Scientific Proof of God
The oldest Scripture God ever shared with humanity started with the word, “There…” The first phrase he shared was, “There was a man…” But the first incomplete sentence was, “There was a man from the land of Uz whose name was Job…” and that was only part of a complete, complex sentence.
However he was not talking about the beginning of his creation of earth for the earth already was even before God created anything in it. God didn’t actually create what earth was he just used what it was to create new in it. What it was had to have been a dark, formless void with water at the bottom of it, and not as a well but an endless ocean that covered the entire place where God created everything and that part of it germane to us, the earth as it existed in real time.
The primal sea was that, even the Spirit of God could only comprehend as water in its highest possible form. Everything that existed already was dark, formless, space and what the Spirit of God comprehended was water. The three basic components then of all God created are God, space and water.
But by the power of his Word, “Let there be light” he created something entirely different from that which already was and had never been before.
In scientific terms as best I can fathom the language there was the unknown source and that created everything else, or perhaps the unknowable source as God is to most scientists, space and highly unstable matter that was in liquid form no more solid or useful than water, but also the unknowable entity that caused energy to the extreme, light.
That dear readers is about where scientific theories have taken us so far to date, by means of energy, the moving force in our physical brains that are mostly water, to its creation of waves in that water that causes more and more of similar but not identical reactions to take place, back through light and other energy phenomenon, even farther back through space that causes changes to occur in the brain, which is mostly water remember, that in turn causes energy to occur that produces more wave motions in the water the brain is comprised by all the way back to space where the original waves must have been created by the unknown source which created at least the first things. And thus arriving at the scientifically unknown or unknowable source that brought about energy, wave motions in whatever medium there was in the primal void in all its complexities to the extreme of light on back to matter, the three components comprising the brain, space primarily but also energy in the form of wave motions in the matter the brain is comprised by which is mostly water but actually almost entirely space and the forces between and besides what little there really is to matter; very very nearly nothing.
Therefore if I may be forgiven my circumlocution even scientifically there is a connection between the unknowable source that was in primal space and our brains and therefore our thoughts. Furthermore that unknowable source is thus known to exist or at least to have existed before energy or matter, but coexisted with both in a formless state in the primal dark void in their highly temporary and volatile, relative stasis that had not always been.
That scientifically unknowable cause had to come from some primal scientifically unknowable primal source that always causes primal space or nothingness and matter to become energy, the building blocks of every thing that exists beside stasis, unmoved or unmovable space which could have been filled potentially with enormous forces, wave motion caused by enormous potential forces in primal matter and matter particles comprised by energy entities held one to the other by enormously powerful forces. Whatever the scientifically unknowable source was, is and perhaps always will be what it is, it was that which held the ability to create everything that can exist by means of those enormously powerful forces it exerted or even manipulated to form all that actually exists when that existence is finally understood entirely.
Nothingness or better said primal space has always been particles of energy and the sub-particles in matter held together or caused to occur by enormous forces. However sub-particles of matter had to come first and they had to be movable or energy could not have taken place as a wave form which requires some however slight movement in however tiny bits of matter or the sub-particles of matter. Science is quite right. Those sub-particles are constantly being created by space for very brief moments for space in itself is so very unstable and in fact is as unstable as that which must exist between matter and antimatter.
Antimatter must potentially exist anywhere then since science does not ever create anything really but discovers it and its potential as well as our ability to harness or use those properties both innate properties and potential properties. Science discovers. Something else, whatever that may be, has the potential to cause or create other things that science may then discover.
Science is not a creative art but simply the finding of things both usable and unusable to humanity or things that are both which are beneficial or that have a destructive relationship to our macro-environment and micro-environment which exists within our bodies also in the form of water, space, energy and the incredible forces that cause it all to work the way it does in a temporary but necessary manner.
When considering the brain specifically it has to be viable in order for us to discover that, we have discovered, whether usable yet or not before this point, that we are discovering right at this moment whether usable or not again, and that we will discover if nothing goes drastically different from the way things have gone since the origin of the universe.
What is the source of those incredible forces?
It seems obvious that primal nothingness like that unknowable source that created everything in it had no beginning and that, beyond our universe which is most likely completely unaffected by all that goes on in our universe which in turn is probably very nearly nonexistent compared to it in size. But though it has occurred on a much larger scale it is no more than the minuscule is and no different than that created for very brief moments in the microcosm. Therefore the volatility between antimatter and matter must have once been potentially present everywhere in primal space at the same moment or in the same instance since time in this context is virtually if not literally meaningless.
The forces unleashed when antimatter is created is a raw force so strong that no knowable particle can exist within its reach and it is incapable of creating anything that has never been before but only capable of destroying whatever is near enough to it before it changes back to matter or continues forever to be to the full extent it was upon being created. But antimatter the size of even the known universe must have caused those forces to be unleashed into static or relatively static space to the extent it ran out of force enough to fill the original static or nearly static, primal space and it is even yet settling down to a static state again.
The power unleashed by it should be something we may yet discover to be the fact of the existence of a breach or rift in that between matter and antimatter which caused the universe to come into existence as the enormously powerful forces unleashed when antimatter is discovered abated due to the fact they are enormously powerful but not infinitely that, and they too must have a finite upper limit to their power just as primal space must have both an essence and an ultimate limit though either might be unreachable by anything else.
But what caused the primal breach and consequent creation of antimatter to occur? The scientifically unknowable entity must be or have been capable of causing a disruption between the omnipresent potential for the existence of antimatter and the primal omnipresent space with matter already in it.
However even this is getting us nowhere for we are merely extending our search for the primal cause of everything, the universe and the potential failure of antimatter to destroy everything in space, since the forces of antimatter are limited but the place of space is unlimited and constantly expands to become the environment of anything that may take up space even all things at once which is to say that apparently antimatter can only have so much power and only react within so much distance until in its end it dissipates and its power abates even its ultimate forces having reached a maximum and then a minimum shortly before it goes back to being merely a potential entity as it originally once was and nothing yet again.
Therefore the original thing in space must have been before antimatter, matter, and all knowable and therefore limited forces regardless of how powerful they might be. Some scientifically unknowable source must have been incidentally related to space that is as unknowable as to its potential full extent of distance in every direction and therefore every conceivable dimension that may be logically discovered.
Originally space must have been very minute and its essence even more minute, so tiny in fact it is scientifically or even theoretically impossible to know how very tiny it was, existing in a nothingness that was very nearly infinitely large and yet at least very nearly eternally present if not having no knowable beginning even according to the unknowable source that created at least the first of all things and the cause of it had to come from something we cannot know using logic, other than to say it must have been or the universe could not be that it was, is and will be for as long as it will be, if not forever and it must have been static, with no disruptions whatsoever for an incredibly long time in the past which didn’t have a beginning. Thus to discover the unknowable source in scientific terms must require something more than logic to encounter it, or does it?
Logically there is some entity with an intellect at least very much higher than our intellect can fathom it even existing. It may be something we cannot know even if we discovered it for our faculties may not be the only possible faculties possible for a thinking entity such as a human being just as we can logically infer it must exist from nature, that or the actual discovery of it would incidentally completely destroy us.
For instance viruses cannot know we exist and yet have some ability if only the ability to be that they are, which is dangerous in some cases which are at this moment, have been in our past, and will continue to be for as long as they will have a catastrophic affect on our systems resulting in our very demise that we may yet search for the cause of unknown illnesses before that last feasible search for the next possible future encounter with a virus at least as they relate to us anyway.
But we cannot without sensory enhancements even know they exist and yet they affect us. To assume they didn’t exist was a scientific mistake that drove superstitious investigators to draw some very peculiar conclusions that had existed only in their imaginations as to what caused pneumonia for example. Yet they were all along. We just had no way to know it at that time in our past and even no way to treat it before any kind of doctoring one another was thought of, and yet both the virus and the thought of it from a doctoring point of view existed all along for us to discover the truth of what a virus really was, and then develop a means to detect it, and tamper with it enough to render it no longer a threat to most of us and eventually I assume now even view them with sensory enhancements again.
My point is; if it occurred in the microcosm that the unknown was not unknowable but simply required a different approach that led us to come to know what seems an absurdity to many in the world right at this very moment is a fact. The fact is that most people of the world are oblivious to even what little knowledge I have of the situation.
Slugs for another instance have an intellect regardless of how limited, yet all of them have no way to fathom we exist until we touch them. Then they are forced to react to us. Is it not possible then that we have the same level of intellect compared to the unknown scientific source that created the universe that a slug has when its level is compared to that we are when compared to that highly intelligent life form? It is not only logical that is the case but highly unlikely that is not the case given our obviously very limited knowledge of what even we can fathom must yet be discoverable and as our knowledge grows so does our potential to know more and our ability to discover even more than we had ever had any way of even theorizing was possible to be known in the past.
But to interact with someone in an illogical manner is not scientific, or is it?
To discover the effects on children when they are introduced to known scientific facts that seem illogical produces one reaction or set group of micro-expressions occur while the effects on children of truly illogical facts produce the same reaction. Unbelief then is a measurable scientific reaction in the psychology of a child if not an adult and is a scientific fact. Belief has an almost identical response on people who believed so called scientific facts like the earth is flat which existed we know in the past that have since been proven not only in error but even illogical given further evidence. But the same reaction occurs when a person believes illogical assumptions also.
Therefore both belief and unbelief are measurable scientific entities and can be used to discover many truths by purely being confronted with strictly provable conclusions, though as we saw earlier sometimes they are proven in error though they are quite illogical in a larger context wherein further evidence is presented, and something pure logic had no innate means to discover on its own before that evidence was added. Logic is only truly infallible then when every possible context of a thing is known and one would have to know everything to absolutely prove the existence of anything which unless the unknown scientific source that created everything, knows that, it is as impossible as infinity and or eternity to absolutely use logic in all cases and the fallible logic used at the present must be believed as correct unless everything should be known which is ridiculous concerning us humans for to us if anyone knows everything that can be known we would have to ask him about it and even things we have no idea of and couldn’t ask even if we could understand them.
Therefore it must be scientifically possible to measure the reactions of belief and unbelief in human beings ranging from utter unbelief to unquestioning belief in God, who unless God is a liar can only be known by believing he exists because of either some missing faculty, or belief in itself is actually a very useful faculty when used correctly and effectively.
If we truly could think our entire life long like some mindless thing without encountering the concept of God then unbelief would not be a dangerous heresy but an acceptable fact. But we cannot. One either believes in God or denies they have encountered at least the concept of God and they react to that concept of God either in belief or develop some heresy concerning God who shared the concept of his existence with us which is all encompassed by a heresy rooted in unbelief, the belief that includes one of these three possible tenets; that it’s true that there is no God or that something other than God is God which makes no difference for it then becomes God to its discoverer in the same tenet, or that God is something other than God is, which all each constitute a heresy and you must have been affected by the thought of God to arrive at any of those positions if in fact you didn’t already believe in God to begin with and are not completely heretical concerning him anyway.
Therefore then God affects our thoughts. Then we must react in some scientifically measurable way to God in our common micro-expressions that reveal our belief or unbelief of his viability according to us. Even the case we never reacted to the thought is a measurable reaction in itself since it is the most common reaction of people who do not know God anymore that they might believe in God actually and even then we may not understand who or what one is talking about when one uses that term though we all do have some sense that everything was before we are and can understand there must have been one original causing entity to begin with that had no beginning, a pretty good definition of God and even that qualifies as a heretical view of God since those that to that do not give God any credit for what he has done or praise him for it in any way. It is impossible to have the concept of God introduced to you and either not have or have some measurable response in your micro-expressions that verify the concept has effected you with belief in him or unbelief in him for to not react to God is also unbelief and it is possible to unquestionably believe in God.
However philosophically God has a Name, “I AM THAT I AM,” and it is impossible not to believe what that name means to those that hear it when it is translated into their preferred language, even atheists believe they are what they are, not to mention every primitive person ever encountered as well as every one ever created by God.
To even reason you are not something is absurd and attempting to prove the point seriously is to speak in the same manner the insane do which may or may not believe that. Not to believe that much is true is unbelief of the truth and a contradiction that proves you either a fool or a liar. You have that much in common with every other human at least, and every human that much in common with God at least. From that point on you may believe or not belief anything you choose about God, but if you believe in error you are a heretic for if you believe someone other than God is God then you are still a heretic, and if you believe there is no God and reject the thought immediately and never let it affect you ever again you are even then a heretic as you were the moment you heard the concept for not believing the truth does not change the truth.
But then only Jesus Christ was not in some way affected by unbelief to some extent at some point in his life until he died and reportedly said, My God my God, why have you forsaken me?” and for the time he believed God had forsaken him and God really had according to their plan, he was not even then a heretic but believed correctly God had indeed forsaken him though he was no different than a heretic that is cut off from God and not even remembered forever and ever in his reaction to it for it was unequivocally true.
Being a heretic does not disqualify you from changing your mind and believing in God, even believing in God but also holding any sinful attitude or erroneous belief is to be a heretic though joyfully for most who believe God is God their particular heresy is not a danger to them, or others who believe correctly God is who God is in all his ways whether right at the moment or not or for that matter for however long either of those two alternatives exist in your reaction to God, because him being first all things that may react to him had to have reacted to him for no one can God, he is not an action yet he is known by his actions also.
It doesn’t matter to me personally how you react to that news though it proves God is a scientific fact even if he is a liar in your heretical view of him which has more to do with the way you view things than anything pertaining to him. He has touched your identity again. You can either object or accept that even the thought of God is an act of the Holy Spirit who is God. What you do with it is between you and him, and not really between you and me. He loved you enough to share that with you through me in this writing in this way and I love you enough to obey him to the extent I at least shared that thought with you also. What you do with it depends on you.
What becomes of God having touched your mind and caused your brain to function in such a way as is common with all human beings who think of God is up to any further interaction or lack thereof between either or both of you. Your energy patterns that occurred when you considered God are identical to my energy patterns and all other humans’, the matter in your brain was effected in certain discoverable ways, the forces that brought all of that together and created all that you are has to be the same, and it was that same way when God created everything God created. It is true of space, it is true of matter, it is true of his power which he expressed then in incredible forces, and it is true about every energy that existed when he created it all, even light.
You are a part of God’s creation! But then I knew it all along. It just sort of blows my mind to be able to prove it more than philosophically but also scientifically. So surely you accept this miracle. You don’t really believe that I did it all on my own. Do you? I am not an educated philosopher or scientist of any kind. I am not even a college graduate. How may I have accomplished such as this on my own then?
You have the foundation now to have a true identity if you want one and to discard your old invented identity which has also been proven a lie and then to continue to live in your true identity or believe you didn’t have the thought and that it was my error that existed in your brain, mind, and will the instant you heard the news or if you will it is as if you were God and had sinned against yourself and then like God forgiven yourself your own sin, a silly heresy if I ever thought of one.
It doesn’t matter. You are that you are whether alienated from the truth and therefore God, me and others that believe in God or not, and are true believers in God but also true believers in that we really and not some invention we made up but you are in fact really, and truly something other than you believe yourself to have been, to be and about to continue to be.
God is that he is. I am that I am. The real scientifically provable fact exists. What you create or invent concerning the fact is out of my hands, but you can no longer say that God has never interacted with you in any way and not be a liar. This miracle proves he has indeed interacted with you even as he does to the insane even if they do not believe it or do also believe it to be returned to a saner manner of thinking at least on that one point.
Therefore God cannot be reached without belief but the fact of unquestionable belief does exist and any belief in God grants access to God and one may not know God exists and prove contrarily to themselves that he in fact does, theoretically and able to be discovered or that last term reiterated, scientifically in a manner as scientific and better proven herein than many so called scientific facts. It is as safe to assume God exists as to assume by the tracks of an unknown animal or bird it exists from the evidence suggesting it must. One may dismiss the evidence as unacceptable if they desire but they cheat themselves out of discovering a new animal, perhaps even a new species.