Is God the Universe?

NOTE: This may jump a lot, as it is a lot of info to share (and take in) all at once, and I apologize if you get lost. I'm relying on others to review what I've provided and clarify my shoddy explanations; however, I'm confident that this is where science and religion will find a comfortable meeting ground. As my understanding increased, so too did my frustration and disappointment with my peers, both in the scientific and religious communities; where I saw a perfectly blended unison of science and creation, many saw black and white. I hope to break that barrier.

--

This is the cumulative sum of my understanding of the life, the universe, and all things; it is based in evidential fact where possible, but I'm not an expert in any particular field nor well-read into all necessary subjects and it is therefore subject to abstract thought. I leave it up to you to judge the potential validity of this hypothesis -- these are merely my views.

Let's start at the most logical place possible: the beginning. I've long believed in a synchronicity between the Big Bang and Creationism, and therefore I've come to refer to the Big Bang as the Creation Event (CE). Regardless of what it's called, however, the concept remains the same: an immense explosion occurred at the "center" of the universe, and this tremendous bang scattered all matter and energy into the void of space.

The obvious and burning question is: why? To answer that question, we can begin by inferring that it must have happened for a reason; that, however, then begs the question of whether or not the reason was an action or a reaction -- was the universe, and consequently existence, the product of one or more entities reacting, or the decay of a single entity into many?

I'm confident that this question is virtually unanswerable at this point in time, but this topic would be pointless without attempting to do so. My argument/hypothesis/answer is thus: God is the single entity that, by choice, decayed into many; and as such, matter and energy (existence) is the product of his "children" -- or the series of what we might consider an infinite number of reactions that occurred after His original.

It sounds ridiculous, but let's consider a few things before we jump to "mystic conclusions."

First, consider the atom. It is not actually an atomic nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons and protons -- these energies are actually stored WITHIN the atomic nucleus, much like a living cell and its components within a membrane, and are "superimposed" over each other in three-dimensional space. In this way, you can compare atoms to stars: like hydrogen and helium reacting in a star's core, protons, electrons, neutrons (and the other fun particles) collaborate within the nucleus of the atom to define the its identity.

Second, consider the black hole. I think our knowledge of black holes is sufficient, but our understanding of them is lacking; I've inferred a function for these cosmic beasts based on their characteristics, and it is strikingly similar to nuclear fusion.

Essentially, I consider them the opposite of stars. Whereas stars are balls of burning gas that radiate energy, black holes are literally singularities. When a star of sufficient mass collapses, I believe it holds the potential to create a point of density so great that existence itself "collapses." In other words, it is so densely packed that energy cannot permeate it; rather, all reactions stop and solid matter is violently separated from energy, which is then ejected back into the cosmos while the matter is recombined into a single entity -- its goal.

Therefore, you can think of it as the literal inverse of a star; rather than circulating energy and matter and allowing it to interact and react, it "sorts" and "organizes" it -- solid matter in, energy out. Why?

This is where things get interesting... and relevant. Let's take a step back and observe the atom again; this time, consider quantum mechanics. From what I can gather about quantum mechanics, they turned traditional scientific understanding on its head. If I'm not mistaken, one of the strangest things is that quantum mechanics suggest the impossible: that at any one time, any single particle of matter or energy may exist everywhere at the same time, and that they constantly phase in and out of existence. And this actually makes perfect sense.

Uhh.... how, right?

Let's go back to the Creation Event, but this time let's take black holes, stars, atoms, and quantum mechanics into consideration. So, a big explosion occurs and boom, the universe exists. But what happened, exactly? Here's how I see it.

In the beginning, there was God. He existed perhaps only as a potential in the Void; like a thought that has yet to be thought. He exists, and yet does not exist. He is the God Element -- the accumulative whole of all things. All the potential matter and energy that composes the universe is contained within Him... a singularity. A point of infinite density that technically does not exist, and yet at any one time, exists infinitely across the whole of the Void.

To be clear, the Void is not space. The Void is non-existence. The Void is the complete and utter absence of energy. In absolute zero, there is no movement; particles cannot exist because energy does not move nor exist. There are no laws. There is nothing. It is unfathomable. In fact, by nature, it is simply not there. It cannot be visualized nor conceptualized for it cannot be measured or observed. It takes up no space, and it takes up all space. It is everything not known. It is infinite potential.

And in this infinite potential, there is only God... until He decided otherwise. And when He made this choice, He existed. And when He came into existence, Existence came into Existence -- within the Void of infinite potential, a single particle of existence became charged with energy... and thus the universe was born from the reaction between Existence and Non-Existence.

This seems insane at first, but think about it for a moment. Scientists are trying to observe the Higgs-Boson, the "God Particle," which is supposed to fill in the gap regarding our understanding of gravity and the Theory of Relativity. If quantum mechanics are valid, the Higgs-Boson may never be discovered because the Higgs-Boson may very well be... well... all things. Every last particle in existence may merely be a part of the whole, and the whole is the singularity that spontaneously came into existence so many billions of years ago and spread throughout the observable universe.

Not seeing the big picture yet? Allow me to introduce you to our cosmic ancestors.

If the Creation Event/Big Bang scattered all matter and energy into the universe -- something like a super-massive hypernova -- and the elementary particles and forces were introduced almost immediately... it only makes sense. Existence spread as a ripple through non-existence as energy permeated it and made it real; meanwhile, matter (non-existence charged with energy) interacted with energy (raw energy/radiation) to produce everything as we know it, from the bosons and mesons and protons and electrons and atoms and elements. It's nigh impossible to tell (absolutely) which elementary particles existed first, but it's reasonable to imply that if, at the time of Creation, none of them existed, they only came to be due to a series of reactions that occurred.

This series of reactions is what we study, but interestingly, this series of reactions is so incredibly simple in concept that I can't believe I've never heard discussion about this:

BOOM, God creates the universe (simply by creating a condition that defies nature, which causes a violent reaction to balance the "equation"), and then... in my mind, millions of nuclear reactions occur as superheated plasma clouds expand and cool as the volume of the universe increases; thus, I visualize the first moments to be a single, tremendous explosion followed by a moment of "uniform" expansion, which is then followed by a series of weaker but still substantial nuclear reactions between the newly formed and highly unstable hydrogen atoms.

Why do I postulate this? Because I believe the universe to be shaped something like a cell contained within a membrane; Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is merely energy stretched thin across a large distance (evidence that energy is "uniform") and acts, if you're to believe it, as an activating agent for solid matter -- that is, non-existence. In English, what I'm getting at is that truly, existence is merely energy flowing through non-existence, giving it definable form and function. You could say elementary particles are a sort of universal protein coding sequence which interact in certain ways to then create new phenomena, such as atoms, which then comprise all matter as we know it.

Now let's put it all together for a moment...

1. God creates existence, which first takes form as energy expanding into the Void.
2. As this energy permeates non-existence and makes it “real” (in a sense, “shines light into darkness”, making is observable and measurable), the first elementary particles come into existence.
3. These particles then begin to interact and develop relationships, all of which occur consistently and logically according to the “Laws of Nature” (which technically didn't exist yet), and one of the first major yields of this interaction is the atom.
4. Hydrogen and helium are early children, which then react, and from their reactions the first stars are born.
5. These stars grow quickly in the unstable and relatively small universe, and in short order an almost infinite number of cosmic relationships and interactions begin occurring. Virtually all cosmic phenomena begin during this time.
6. Fast forward to Earth and the origins of life. Like the stars before them, and the atoms before the stars, generations of atoms and compounds interacting to combine and decay into new and different (typically more stable) entities have produced single-cell bacteria and other organisms. These organisms rely on the relationship and interaction between acids and bases – the children of chemical element reactions, and therefore atomic reactions – instead of hydrogen and helium, but the idea of “children” remains: one generation of an organism is succeeded by the next based on the successes and failures of the prior.
7. These single-cell organisms then interact to grow into multicellular units, which then grow into eukaryotic organisms, which then continue to evolve with each successive generation.
8. Finally, fast forward several more billion years and you have complex life like human beings... who continue to mate and produce children, like the cells before them, and the atoms before the cells, and the particles before the atoms.

And yet, at the lowest end of the food chain, a constant remains: we are merely products of the original, single reaction or action that occurred during the Creation Event. Therefore, we – as well as all things – contain a single common denominator within our lineage... and that holds true for particles, atoms, elements, stars, planets, and right down to human beings.

Guess what? We're not done yet; I've covered the beginning, but what about the end? We can only surmise that, through entropy, the universe will eventually “end.” Nothing is safe from entropy. However, I don't believe the universe will simply “drift apart;” in fact, I believe CMBR provides evidence against it. If nothing else, cosmic radiation proves that energy permeates all of observable space; where it does not reach, then, is where the universe ends. In this way, you could consider this radiation like a cosmic cytoplasm and the “edges” of the universe as a membrane – like an atomic nucleus containing protons and electrons and all the good stuff that makes it tick.

This means that the universe is also a single entity. Why? It is bound by at least one shared characteristic across all observable things. That is, “existence.” How does that make it a single entity? Well, consider this: what makes you an individual? Are you truly an individual, or are you a collection of millions of cells harmoniously working together to create “life”? Are those same cells not a collection of proteins? Are those proteins not a collection of acids and bases? Are those acids and bases not a collection of elements? Are those elements not atoms? Are those atoms not a collection of elementary particles?

Is the Universe not, then, potentially... alive? Stars are not alive. Planets are not alive. Asteroids are not alive. But nor are elements alive. Nor are proteins alive. Nor are cells alive. Yet humans and animals are so deemed to be “living.” Is it such a stretch?

And given this, would the universe not then also be susceptible to death, stemming from a natural impossibility in the first place? In the void of non-existence, where nothing occurs because there is both a 100% and 0% probability of something, or nothing, happening (in other words, nothing is possible and yet everything is possible) at any one time, SOMETHING cannot NATURALLY happen. It is an IMPOSSIBILITY. And therefore, the natural course of events is as follows: the Universe must end, as the equation must be balanced.

This is where black holes come in; far from functioning as mere galactic centers, I believe black holes are collapsing and compacting the universe. While stars produce and radiate energy to facilitate new reactions, black holes are points within the “Cosmic Cytoplasm” that gather solid matter while recycling energy. Think of them as an inverse Big Bang – whereas the Big Bang tore a hole in the Void, black holes are tearing many holes in Space.

They ensure that eventually, the Universe will stop expanding and begin collapsing as the energy produced by stars is rivaled by the energy collected by black holes. As equilibrium is reached and the threshold is crossed, the volume of the Universe will begin decreasing. Inevitably, the Universe will collapse back into a singularity. What happens next is anyone's guess.

Anyway, I'm very tired. My brain is fried, as typing this up took roughly the past 2 hours straight and I'm not sure what I've communicated well or what is just gonna seem like crazy talk. I'd love to clarify and discuss anything you disagree or are confused by, though!



One last thing: angels as modern humans depicts did not exist within the Bible. Rather, “real” angels such as the Seraphim are described as brilliant, seven-winged beings who are too bright to look upon. Please compare:

Man's depiction: http://iconstudio.jordanville.org/images/Icons%20of%20the%20Angels/Seraphim-1.jpg
The real deal: http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E2AF0877-6926-46E4-A409-2FBB13079F05/0/solar_storm.jpg


I know this is a lot to take it and is lacking in specific scientific examples; I'm not claiming to have the answers. I merely believe I have a view of the “big picture” and I want to contribute that. My hope is that some of you, hopefully much smarter than I, may be able to verify some of my claims (or back them up and/or refine/clarify them) with research or evidential fact, BUT I also recognize the possibility that I'm simply a stark, raving lunatic.

I'll leave you with one thing that I wholeheartedly believe: whether God truly exists or not is a moot point, as I believe humanity will be destroyed before and or precisely when the truth is revealed. Essentially, I believe the end of times will occur when Faith is no longer necessary and the bridge between Knowledge and the Enigma is met.