| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | 
Universe Galaxies Stars logo.
     | Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine |

God created mankind's in God's image.

Ten Years Since The Revolution at Amazon.

SAS Black Ops at Amazon.
Amazon Kindle EBook Reader: Click For More Information.

God created in mankind.

The Oxford Concise Dictionary, defines God as a: Super human being regarded and worshipped as having power over nature and human affairs. But perhaps for us, God might offer a more arbitrary role. Maybe God should be viewed more as a guiding light, that unseen entity that directs us in those desperate hours of need.

We should assume God, to be the most speculated about entity ever to manifest himself, or not, as some might say.

Just that small, often contentious word has laid all kinds of hope, sadness and consternation at humanity's door. The Lord Almighty, appears to fight on all sides in all wars, and is the cause of most of them if our history books are to be believed. God, creates more hatred, apartheid and separation than any other icon, and deserts us when we most need him.

And so God's a cruel trickster then, an entity who obtains some perverse satisfaction from our suffering, or a misunderstood entity whose characteristic is specifically designed to shape us, point us in the right direction, as we might with our own children and hope for the best?

And unless anyone has a direct line to God, and can pose them difficult questions to him, I doubt very much we will ever know the real reason or truth surrounding this illusive character.

However, if our bible is accurate in its assumption about the nothingness, that substance we described in the previous chapter as a carbon, then it might also be right about man being created in God's image! But unlikely. Unless, God has the same emotional feeling as us, rather than the more obvious bodily feature.

But regardless of his, or her make-up, what we do know, is a section of our community has an unerring appetite to understand more of God's place within both the universe - and our hearts. And it's profoundly wrong for science to keep trying to deminish that status simply to appease their own ego. Sometimes it makes you wonder whether they're trying to replace God?

We insisted earlier on, that everything that happens does so for a reason. There is no one defining time, where someone can say, a certain event didn't take place, unless it did so for a reason. And if they could, I'd be interested to hear about it.

And if that is true, and man was created in God's image, could we not deduce that not to be a characteristic sense, but more an indefatigable approach to his fundamental needs and desires? If we assume this to be more conducive with the way humans think, might we not at the point produce a godly entity for specific reasons, rather than just place it amongst us to satisfy our own personal needs?

It would appear easy on first assumption, to define God as a universal entity, who systematically produced our species for our own benefit, as a lot of suggestion appears to state.

The clergy, and I do not have anything against clerics, before anyone chooses to castigate me, might have overlooked a few fundamental factors in their assessment of God. We are taught about God purely from a position of proverbial carrots and sticks. If we worship we will be rewarded, if we don't then we will be punished.

From an ecumenical perspective though, this seems to benefit the church, mankind and its desires more than it does God. After all, we may ask, what's in it for God?

You might argue the point, that God seeks to be worshipped, to have hundreds of millions of people down of their knees offering up prayers for their own salvation. But before we even consider such acts, we have to analyse the reasons more closely. If we scrutinize that belief, we see our own instinctive attributes seeping towards the surface. We see a system where mankind desires something, and naturally believes a few prayers will motivate a reward, and assume God does the same. Mankind created in God's image, or God created in mankind's image?

Indeed, it appears mankind has turned his religion into a commodity to be bartered at every opportunity. If we are not offered riches, then churches empty, people stop preying and a lot refuse to believe. But is this really how God would have intended it to be, each individual with his, or her own personal hedonistic shopping list, buying favours with a few prayers?

Maybe we should momentarily digress and look back to what we said a moment ago, and explore that policy of reason: 'God desiring prayers'.

To say all God would desire would-be prayers, would make God a very pretentious master indeed. Even the most arrogant human being would soon get sick and tired of constant worship, let alone an enitity vastly superior. In other words, it might be fun to start with, and then bore the recipiant rigid at an alarming rate.

How would you feel if every time you passed someone in the street they fell to their knees, and worshipped the very ground you stood on? How long before you told them to get up off their knees and do something more productive; a day? a week maybe? But most certainly no more than a month, because the exercise would be puerile. Yet, if we imagine the complexity that must automatically enter the equation when we discuss universal construction, even from a limited plan, where we might not be looking at the building of an entire universe, but more a small region based on a more preset blue-print, we may not be discussing a God singular, but more Gods plural: A specific set of different entities capable of determining their own individual dimension, with an ability to shape each section to their own design.

So they might be dimensional Gods?

It's always possible, a sense of regional arbitration could have taken place as creation happened. If during an initial reaction, when the universe capitulated to a strong sense of shift, which moved to accommodate division, theoretically more than one God may have come into being.

We are explicitly warned of the forces of darkness in the bible, and so again, we might ask ourselves why: Why would anyone wish to term an event or entity with such a soul defining title, forces of darkness unless of course we were being forewarned by the aforementioned.

Already Cosmologists have discovered, in the very fabric of space, a strange substance known as dark matter. And I'm afraid I cannot give you a more obvious description, as no one at this juncture in time really knows what it is! And that in itself should scare even the most ardent sceptic.

But although I show here a loose, biblical association, I'm not for one minute saying both are inextricably linked. God and the Devil. It would be wrong to assume that, as there is no supporting evidence or comprehensive recognition: Its pure conjecture.

But what I do say, is sometimes life throws-up anomalies - and we need to investigate.

So far in this book, we have seen the bible predict a nothingness. This we traced back to a carbon compound, that contained zero electron value, before a fusion/infusion principle was endorsed; and now we start to see forces of darkness appear, albeit subjectively on the horizon. And later, we will show how the meek shall inherit the Earth with Darwinian evolution.

But with such prophesies, can come supporting evidence. We could begin to question the potency of bible association, and say it really is remarkable indeed, that such close proximity recognition could be espoused.

But we won't.

The reason is, no matter how close an affiliation is with historical teaching, there can be no direct association. We could try, as so many do, to form a cohesive strategy and fudge the details. But we won't do that either. I think we'll stick more to our belief, that this is a strange coincidence, and deal more with a probable, theoretical analysis.

We showed how the nothingness produced a dimensional universe. We said, as the universe opened through heat fusion it created a fracture line in another part of a diamond nothingness. As the first hot universe contracted through cooling, the fracture line witnessed the difference and moved energy and matter to opposite ends of the spectrum. That gave us what we termed Quantum Gravity; an ability to create a strong kernel of gravity that decays as discrete quanta.

However, what we now have to ask ourselves is, if during this consolidation period, a pocket of residual energy or mass could have been formulated. You might like to visualise it as a system where either energy or mass moves at such a high velocity, that a pocket of the other, or even itself becomes trapped inside.

And if that said event did take place as we suggest, then logically there is no valid reason why it should not take place in a multitude of places.

This would most certainly permit more than one God.

Some might even argue, those pockets of pure energy could be vital, as they might act as a counter balance to any regional volume of mass: A kind of self correcting body of energy to act as a counter balance, that ensures relative stability to specific areas. We might even argue that everything in life needs a clinical set of laws to govern it, whether they be the laws of physics, gravity or nature.

And if this played out that way, then what natural law might control a galaxy, or the universe beyond? Some might say the laws of physics themselves, but I think we do have to remember, that if that's the case, then why do so many people have such a strong belief in religion?

Even though we have examined, closely when necessary, most of the other factors in the equation, we are still left with an inexplicable desire.

Science informs us, that everything around us today is easily explained by those previous universal laws we have just mentioned: Physics, gravity and nature. But there is another factor in the equation science fails to account for, an explanation of what we feel. And if that is the case, then different entities, those we might term Gods, located in different regions of the universe could provide individual localities with very alternative outlooks.

While our God might harbour ambitions of love, kindness and helping those who cannot help themselves, other Gods might have more spurious desires, intent on carnage, evil and atrocity. So when we view governing laws, and science postulates credible theorems, we might have to pose a difficult question for science: Why do we feel what we feel?

We all know that science can explain mechanically the motion and movement of a universe, even if ambiguities do riddle the basic framework of their explanation: We know mathematics can accurately predict how a specific object will move within its own trajectory, and we also assume and understand that natural laws can govern the way an individual planet might develop to a more sustainable fruition. Yet none of these even when countenanced fully stop us believing in a more superior God: Why?

A simple answer from science has always been, 'the argument is complicated,' fraught with problems for the untrained, and simply too complex for the individual to understand. And some might say that arrogant, while others agree it's a fair point. We will not argue the generosity of it, but what we will ask, is, if they're right, why did Einstein believe God wouldn't 'play dice' with the universe?

Some may consider Einstein's remark tongue-in-cheek, a flippant statement. But I would assume it wasn't. I have naturally listened very carefully to lots of different academics, some with a revulsion of God, others with the same hostility, only less obvious about it. Yet all of these people refuse point-blank to have any truck with a God argument, even tongue-in-cheek.

And perhaps, from their reticene we can deduce, Einstein was not promoting a theory with punctual irony, but more opening a debate, surreptitiously. If he was actually saying God does exist, then from a modern scientific perspective, it might be fraudulent, if not dishonest to continue this blatant fabrication that God(s) do not exist beyond this mortal realm; for to do so might just produce a calamity all of us would wish to avoid.

For if there is more than one God, and they are indeed dimensional, then what might that pose for our future?

To abandon all hope and faith in God, as science suggest may inevitably produce a wanton world riddled with corruption, licentiousness and depravity, which some might argue has been around for years anyway, so what difference would it make?

But my point is this, if God or Gods do only survive by the principle of worship, then to vacate that belief could be a final reference to our own basic survival. It would be pretentious for anyone of us to say we comprehend or fully understand the ecumenical matters that wash across our world. Because we don't. We know very little of science, the laws of physics and cosmology, and even less of God.

Yet if Gods do tenant our universe, as dimensional Gods, then a natural assumption to make would be, they will seek to extend their power and influence. Some people might say that nonsense, and I suppose, if I viewed the hypothesis partially from the scientific world, which I'm more than capable of doing, then I might agree. But let us just momentarily keep in mind some of that scientic criteria, the way we discovered the nothingness.

Before we actually wrote the chapter on the nothingness, most might have ridiculed a nothingness belief, but when we examine, forensically, the text definition under lexicon context we see parameters shift to a more explicable location. And therefore, from a theologian interpretation we could assume that God has certain characteristics similar to our own; and I will not suggest feature contusions, or recognizable traits, but more the principle which envelopes us all, our action and thoughts.

If biblical teaching is right, and man was created in God's image, the image identifiable should be sense rather than substance, then from our own actions we should assume God, or Gods must carry with them certain goals - and ambitions.

And if that translates into anything we might be capable of viewing objectively, which I very much doubt, due to preconceived ideas and notions that have already been decided upon without examination, then I honestly believe our future might be precarious at best.

So God might police our region of space?

I would personally say that over simplify's things; although it might allow us to pursue a more solid ambit for God or God(s) introduction into our known universe in the first place.

We've already stated, there's nothing in the universe that manifests, emerges or happens without doing so for a reason. And bear in mind we view these events laterally, simply because we have no deep insight into the way things actually are. It's easy in life to dismiss beliefs, especially when we cannot squeeze them into our own vision of life, but when a human being chooses to change the rules, they may cause irreparable damage.

To treat God similar to a democratic process, where we choose governing rules a-Ia-carte could signal an immediate end of existence. If indeed God does inhabit our region of the universe for a specific purpose, and we forsake that identity, we might mistakenly abandon also our very own region of space; for if there are other Gods out there, waiting patiently to stake a claim on our area, and we have run the only policeman in town, (our God) out, then who will protect us from those marauding universal cut-throats heading our way. The chances are, no one will save us, we will be resigned to oblivion and left to fester in a wanton savagery described in biblical terms as Evil.

We were given a set of specific rules to live by, yet changed them to satisfy our own depravity. We retreated clumsily from every element of decency and sought salvation, usually with a bottle or drugs; and now we embark on some of the final acts of madness by destroying the ether of our faith for prurient means.

Whether God is a universal policeman protecting our own small region of space will always be speculative. To a secular scientific world it would be laughable; to a religious community open to debate, and to the rest of us, those of us who view things with an ambivalence, a policy of cautious appraisal.

But what we can naturally assume, is if we deliberately stand and turn our backs on God, our God will, in our hour of need possibly turn his back on us.

When science is involved, there is always a possibility the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, maybe the wrong direction. And while I wouldn't deride sciences' contribution for one moment, there does seem an element of arrogance, almost superiority, that's crept in from a scientific direction.

If God(s) do have ambitions and desires on other regions of the universe, which we cannot possibly know, we had better hope our one last great opportunity to protect ourselves is left in place. Because, if we facilitate and allow more spurious doctrines to emerge, we have no one to blame accept ourselves.

And although God might willingly protect us, sometimes from our own folly, this is not a situation that can continue. We need to show, especially from a scientific genre, that we don't seek to replace God in the order of things. And with the progressional advancement of scientific product, and with us knowing very little of the governing forces that surround us, how do we not know that we are not simply being manipulated by outside forces, or spurious entities that have invaded our own psyche?

Again, the answer is, we don't.

The best any scientist can do, is speculate. And that old adage, about being given a mind to think might be very true; it might even be fundamental. And like most individuals I would not willingly wish to give up my basic human right of freedom of thought. However, if we assume God has an influence over these thoughts, ideas and aspirations, what we might call our conscience, then why shouldn't a slow invasion of other, by other more hostile dark forces of evil have an influence too!

Maybe we are openly susceptible to a devious, stealth like perversion. Do we really know who controls the mind of Hollywood producers, TV executives, media barons and politicians?

Of course we don't.

We do not fully understand what happens in their minds, or what influences them, just as they do not understand ours. There could be a whole litany of destructive forces and entities just slowly poisoning them, with one ambition in tow, that to control our world: To turn it from a decent, moral society, into a depraved, sick wasteland, constantly eating away at itself from its own lack of moral fibre.

Below is a list of chapters for the Metaphysics Anthology. The book itself is designed as abit of fun! One man thinking out loud. You should not see it as science, merely enjoy the imagination of the human mind in full swing.

  Go To Print Article  

Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts

the web this site
 | GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. |