Epicurus: Inventor of God

Chapter 2

Epicurus: Inventor of God

          

          What a strange title you might say. Everyone knows Epicurus was an atheist, how is he the inventor of God? Epicurus is often accredited as the father of modern scientific philosophy. The major premise behind Epicurus’ philosophy was that pleasure was the highest form of good. Not pleasure in and of itself, but more the absence of pain. The absence of pain is what is good. This sounds like a very nice philosophy correct? If it hurts, it must be evil, avoid pain and you find good. Avoiding pain also means that you avoid hurting others because hurting others brings them pain, and disturbs your peace. 

 

          Epicurus is thought of by many to be one of the fathers of scientific inquiry. Indeed, his theories and ideas have become the foundational backbone behind Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. There is one very large difference, however, between Epicurus and Charles Darwin. Epicurus studied the natural world as a means to obtain freedom from disturbances in his life, as a way to drown himself in the mystery of the cosmos and get lost in the wonders of nature, for in this meditation was all peace and freedom. Epicurus did not set out to disprove the gods through science; he only meant to understand the natural world. This is the one main difference between Charles Darwin and Epicurus. Evolution has set out to disprove the existence of God through the study of the natural world. That has become the focus of modern science; this was not the subject of Epicurus. 

 

           That being said however, Epicurus found that the gods he believed in were a hindrance to his peaceful life. They encroached on tranquility. Thus, just as Darwin would do1,500 years later, he set out on his quest for theodicy. Epicurus did not wish to say the gods did not exist, only to remove them from an interaction with the natural world. Are you starting to see a trend? Epicurus wanted a world in which mankind was able to make his own path, and do his own desires without the interference of the gods. Here is why. Epicurus had a tainted view of god. To my knowledge, Epicurus had no knowledge of the god of the bible; his gods were naturalistic gods, ruling over the forces of nature. 

 

         When you look out at nature what do you see? Destruction and chaos is the natural state of nature. When you have a tornado what is the cause? Well, in Greek thought one of the gods was angry and needed to be appeased. If there was a drought it was because the gods of fertility where not being fruitful, so humanity had to compel the gods to action. The gods posed a huge problem for Epicurus. He wanted a life free of superstition and continual appeasing of the gods. It was too much strife to deal with. Thus Epicurus set out to remove the gods from interaction with the natural world. 
 

          In Greek thought the gods were just humans elevated to a higher existence. This philosophy taught that god, man, and nature were 3 parts to the circle of life. All parts were related to each other, thus, mankind had a certain amount of control over the gods through nature and indeed themselves. If you wanted the gods to do something for you, you would excite them to perform their job. For instance, if you wanted your crop to be fruitful or you wanted your wife to produce children, you would go to the temple and perform sexual rituals so that the gods would be roused by your antics and in turn they would have sex and their fertility would become yours. Thus humanity had a type of control over these naturalistic gods. 

 

          What Epicurus did was separate the gods, humanity, and nature. In so doing he created a theodicy in which both groups were in a closed system. God could not interact with the natural world and the natural world could not control the gods. Like I have been saying, Epicurus put god out of a job. With no interaction with the natural world humanity has no need to interact or care about god in anyway. This was possible because Epicurus saw the gods as nothing more than extensions of humanity. Epicurus came to the correct conclusion. This is the conclusion I came to several years ago when I was faced with my own questions about nature, God, and reality. Either god is more than we know of him, or he is nothing at all. 

 

           Epicurus, in all his studies of science began to see a pattern, storms, seasons, drought, fertility, growth, death, and life, all had natural causes. He rightly observed that the gods had nothing to do with these things. They all had natural explanations. Thus what were his naturalistic gods left to do? They had nothing to do but sit in the heavens and cry at the loss of worship. Epicurus saw that nature died, and then was reborn. It required no divine interaction to send the rain, it was all natural, the cycle of life.

           Yet there was one problem, that problem is eternity. What is one supposed to do with eternity? If the gods are not eternal, what is? Something must be eternal. Here is the reason there has to be something eternal. If you went to the edge of the universe, what would be beyond it? Or say there is not an edge to the universe; it must then go on for eternity? You are starting to see the obvious problem. What is the essence that has eternality in and of itself? To put it in terms of evolution and science, what was there before the big bang? Nothing can come from nothing. It breaks the laws of science to say that something comes from nothing, so something was eternal before the foundation of the universe.

            Besides the previous argument, Epicurus recognized without divine intervention, the universe and all matter would have decayed to nothingness long before now. Modern science recognizes this as the second law of thermodynamics. The entropy of a system tends to increase in reaching equilibrium. Entropy is a word used to describe the disorder of a system, or the inability to predict the position of atoms. As time passes, the interactions between particles lead to greater and greater entropy. Left to itself, in other words, a system will tend toward disorder.

Epicurus came to the conclusion that matter itself was eternal. Matter had always existed and would always exist for all eternity. This is how he bypassed the problem of entropy continually increasing. If matter is eternal it cannot be reduced beyond itself and thus when it breaks down it simply recombines and forms more matter and life all over again. He recognized that this is a hard idea to comprehend, but he accepted that eternity had to exist, whether we as humans can understand it or not. He went farther than just saying that the eternal was just matter, Epicurus brought it all the way down to the theory of the atom. 

 

Epicurus believed in the atom designed by Democritus because it seemingly struck out the awe of order in the universe.¹ He stated that atoms are, at their fundamental state, totally uninspiring and deferring from each other only in weight and shape and size. Thus the apparent order of everything in the universe boils down to the totally unordered simple atom. Material was the random mix of atoms that arrange themselves in haphazard ways. Epicurus was seeking to strike out any awe that one might be tempted to have for the atom. By making it a totally un-complex and simple unit everyone just took it for granted that it was easy for it to be eternal because it needed no designer.

The word atom means indivisible. Greek thought, and indeed modern scientific thought coming into the 19^th and 20^th centuries believed these particles of matter to be irreducible. They thought they had finally found the smallest form of nature possible. Scientists were hoping that this atomic theory would be the key to understanding the eternity of matter.

When Physicists first discovered that matter behaved as if it was made up of particles, they proposed a model that would coincide with Epicurus’ understanding of the simplicity of the universe. In 1906 Joseph John Thomson won the noble prize for his discovery that the atom was not just a simple indivisible substance. He found that it was composed of electrons and protons. His experiments with cathode rays (also known as an electron beam) found that the ray could travel much farther in air than predicted for the size of an atom. In fact they could travel such distances that it suggested the particles in a cathode ray were 1000 times smaller than the atom. During his experiment, Thomson discovered that the cathode ray had a negative charge and could be manipulated with an electric or magnetic field. These experiments seemed to suggest that the smallest form of matter was not the atom but something termed an electron. This lead to the discovery of positively charged particles of slightly more mass than an electron, since hydrogen was known to have a neutral charge there had to be a particle with a positive charge to make the total charge of the atom neutral. 

 

At first the model was proposed to be a “plum pudding” design, with electrons and protons imbedded in the irreducible atom. This model allowed for Epicurus’ theory of simplicity of the atom while still accepting the ideas of smaller units of the atom, since they were essentially part of the atom. However Ernst Rutherford’s gold foil experiment showed this theory to be inadequate. By shooting highly radioactive alpha particles through a very thin sheet of Gold, Rutherford showed that the deviation of particles on the other side was much different than the “Plum Pudding” model suggested. The aberration of most of the particles was very small, almost as if they were being sent through air, not an atom. A few of the particles however showed a very large deviation of greater than 100 degrees. The results of this experiment were shocking. Rutherford was able to calculate that the radius of his gold central charge was less than 3.4 x 10^-14 meters. This proposed an atom with a central charge of less than 1/3000^th of the diameter of the atom itself, with the rest of the space being occupied by empty space and orbiting electrons.

It was beginning to be very clear that the atom was not a simple unit, existing for all eternity without falling apart. The atom is as complex as our universe is complex. Electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom at extremely high speeds, acting as both a particle and a wave. For instance, they behave like a wave in that they occupy different energy levels and frequencies, but if hit by a single photon, only one electron is elevated in energy level thus acting as a particle with mass. As we will learn when dealing with Quantum mechanics in a later chapter, the behavior of an electron or photon, changes from a wave to a particle, simply based off whether or not you are observing them. The atomic theory has become so complex that it is a hard concept to grasp. 

 

The point is that the atom is vastly complex. Those who study the orbit of electrons and the interactions in chemistry are awed by the complexity and order. This was not what Epicurus was hoping for. There is no way that something with such order exists on its own. We find that indeed, the atom is so full of order that it tends to also break down. That much order cannot exist indefinitely on its own, it must have a sustainer or a creator, with just the right conditions for all of these parts to come together to work as an ordered system. 

 

The Theory of Evolution is hinged on the idea that complex can come from non-complex. This is why the atomic theory is such a huge detriment to the theory of naturalism. During evolutions birth the atom was thought to be simple, but now it is seen as anything but. Simplicity cannot produce complex, the atom was complex from the beginning. Complexity cannot create itself; even evolutionists know this, which is why they have simple creatures evolving to more and more complex ones. The fact that the very matter that a creature is made from is already complex begs the question, “What created the original complexity?”

I propose that complexity must stem from complexity, thus the complex atom which is the basis for all matter in the universe must stem from something complex. Since the atom is not eternal, and can indeed be divided, it must have also been created. But what created the atom? That question sparked a whole new area of science into which some of the most expensive scientific research has been done. Quantum mechanics in the area of subatomic particles began to gain the most recognition in the 1950’s when scientists started obtaining scientific data that seemed to suggest that the indivisible atom was in fact made up of even smaller pieces called leptons which in turn can be broken down into quarks. 

 

The study of these subatomic particles gave rise to the invention and construction of the hadron collider that allowed scientists to study atoms in even more depth than ever before. Through Quantum Mechanics it was calculated that the velocity of these particles could be calculated with some accuracy, as could the location of the particles in space, but it was found to be impossible to calculate both at the same time. Here is why, these particles seem never to occupy one space in time because of their wave-like properties. It is almost as if they are everywhere at one time. An Electron can be looked at as a wave with multiple frequencies interfering with each other. This interference pattern is centralized in a specific spot, and travels as you would expect a particle to. It has momentum and can be moved around, quite unlike a wave or a particle. Yet as you add more and more frequencies, thus narrowing your location of the wave packet, the less accurately you can tell what momentum the particle has and where it is going.

 These observations and the resulting Uncertainty Principle so disturbed Einstein that he would devote the remainder of his life to seeking to disprove these findings. 

 

Einstein saw disorder in the theory, and the fact that it fit into no other theory was a huge blow to him. Up to this point, Einstein’s theory of Relativity fit every framework in the observable universe. It was unified and understandable. It was calculable. The fact that quantum particles could not be calculated and seemed to be haphazard, to Einstein, seemed to indicate that God had no part in it. Einstein had some kind of belief in God, he believed God was a God of order and everything he created would be unified and testable. When speaking of this theory, Einstein states, “God does not play dice.”

Einstein had one assumed fallacy in his belief about God. Einstein, while upholding the idea of God, still had a low view of Him. Einstein had God in a box. Packaged nicely into something we could understand and comprehend. To Einstein, God could not operate outside of what he could understand. I do not seek to presume upon the character of Einstein or discredit his view of God, I only desire to display an alternative view. In the theory of God I wish to propose, God is outside of this universe. We essentially live inside the mind of an infinite creator. The fact that Einstein could not find any order in the subatomic does not mean there is no designer. It simply means that the understanding and the tools that we use to observe the universe are not good enough to comprehend. 

 

I would not believe in the God Einstein wished to exist because a God that could be totally understood and calculated would cease to be God and merely be an extension of humanity. I am not saying we will never understand the subatomic, I am only suggesting that God may be so great that we will forever be learning of His ways. As Paul says,

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen.”²

Solomon, as tradition would have it, the wisest man that ever lived, said these words, “He hath made everything beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.”³ 

 

Science has, as of yet, not found an end to our universe. Can you comprehend what that means? We cannot even understand the distances that are involved in the measurements that science uses to measure galaxies. The universe is so immense. That light coming from distant galaxies is 10’s of billions of years old. We are viewing things as they were billions of years ago, not as they are now. When NASA turned humble to view the darkest portion of the sky in 2012, this is what they found.

⁴

           This picture contains 5,500 galaxies. This is just what humble can see! Mankind truly cannot fathom the vastness of the mind of God. If you hold out your finger at arm’s length it would be twice as wide as the moon. The area humble covered in this photograph was about one hundred times smaller. With this view of the universe we are forced to exclaim as Job did,

“Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.”⁵

         You see, Epicurus is the inventor of God because my God is much greater than a mere human. Epicurus saw god as just an elevated human, subject to our passions, desires, lusts, and ambitions. When he sought to find the essence of the universe, he discovered something eternal, something outside of this reality, something so powerful that it created galaxies and strung them out like sand. Yet again I turn to David as he exclaims, “He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.”⁶

           No matter how much we split the atom apart, no matter how deep we go into space, no matter the inventions that allow us to explore like never before, we shall never come to the end of the creation of this God I propose. In my imagination the universe would be the three dimensional representation of the very mind of God. We will not come to the end of it because the mind of God has no end, and He sustains it all. Without this God, nature tends to disorder. He is the cause for order in a naturally unordered system. God, the eternal matter, the immovable mover, the infinite energy that is needed to create infinite galaxies and space. How wonderful that we live in a universes that is the mind of God, which allows us to explore deeply his nature.

1 Wiker

2 Romans 11:33-36 KJV

3 Ecclesiastes 3:11KJV

4 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/xdf.html

5 Job 11:7-9 KJV

6 Psalms 147:4,5 KJV

Evolution of Intellect

Could the universe be so vast and contain so much knowledge that the universe itself has intellect? We are a complex creation, as humans we have something we like to term intelligence. Intelligence is based off how aware of our surroundings we are, a dog, for instance, is fairly aware if it's surroundings; it can distinguish between self and not self, and can plan ahead, and react to things around it, but a human is so aware of its surroundings that we have began to contemplate  not only our surroundings but ourselves. We have developed to contemplate a massive amount of information. According to evolutional and modern science, we evolved because of the massive amount of information needed to survive. We developed so many connections between so many millions of cells that we began to contemplate our own individual existence. Assuming that theory, what about the universe with so many massive connections? There are Trillions and trillions of stars and billions upon billions of galaxies all interacting and effecting each other. What if there connections are the connections of a massive intellect? What if the universe had thought and autonomy. What if there is an intellect presiding over the universe? What seems like trillions of miles of distance to us, is really just the gaps between massive connections inside the intellect of an ultimate being?

Evolution claims that because we are made up of so many connections and all being tied to our brain that intelligence was the natural result, and in fact required. So than the universe, having more connections than the human body could ever hope for would be required to have intellect. I prepose that maybe that is what God is. Not that He is the universe, but that the universe is his thought. The universe requires this free will agent. In terms of evolution the universe created us to understand, to experience and to discover. It required us to exist in order to contemplate itself. Everything in the universe is a representation of this supreme intellect. All things  created exist to explain the nonexistent, just as our brains contain information that describes who we are. If you stimulate a certain part of our brain it will manifest a part of us, a memory, a sense, a taste, a movement. It describes who we are. Maybe the study of the universe is the study of massive intellect. We study physics and it reveals an emotion, a memory, a thought, etc etc. We study philosophy and yet another part of this intellect is revealed. Slowly but surely the character of an individual begins to develop. What if the universe is the mind of a god, set here for us to study? A thought to wonder for sure. 

God Is Dead

Chapter 1

God Is Dead?

 “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”[1]

——

            This is a very famous quote that probably many of you know well. Most people know it as its simplest form, “God is dead, and we killed him.” This was written by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche in response to Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution as explained in his title, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” This theory took the world by storm, never before had such a compelling argument against the existence of a creator been leveled at religious believers. Evolution allowed an avenue for mankind to slither out of the grasp of an almighty God, creator of everything and ruler of the world. Indeed, it was just a natural response to state that mankind had indeed killed God.

In the mind of an evolutionist, religion and God are man-made constructs to explain the universe. When something was not understand humanity always resorted to exclaiming that it was God that did it and therefore there was no need to understand further. Rocks fell to the ground because God made it so, until Galileo discovered the theory of gravity, thus unifying the cosmos with nature. The seasons came and went because God changed them to be so, until scientists discovered the tilted axis of the earth’s rotation. As science advanced God became less and less important to humanity and our “imaginary” creation became obsolete and only those with limited understanding of science have a need for God anymore.

In my opinion, the greatest tragedy of our time is that science has become occupied with disproving the existence of God rather than just being science. “Science” has been filled with philosophers that teach for doctrine the theories of science. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory, it cannot be proved, and it cannot be tested, therefor it remains a theory to explain the world in a naturalistic way. On the flip side of this coin is the fact that religion has become so focused on proving the existence of God to science that they have diminished God Himself. Allow me to explain this statement.

To steal an analogy from Ty Gibson, suppose our world is an Iphone. All existence is inside of this phone. We are one tiny particle in this phone, one piece of this universe. We are able to explore this universe, to study it, test it, prove it etc. etc. We, as members of this universe know who created it; Steve Job’s created the Iphone. We look everywhere throughout this universe searching for Steve Jobs, we find evidences that He could have created it, but we can’t find Steve Jobs himself. Why can’t we find him? The answer is obvious to you and me, though Steve Jobs created the Iphone, we do not expect to find Him actually living inside of it. Why has science, with all its sophisticated technology and methods not found fool proof of God? Because of this simple reason, they have been looking in the wrong place.

Evolution is not the problem, evolution is simply a theory proposed by a few scientists. There is nothing innately wrong with theories; theories are how science is advanced. The real problem is bad religion. Religion that has brought God down to our level has made an idol out of the creator Himself. “Is this possible?” you might ask, to make God into an idol. I want to put fourth that that is exactly what Religion has done. They have sought to build God into something we can understand and fathom. The reason why Science has seemingly found no evidence of God is because they are searching for a God made into the likeness of human religion. Carl Sagan, when he turned the telescope Voyager around to take a picture of our world when it was 3.7 billion (3,700,000,000) miles from earth said these words,

“Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.”[2]

This statement was said because Carl Sagan was looking for a God he no doubt remembered from church, a God that is easily explained and shoved away into our human existence and held captive by our imaginations. This is the despair that each person must feel as they look into the vastness of our universe and discover that our tiny planet is but a speck of dust in a cosmos full of nothing. The vastness of the universe is so great we cannot even comprehend such distances, and as we look out in all this vast darkness and empty space we are forced to the conclusion, 

mankind is alone, god does not exist, and we are doomed to destroy ourselves. Even king David in the Bible wrote of this feeling of insignificance when he wrote,

“What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?”[3]

Science did indeed kill god. Darwin killed god. The god made into the likeness of humanity. A god that can be understood and put into the box with the rest of our material object, the sun, moon, stars, planets, galaxies etc. is dead. We cannot look out into the universe and believe in the same god we believed in yesterday.

At the heart of Darwin’s search for a universe devoid of god was a great desire to be rid, once and for all of the god problem. Darwin attended the University of Cambridge hoping to obtain his degree in theology and become an Anglican clergyman. While there, he became so disturbed about the doctrine of hell that he later wrote,

“I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. . . I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture: and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as His chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.”[4]

This train of thought led Darwin down a road of Theodicy, to remove God, once and for all, from reality and the natural world. Darwin explained away the existence of God and put the God of his Anglican religion out of a job. I agree with Darwin on this point, I do not believe that god exists. I have no desire to be ruled by such a god, a god that would burn people in hell for ever and ever. Indeed, when you look out into the universe, you do not find any evidence of such a god. No such god exists or we would certainly find evidence of him. A god capable of the bassist moral instinct to punish people for failure would be a god in the likeness of humanity. If that god existed he would have to be like us and since we see absolutely zero evidence for the existence of a naturalistic god, he must not exist.

Darwin did not seek to say that god did not exist; only that he had no interaction with nature. This is the idea of Theodicy which will be covered in the next chapter. In short, evolution is not qualified to destroy the existence of god because it is not a broad enough science. Evolution looks purely at the natural world. Our day to day existence, what we can experience, what we can see, and what we can do. Darwin prematurely ruled out the existence of god because the god Darwin was getting rid of was purely a naturalistic super human. Once Darwin had come up with a viable theory that bypassed the need for god to create us or have any hand in our existence at all, it was easy to finally just say, “What is the use of believing in a god that does absolutely nothing in the first place?” Who needs a god that does absolutely nothing good?

Job put this idea in a magnificent way when he wrote his statement,

“Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. If he cut off, and shut up, or gather together, then who can hinder him? “[5]

The Bible writers understood this fact about God. He is so great we cannot possibly Find Him out. Our science is totally inadequate to describe the ability of God to exist, just as science cannot explain the idea of eternity and something coming from nothing.

I want to propose the identity of a God, so great that we have no way of really speaking of His existence, a God so great that His existence transcends our own. God resides in another dimension than you or I. Just as theoretical physics goes beyond the realm of everyday experience and understanding of space and time, so God transcends space and time. Yet, even though God transcends our puny understanding of the universe, He is still a personal God who takes note of this world, who visits this world and indeed loves this world. Whose very nature is that of love and compassion, only desiring good for everything in the universe. A God who wrote the laws of physics and set the stars in heaven, and created gravity and inertia to hold it together, who wrote the genetic code with His own thought and created diversity because He thought it was good. If such a God existed, would you want to believe in Him?

This God would not be subject to human impulses such as hate, revenge, and cruelty. His primary goal would be for everything in creation to be filled with life, joy, happiness and freewill. We would not expect to actually find such a god because his existence is not tied up with our own naturalistic existence. I would expect however to find evidence of him in science, because he would be the creator of it. 

I want to ask you to put aside your previously held ideas about God, the universe, earth, and reality as you read this book, and step into a theoretical world with me. I am asking you to join Nietzsche in killing the god of contemporary religion and science. Set aside every preconceived idea you have of the existence of God and open your mind to a new reality. Join me as we explore the God I would believe in if He existed. Step into my brain and imagine the possibilities that arise from this make believe and see if you wouldn’t enjoy the God I have created.

---

[1] Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125

[2] Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space

[3] Psalms 8:4

[4] Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow, with original omissions restored (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1993), 87.

[5] Job 11:7-10

In The Beginning

"In the beginning God" Moses was no fool. Educated in Egypt by probably the smartest men in literally the entire world, Moses knew philosophy, he knew how to structure an argument, and he opens with a line that ended up laying the foundation for the written works that followed after him for thousands of years. One of the the oldest writings in the entire world starts with this statement, "In the beginning, God." The philosophy of "in the beginning" has been one that has withstood the test of time. Every generation has had their own "In the beginning" statements. This centuries "in the beginning" statement was said best by a series by Stephen Hawking, the opening line of the series stated this, "in the beginning, there was nothing." Our generation has answered this age old question with their own statement, yet none have said it like Moses. Moses tells it like it is! Because to ask this fundamental question is to answer back, God.

Infinite energy and infinite mass contained in zero volume, our current explanation for what was before things where. In all our supposed wisdom, in all our science and philosophy, we still cannot come up with a better explanation than God. We have simply come up with "scientific" ways of saying the exact same thing. In the beginning, something that is nothing, created everything, something outside of our experience and understanding and knowledge. This is at the foundation of natural science. Little do most realize that the theory of naturalism starts with the exact same statement as Moses made to open the greatest liturgical written work in the history of the world, close to 4,000 years ago. Moses built a philosophy, science has built a Philosophy, yet, both say the same thing. Science is the study of God, much to the dismay of Steven Hawking and many since the beginning, "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor 3:11

I do not post this to rile either side of the issue, only to set a foundation off which you can base your understanding of my points. As you will discover, I think the notion of trying to prove the existence of God is a practice In futility and totally meaningless. I wish to show you my imagination, to explore the philosophy I profess, that is that all men search for the same thing, whether it is Moses in his opening line of the Bible in Genesis 1:1, or Einstien and his Big Bang Theory. All man answer the same question with the exact same answer. I believe that if God exists at all, He is that unanswerable question, the one untestable constant of existence. I study God because I believe that answering that fundamental question is the whole point to life itself. The point of my life is to know.