Ch.28,29,33

Chapters from the book "Essenceism 6 - Unreal gods from this world" Chapters 28, 29, 33.

Chapter 28

The emergence of the idea of the Original Being

The concept of the Original Being has been shaped in my imagination for several decades along with the increased participation in military research. I was involved in this research not only within the framework of classical physics, but also in quantum physics and theoretical astrophysics. Therefore, my interest in these fields resulted from my professional profile. During business trips around the world, I found opportunities to get to know the gods professed by various world religious denominations. It was my additional hobby during scientific training and studies in various parts of the world, such as the Middle and Far East, America and Africa. Thus, the process of getting to know gods such as Yahweh, Heavenly Father or Allah took place parallel to professional activity. I came to surprising conclusions about religion when I used the scientific method to analyze their content. Thanks to this, I better understood the meaning of the existence of religious denominations.

As a result of these experiences, I had to decide whether to "say goodbye" to the existing concepts of God or try to modify those concepts that are represented by numerous religious denominations. My first conclusion was that the history of religions, especially those of the Middle East, is the history of reversing the biblical statement that God created man in His image and likeness. As a result, a vision of God was created in the image and likeness of man, i.e. God imagined by people. So I noticed that long ago Judaism "shaped" God for its tribal and national needs, that is, it made Him Yahweh - the national God of Judaism that exists to this day. Then Christians, having their own understanding of the teachings and explanations of the Son of God, modified the "Israeli" God in the fashion of an international God, existing in the form of the Holy Trinity. It was created as a result of adding dogmatic attributes about His existence invented by Christian decision-makers. This is how an imaginary god came into being, having little to do with the One preached by Jesus. In turn, Islam, by introducing the laws of the Koran, modified the Yahweh adopted from the Bible for its tribal needs and made him Allah - an "Islamic" God somewhat similar to the "Christian".

Out of a scientific obligation, I explain the definition of an imaginary god. It is a God made in the image and likeness of humans. This God knows evil by being around us and watching our lives. So He functions in the same "space" as his opposite, that is, He competes with Satan on Earth. Thanks to His Providence, He cares for us, understands human needs, and even helps his followers to destroy the enemies they indicate. Such an imaginary God also supports all kinds of totalitarianisms. Moreover, He is especially merciful and understanding towards his priests, the faithful and the fanatics who proclaim him. Of course, sometimes, when his followers expect it, He is also a harsh judge for all mankind, preparing an eternal hell for incorrect members of the human community or punishing sinners. In general, such an imaginary God has power over everything, that is, he is more a god of authority than a god of love.

The gods defined in this way have, in my opinion, been called the imaginary gods. Unfortunately, with the development of civilization, people stopped worrying about them. The degradation of religion, unfortunately, continues. Added to this were the crimes of clergymen, ranging from fraternizing with bloody regimes and ending with pedophilia. In this situation, I stopped dealing with such gods. Eventually, I was fortunate enough to realize that there is a real, "scientific" God that should exist regardless of beliefs and beliefs.

By creating a new, scientific-like approach to understanding the existence of God, I decided to apply in a disciplined manner the reasoning taken from science about His existence, action and "being". For analytical purposes, I called it the Original Being. With this approach to the issue of the existence of God, one should add the adjective "hypothetical" to his name. However, I gave up on this as I established His attributes, which gave a coherent theory about the existence of the First Cause being the Creator of the universe. This matter has aroused, arouses and will continue to arouse "silent" interest in science.

When scientists begin their analysis of a given state or issue, they create an initial research model. They use intuition and experience gained while examining unfamiliar situations. They describe this model with appropriate mathematical equations and functions, already creating a specific mathematical or physical model. By working in this way, they define all the necessary research principles and research instruments that they adapt to the chosen project. I did that too.

In the case of proving the existence of the Original Being, the main questions concerned the place of His being in relation to the universe, His possible involvement in creative activities and His Personality influencing this activity. I had to deal with this, because the scientific research to date, both empirically and rationally, has shown that it is impossible to locate God in the space-time of the universe. Thus, His existence should be related to the state to which science has no access yet. In this way, a hypothesis was created about the sphere beyond time and space as the only state that could be assigned to the Original Being. The discovery of the moment when the structure of the cosmos was created as a result of the Big Bang "opened" the possibility of locating God as the First Cause in a "place" other than the space-time of the universe, ie in the "afterlife" beyond time and space. Scientists by establishing the beginning of the universe made everyone realize that it arose from an unknown state that cannot be determined by any known laws of nature or scientific instruments.

The key point in this analysis is the appearance of the universe's space-time at a point called singularity. This suggests the existence of a sphere defined by my imagination as a state beyond time and space before its creation. The definition of the state of the space with time and space results indirectly from the boundary conditions of the creation of space-time in the universe. This means that space and time emerged from a state in which time did not exist before, that is, that state should be eternal. In this case, you really had to use your imagination to the maximum. Both intuition and scientific experience allowed me to conclude that this sphere is a special "place" where one can establish the existence of the eternal Original Being. The only sensible solution was that this Being occupies this entire sphere. Assuming beforehand the attributes of eternity, perfection, and absolute for this Being, I had to conclude that He is unlimited in His "location," that is, He is not subject to time and space limitations. Thus, a sphere or state beyond time and space, which is all that surrounds the universe, or possibly other universes, is the "space" of the Original Being. He should be completely integrated with it, that is, while maintaining the separateness of His Personality, this sphere is Him and He is it. Due to the conditions of the state beyond time and space, I did not have to worry that the Original Being was somehow "blurring" in this sphere. It can be compared to the human personality which maintains its ubiquitous state regardless of where it is located. Our spiritual personality has no barriers, and human thought can freely penetrate time and space.

Such reasoning led to the final conclusion that if such a Original Being exists, it must be outside the universe and must be primary to it, i.e. source as to its origin. At the same time, His creative "products" should be fully realized in space-time. I will add to clarify that since the Original Being exists beyond time and space, it is not subject to the principle of causality that can only work in space-time. Therefore, He has no "own" cause, for Himself, as the embodiment of eternity and infinity, He creates the eternal First Cause.

Essenceism noticed that the universe, its structures, the life that arose on planet Earth, and the appearance of intelligent beings with personality there, show remarkable consistency and precision in existence. Thus arises a train of thought that leads from an intelligent and eternal Cause to an intelligent effect in the form of an eternal being, that is, man. Hence the conclusion that the Original Creative Being must have a Personality in order to be able to pass it on to people. My entire analytical system is focused on proving this thesis. I present my principles of research and analytical instruments of essenceism in all my studies and on websites.

Describing the scientific concept of God in essenceism obviously had to take into account His creative possibilities resulting in the creation of the space-time of the universe. It follows that the universe arose from energy "located" beyond time and space, that is, from the Energy of the First Cause, which is one of the two necessary attributes of the Original Being. For the same reasons as the existence of the Original Being, it should be inexhaustible and eternal, and at the same time constitute a specific Physical Side of the Original Being. In turn, this creative Energy should function according to His Laws and Principles, which are the second main attribute of the Original Being. Of course, they too exist eternally beyond time and space. Further analysis led to the conclusion that the creative Laws and Principles are derived from the Intelligence, Will, and Affection of the Original Being. They create His Personality, in which all these qualities constitute an absolute unity indicating the existence of the Personality Center called by essenceism the Creator's Heart. This is how I define His Spiritual Side, which makes Him a Original Being. "Theologically" His Personality can also be called the Spirit of God.

It still needs to be explained why the causality of the Original Being is so important in my system. According to essenceism, the existence of God is not a problem of faith, but a logical necessity. Essenceism rejects the notion that the universe was created out of nothing. In this situation, without recognizing the Creator as the disposer of law-controlled energy, it would not be possible to rationally explain the existence of the universe, and especially the circumstances of the emergence of energy and matter. The same applies to the emergence of life and the appearance of intelligent beings, that is, ourselves. And in this case, the presence of the Creator is also a necessity. It was this reasoning that finally shaped my system. Of course, these essenceism claims must be verified during the analysis of the functioning of the Original Being and the fact that He could actually create the universe, life and people. In this regard, we are constantly moving in the area of theories presented by my system.

The most important concept in the search for the Original Being is infinity, the existence of which is recognized not only by scientists, but also functions in the universal human consciousness. Of course, infinity has no end, but also no beginning, which brings us a better understanding of eternity. The next most important concept in understanding the operation of the Original Being is perfection. In rational reasoning, it is the final state of a given existence, not requiring any correction, i.e. completed in every respect. Then the perfectional state is an ideal state which cannot be even more perfect than the already existing one. The absolute is also a very important concept in the realization of the existence of the Original Being. The Absolute of the Original Being means His uniqueness, uniqueness, superiority and independence, that is, that He is the first of all possible beings, independent of any other. These attributes of the Original Being listed in my system entitle us to say that He must be an initial, source and causative being. At the same time, their coherence leads to the conclusion that everything that He creates takes from Him the only proper state called good.

To sum up, the Energy of the First Cause and the Laws that fill the Original Being affect all existence both in the sphere beyond time and space (otherwise known as the spiritual world) and in the spacetime of the universe (known as the physical world). It is also worth noting that in the physical world, cognizable by man, the attributes of the Original Being are transformed into specific forms of energy and matter perceived by our senses, as well as into all natural laws discovered by science. Understanding the mechanism of these phenomena is presented in the following parts of essenceism.

Chapter 29

A scientist's effort to help religion

I recall the generally understandable fact that science deals with the physical, that is, the material, side of reality. From this it follows that it does not deal with the so-called spiritual reality, which is dealt with, for example, in metaphysics, theology or, to some extent, philosophy. However, contrary to this principle, essenceism undertakes to investigate the main "unknowns" of humanity with methods modeled on scientific ones. It is about the phenomenon of the possible existence of God as the Creator of the universe, about the situation of the emergence of life as an impulse probably inherited from Him, and the mysterious appearance of an intelligent being in the universe in His image and likeness, that is, an eternal man, just like Him.

A scientist, the theoretical one, who wants to deal with "unscientific" topics, cannot avoid research with the tools recognized by his colleagues. This applies to all new phenomena, as well as existing ones, should there be any arguments that undermine their truthfulness. To be most objective, work should involve tried and tested working methods. It is worth taking into account the criticism of one's views coming from others and it is obligatory to use self-control when taking the next steps.

Ideally, a scientist should stick to the rules of conduct established from the outset, which he could only change if his basic assumptions turned out to be false. An important step, perhaps ahead of all others, should be to create a sample research model that shows the ultimate goal of the research. Of course, this model can be quite theoretical, inspired only by your imagination or intuition. Then the scientist (still the ideal one) should choose specific tools adapted to his research. He should also examine their condition, that is, check whether they are "clean", in other words simple and understandable by others. It should also be added that when undertaking an analysis of the existing situation, a scientist should refer to its earliest sources. This will give him the opportunity to derive the causative chain of events leading to its present form.

Thanks to such honest behavior, a scientist gains energy, confidence and determination for even the most difficult tasks. So he hopes that what he does will bring him success. Of course, he has to be very careful not to use unverified data or introduce something that is only a religious act of faith. For example, the statement that "God created man in His image and likeness" can be considered only in the context of the proven statement that man has been creating gods in his image and likeness for centuries. Since we are doing this, there is something to this biblical verse and it is worth considering it as one of the many arguments for the extraordinary appearance of man at the end of the chain of nature, an intelligent being.

All that I wrote above is also aimed at myself, so that I should always remember about the rules of research conducted in my system. I would like to add that I try to do this all the time.

Chapter 33

Science and religion in face of world

When a scientist discovers some important phenomenon, principle or truth about the laws of nature, he can count not only on the full recognition of his environment, but also on a positive reaction from his competitors. This is especially the case when the results of his research are confirmed by other scientists. Most often, everyone is happy about it.

Unfortunately, in the field of religion, the situation is quite different. In a world where Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Judaists mostly dominate, any innovation creates hostility. For example, the hierarchs of Judaism fought against the prophets who discovered certain secrets of the spiritual world and tried to pass them on to people. It was the same with Jesus Christ, who taught the Heavenly Father and explained the role of the Son of God in the salvation of the world. Muslims also persecuted their own clergy who wanted to adapt their understanding of the Qur'an to the activities of the next generations after Muhammad. In the centuries that followed, Christian hierarchs persecuted many thinkers who understood Jesus' teachings and personality differently. Those who dared to create a new understanding of the Old and New Testaments were liquidated. They were burned at the stake of scientists who presented scientific discoveries about new phenomena in the universe. Doctors who developed new methods of treating sick people were also persecuted. Persecution also affected clergymen who disagreed with the hierarchy. They were called dissenters, heretics, and enemies of the church. Most actions leading to the restoration of Christian values or their compliance with the development of civilization were considered schism or heresy. It can be seen that the opposite was done to what was done in the case of the development of science. It is therefore worth considering why this was the case.

With a simple understanding of these facts, one can easily conclude that the hierarchs of various religions place power over people and standing in their own position over the welfare of their faithful. Therefore, they are not interested in the fact that all mankind makes a tremendous effort to find better solutions to its daily affairs. The human will to improve one's own existence is therefore the "salt in the eye" of the religious hierarchs who, throughout human history, have fought against those who dared to have a different opinion from theirs.

For a deeper understanding of human history, it is worth following an example from the teachings of Jesus Christ first. He portrayed Satan as the main agent of evil in the world. "The God of this world," as the Son of God often called Satan, controls knowledge of himself so effectively that even the greatest scribes or stout theological heads have not been able to understand the effectiveness of his power and his position towards mankind. Rather, they tried to eliminate those who were discovering his true role.

It should be added here that even in the twentieth century, clergymen of the greatest denominations, when confronted with people of science, often behaved inappropriately towards them. They were unable to get in touch with those who openly and sincerely wanted to help people understand the true meaning of their lives. The clergy only considered the principles of their own doctrines, forgetting that a dogmatic attitude towards people almost always leads to persecution for innovative views.

In the confrontation between science and religion, the question arises as to which God is meant. Is it about Heavenly Father who is in the so-called Heaven beyond the world, or about the real "god of this world"? Are the clergy of major religions so influenced by Satan as to do his will? Have they been unable for centuries to go beyond the circle of their dogmatic findings straight from antiquity? Do they realize that by their attitude they block the spiritual development of mankind and prevent the salvation of the world? Did the bug of power of power eliminate in them the love for people that Christ spoke about?

According to essenceism, the main difference between religious leaders and scientists lies in the assessment of the functioning of humanity and responsibility for the state of our world. The clergy of great religions most often proclaim that their God watches over everything, observes what people do, and over time will solve all our problems in the form of the end of the world or the final judgment. Therefore, they do not have to worry about the condition of humanity, because their god knows best what is good and what is bad for us. Such an attitude removes from people of faith responsibility for the development of civilization. It largely contradicts the efforts of scientists to improve the living conditions on Earth. From this it can be seen that science and its participation proclaim the opposite of those who wait for God's action. People of science know well that no one for mankind will solve the problems of civilization. It is them, and in fact each of us should participate in shaping good conditions for life on Earth, and especially in bringing the world to a state that brings happiness to every human being. Unfortunately, without the participation of people of faith, this probably cannot be achieved.

The disease of religious irresponsibility has a much wider dimension. It is about taking full part in the salvation of the world from evil. The failure of religion in this mission has a particularly negative effect on the condition of humanity. Therefore, essenceism proposes to people of faith to adopt a scientific point of view of the world. This must be done because, by combining scientific and religious action, both parties can understand what kind of God we have in the Person of the Creator. To foster understanding between science and religion, essenceism proposes a new understanding of the Creator of the universe. It is about a non-dogmatic Creator in combination with the state of His cut off from us due to the evil.

For science, there are three important problems to be solved that it has been struggling with for thousands of years. It is about the problem of the creation of the universe, the phenomenon of the appearance in life and the existence of man in the natural environment. These three issues fall within the scope of the proposal for a solution to the problems of humanity discussed in essenceism. It results from the analysis of the work done by the Original Being.

Essenceism tries to reconcile religion and science, or at least bring the two areas of life closer together. In the ongoing discussion between the two areas of life, there are still negative phenomena concerning the very principle of the functioning of dialogue. First of all, it is still not very present in social life. Individual denominations or churches identify themselves with the so-called Will of God, thus assuming that they represent the truth revealed by Him. This immediately closes the way for further discussion not only with science but also with other faiths. It is true that such "representing" God guarantees them to remain in their position, although it does not lead to the solution of any problems of humanity, even those that they deal with themselves, for example, the problem of eliminating evil on Earth. Meanwhile, science does not have to make such assumptions. She can openly deal with everything that is of interest to her, without any artificial barriers. It can also combine the intellectual efforts of all mankind, stopping only at the barrier of the lack of appropriate research methods and tools. Meanwhile, essenceism shows that behind this barrier, religion may still operate, complementing its competitor's efforts to learn the "spiritual" truth about the universe. To avoid conflicts with religion, science should make it clear that it must have an absolutely free hand in its research. Science urges it not to be disturbed by religion and not to become entrenched in defensive positions to defend its dogmas. If God is really powerful and absolute, then there is no need to defend Him, because just as He dealt with the creation of the universe, He will also be able to confirm His work. It exists objectively, so it is enough for religion to present it and science to study it.

It follows that religion has a clear field of action in the study of God's creative work. It can be anywhere where science has no access due to the assumptions it has made. This applies primarily to such a topic as the first cause of the creation of the universe in terms of causality and purposefulness. However, the very mechanism of this phenomenon may already be a field for joint research for both sides without the need to remain in their current positions. In another discussion of the origin of life, religion can confidently express its point of view, as science has not yet solved this problem. For it has become clear that the root aspects of this issue still elude her empirical methods. Thus, the beginning of life on Earth is still behind an inaccessible veil, the existence of which we also notice when examining the source moment of the creation of the universe. So we admire the phenomenon of the inheritance of life and the development of the universe, but we are unable to peer beyond the "curtain" of the Big Bang, inaccessible to scientists. On the other hand, religions are allowed to proclaim that the Creator works from beyond the curtain that separates the space-time of the universe from the state beyond time and space. Moreover, religion does not try to prove its claims by simply proclaiming that it is so and that is the end. It is difficult for science to accept this, but it cannot yet provide any satisfactory answer on this matter. Therefore, essenceism seeks a compromise solution.

The greatest field of interaction between religion and science is man himself. It was he who created these two areas of life. Thus, it can operate on both of these research planes. Therefore, neither side of the discussion should be taken lightly of the latter or eliminate some hypotheses of the emergence of an intelligent man. It is worth assuming that our appearance in the natural world is a fascinating phenomenon for both points of view. You just need to find a common denominator for them. According to essenceism, it is primarily human spirituality, which in the case of faith means our immortal personality, and for science it is a phenomenon of the functioning of the mind in the form of intelligence, will and affection. Another field for discussion is the problem of the existence of evil, which has always been destroying the achievements of both areas that I have discussed. Here religion can especially suggest many of the solutions it has developed. Meanwhile, science can only say that evil exists, while admitting that it cannot eliminate it definitively. Unfortunately, religion also grapples with this problem, often failing, although it aptly defines the methods of how to remove them. Therefore, topics concerning the sense of humanity, the purpose of civilization changes and efforts to eliminate evil should be a common axis of cooperation between these two areas of life.

Finally, it is worth asking yourself a question about the assessment of the achievements of science in relation to the described creative work of God. Let me begin by defining the relationship between God and us, using concepts from the realm of physics. On the one hand, the Original Being - the Creator, who creates the matter, i.e. the physical side of man, from the original energy, that is, the primary energy. On the other hand, a man is His child who uses this matter, at the same time accepting from his Creator the most important gift of life in the form of an eternal spiritual person. Of course, man is not only a consumer of energy and matter. He continues to develop his Father's creative work. The above terms clearly explain the role of the Creator towards people.

I think scientists will explain to us the entire creative mechanism in more detail one day. This is evidenced by a number of scientific discoveries, for example, learning about the so-called the divine particle, i.e. the Higgs boson, as well as various states of interaction. Currently, science is still correcting its views on the origin of the universe. In competition with religion, science is victorious wherever it is possible to physically carry out research and experimentation, and where religion unnecessarily tries to explain the mysteries of the universe through miracles and revelations. Unfortunately, science cannot prove the existence of God since He is beyond the reach of its instruments. On the other hand, it cannot, for the same reasons, prove that God does not exist. These two areas should get closer to each other over time, but let them both develop in parallel and possibly support each other.

So how can science support religion? This support may consist primarily in the fact that in order to understand the natural reality, the necessity of the existence of the so-called observer should be taken into account. This is because such a need arose, for example, when assessing whether infinitely small portions of matter or energy still have a corpuscular or wave structure. Contrary to appearances, it is of fundamental importance. The question is whether they are still energy or already a form of matter, or vice versa. This duality or uncertainty arises because of the use of research tools by man who decides on the structure of these entities. This suggests the necessity of the existence of people who influence not only established physical phenomena, but also participate in the active resolution of the course of various phenomena, especially in microphysics. It may also suggest an answer to the question why man existed and why the Creative Observer of the universe exists from the beginning, i.e. the Original Being.

In addition to quantum physics, the observer may be useful for the anthropic principle that suggests an unusual and precise order in the cosmos. Astrophysicists have noted that only humans are capable of evaluating phenomena on a macro scale. Therefore, man, or the observer in the universe, must himself assess the uniqueness of the structures of all things, which, with a minimal deviation from the stability of laws and principles, would never exist in the cosmos. It means, as it were, the necessity of our existence, i.e. the fact that we are indispensable in the universe. It can be understood that the whole universe is for us, and without our final existence it would not have been possible to exist. For now, this conclusion goes too far. However, the anthropic principle is already being taken into account, as is the Big Bang thesis. Perhaps the Creator is behind both.

In this study, essenceism presupposes the existence of God in all respects perfect, eternal and absolute, that is, independent of anything, neither from time nor from space. In fact, at the present level of human development, a different concept of the Creator does not exist. Only the Perfect, eternal, absolute and absolutely good Original Being has a sense. So you cannot invent someone or something that is more perfect, more eternal or more perfect than Him.