mental, or spiritual. Nothing is immune to this act. This gives us the purpose of the divine, the purpose of the universe and all life: To become so "pure" through evolution that everything will be as it were in its original, pristine state: Namely Nothingness:
-- And that is the Nature of the Divine.
God is not a separate individual deity or entity. The sum of the universe and all of creation is the sum of God.
and
Each individual aspect of creation is the energy, nature, body, and will of God
All That Is
copyright 1998 by Ra-Harakhte (Ra-Harakhte@webtv.net)
