Go to content

The Emptiness Of The Big Bang Theory As The Origin Of Life


The Big Bang?

Many scientists explain that LIFE is a consequence of The Big Bang, so-called. This theory is incomplete, illogical, irrational and somewhat naive.

NB: The distinction between the theories of material science based on physical origin and the non-physical origin of life needs to be established because the inference that life must have begun after the creation of the physical universe is often made.

This article, although showing how utterly illogical it is to declare that life began after a "big bang", does not deny the existence of physical evolution. In fact, it is all part of God's Divine Design because physical evolution is a part of spiritual evolution.

It is a simple fact to grasp, that physical science will never, by definition, be able to explain the non-physical in its own terms.

Either "Nothing" Does Exist Or It Does Not Exist

From whence comes the Big Bang? It may be said by some that the "Big Bang" originates from "negative space", or perhaps from a "void", or from "antimatter", or simply from "energy". But the underlying implication is that at one time there existed nothing (although this is a misnomer), and at a later stage there was something.

If it is said that matter existed before life, then it must be shown where that matter originated. If it is said that there was antimatter, then it must be shown from whence originated antimatter, and so on.

Now, it might be argued that anything which is "void" or anything which is "antimatter", does not have to have come from anywhere, it just is. But this is where the whole futility of the argument that from "nothing" can come something, becomes evident. If antimatter or void is to be given any attribute at all, then it must be something (by claiming the existence of void or antimatter means that they are something which exist) - so where did that "something" come from? This Theory does not explain the origin of real life at all, because it is based on illogical foundations. A certain material formation might have a foundation with this theory but this is a far cry from the formation of life, the living essence which animates the material in certain conditions.

It is all very well to say that from the very outset there was "nothing", but such a statement or concept is purely irrational, and science is meant to be rational. For "nothing" to exist, there must be something, or it would not exist.

"Existence" Must Exist

Existence, by its very definition, exists. On the contrary, absolute "nothingness" cannot ever possess an attribute or else it would be "something" with ability or quality. An attribute of any description cannot be assigned to "nothingness" as "nothingness" could never have been "nothingness" because it must be a "something" to possess a quality. "Nothingness" cannot be attributed with anything at all or else it would be something that has an attribute, and must therefore have always been "something" instead of "nothingness". For something - anything - to exist, it must have it's roots in existence and not "non-existence".

Even if "nothingness" were to develop a quality or characteristic (at a later stage) which permitted a completely random and uncoordinated explosion or implosion (Big Bang), then that original "nothingness" would never really have been "nothingness" but rather a "something with attributes". "Nothingness" would never have originally existed because it would have clearly been in possession of a number of attributes or characteristics, i.e. "development", "randomness", "chaos", "ability" etc. There would originally have had to have been a "something" which obviously was a great deal more than "pure nothingness".

If the claim is that something came from nothing, then even in the most "desolate" state of "nothingness" (so-called), there must be the characteristic of "potential", and therefore there was never "absolutely nothing" in the first place because potential existed in this supposed "nothingness"; therefore "nothingness" is far from a suitable description for "something with potential". If something comes from nothing, then that "nothing" would not truly be "absolute nothing" - the least it could be is "something" with "ability" or "potential".

"Nothingness" Has Never Existed

Clearly, "absolute nothing" does not exist, never has existed, and never will exist. "Nothingness" is merely a concept created by a mind and shared with other minds. Even when "nothingness" becomes a concept, paradoxically, "nothingness" becomes a "something", namely, a concept - a concept exists whereas "nothing" cannot have existence. The corollary is that there is no such thing as "absolute nothingness" because "absolute nothingness" does not possess the potential to become "something" or else it would not be "absolute nothingness". Indeed, what it would be is "something with potential". But where did that "something with potential" come from?

Relative "Nothing"

Certainly, the concept of "nothing" can be used in common thought. A room may have objects in it, but when those objects are removed, the room is said to have nothing in it. This is a relative nothing - the relative "nothing" referring to a room which does not contain objects. However, even in a fairly concrete sense, the room has the potential to have objects in it. Therefore, the room does not have "absolute nothing" in it because it possesses characteristics: the ability and potential to have physical objects in it.

The Contradiction That "Nothingness" Can Become Something

Another relative example could be the human mind. A human mind is said to think and imagine, but the mind is a non-physical aspect of existence (commonly associated with a physical structure, the brain); the mind possesses the ability and potential to think in some form or at least be aware to a degree, and of course many other attributes. So, indeed, the "mind" actually exists - it cannot be measured by repeatable laboratory-condition experiments, but this elusive non-physical structure exists. The mind is not "nothing". However, in relation to the main subject, for "nothing" to literally exist, something must be attributed to it and therefore it could never have been "absolute nothingness" in the first place because true "absolute nothingness" cannot possess any attribute (e.g. potential) or it would be "something".

This is true even if attributes (characteristic, ability, potential or existence, etc.) are considered in their most dilute, microscopic or insignificant form - because if this were the case, then "nothing" would not really be "nothing"; indeed, it would most definitely be something because it owned at least a "something" (an attribute), thereby making the contradiction that "absolute nothing" has the power (itself an attribute) to possess (another attribute) something. Therein lies a colossal falsehood: that "absolute nothing" exists with attributes - a real impossibility and contradiction.

"Nothing" Must Always Be Without Anything At All

"Nothingness" must always be without anything or it would not be "nothingness". Also, it is illogical and irrational for "nothing" always to remain "nothing" because this would be attributing to "nothing" the values or characteristics of "stability, constancy, etc.", and this again means that "nothing" is not really "nothing" at all but "something with at least a strong quality". Thus, there is no such thing as "absolute nothing".

So, to say that something can be created out of nothing is an illogical deduction. It is also an unscientific deduction because science makes the claim that matter must come from something - matter cannot come from nothing. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, we are told by science; and yet many scientists would appear to expect everyone to accept that "something" can be created from absolute "nothing". This is far-fetched thinking.

So, if the theory is now going to be based upon matter being created from a "something", be it "antimatter" (which is certainly not "absolute nothingness" because antimatter must have a core of existence in order to exist) or be it energy, then the question asked of these thinkers, is: From whence came the existence of energy or so-called antimatter? Indeed, from whence came "existence"? "Absolute nothing" cannot beget "Existence" - "Nothing" cannot exist in Reality.

"Non-Existence" Does Not Really Exist

Non-existence cannot beget existence because non-existence cannot ever have existed and can never exist. Non-existence is a concept at best and it can never have existence by definition. Non-existence and absolute nothingness are synonymous, and they remain self-negating intellectual concepts and nothing more. Non-existence and absolute nothingness have no reality simply because if they had existed in the past then they would not ever have been non-existence and absolute nothingness - they existed.

So where did anything in Existence or True Reality originate? This is a question only answered in a disjointed and fragmentary manner by the Big Bang Theory, founded upon incomplete deduction and the failure to thoroughly consider absolute and relative existence.

"Nothing" Cannot Ever Lie Outside The "Set Of Everything"

Some of those who call themselves rational thinkers might make statements such as: "Nothing used to exist because nothing is that which lies outside of the set of everything". It is necessary to briefly look at this point because of it's apparent authoritative origin which propagates widespread indoctrination.

Firstly, the statement: "Nothing used to exist" is illogical and irrational and therefore intelligent people could not call this an absolute truth. Making such a statement is akin to a child who has not done his homework and yet tells his teacher that he has done it.

If "nothing" existed then it was never "nothing" in the first place - it was something. For "nothing" to have existed then originally it could never have been nothing, it must have been something because it existed. Something which exists can never be absolute nothingness. Absolute nothing must always be without the ability to exist. Absolute nothing can never possess any characteristic or property at all. Absolute nothing must never have any power, not even the potential to exist. Absolute nothing can never exist and has never existed outside of anything (that is a rational statement).

Secondly, the statement: "Nothing is that which lies outside the set of everything" is merely a relative observation and is only true when applied within it's (relative) framework but it ceases to be true outside of that framework.

The conclusion that: "Nothing is that which lies outside the set of everything" is based on terms of reference which are relative and not absolute i.e., it is based on terms of reference from a limited subset of manmade truth (mathematics). Such a relative statement can therefore only provide a relative conclusion but never an absolute conclusion concerning a Reality with a framework of reference which transcends terms of references which deal solely with a material universe.

To say: "Nothing is that which lies outside the set of everything" is really akin to people of yesteryear using their relative terms of reference to come to the conclusion that the world is flat (a relative truth for them). A seemingly strange analogy perhaps but the terms of reference are within what is essentially the same "set" because they do not take into consideration all states and planes of being, merely the physical universe (as understood by them).

In conclusion, by creating nothing when in Reality "nothing" has never existed, the mind is creating both a relative and limited conclusion, and is also creating a false positive.

A Brief Spiritual Explanation Of Creation

The following is a somewhat inadequate and abridged explanation of spiritual creation, but this is given for balance and contrast to the Big Bang Theory and Darwin's Origin of Species, and to hopefully demonstrate that the secular scientist need not refute a Divine Creator at all. Indeed, if time and explanation permitted, it could be shown that Darwin was indeed "inspired", meaning that input and encouragement was forthcoming from Spirit - Divine inspiration no less.

For a human to explain, in a few sentences, a viewpoint of spiritual evolution, may be somewhat ambitious but it must be attempted here or there will be no balance to the viewpoint of physical evolution.

Simply put, the Greater World's spiritual explanation for Life, is that there has always been Pure Existence and that that Pure Existence is an attribute of Pure Consciousness, and Pure Consciousness is an attribute of Pure Love, and Perfect Love is synonymous with the all-loving, all-compassionate conscious Supreme Being - God.

This All-encompassing Love is perfect, and because Love always wants to give and expand, so It has consciously given out from Itself small fragments of Itself, and to these minute fragments of individual Purity was gifted freedom of choice - something that would never be taken away. The very existence of these countless billions of free-willed beings acting in harmony with - or against - spiritual laws, is responsible for the myriad conditions and spheres which permeate spiritual creation, each condition varying in greater or lesser degree from Perfection.

These "areas" (or states of existence) are in a state of imperfection according the degree they are "distanced" from that original Perfection (or how far removed they are from Perfection, in greater or lesser degree). The individual entity continually creates conditions around itself as it interacts with the always-existing spiritual laws; the ultimate and inevitable goal being to evolve to a state of complete individual experience whereby free-will will always work in harmony with spiritual laws and never violate those laws again even unconsciously. But until then, the individual creates conditions for good or for ill, and the conditions are formed accordingly - Perfection being transcendental to all that is imperfect.

Extending Material Reason With A Spiritual Dimension

The physical Evolutionist need not be too indignant at these assertions. The famous Big Bang Theory is not ruled out as such. What is ruled out is the assertion that LIFE is singularly and solely a consequence of either a Big Bang or of physical evolution upon this planet Earth. Please note the intended emphasis between life and physical existence.

Life has always existed and if there have been intergalactic or inter-universal or any other type of Big Bangs, these would be but consequences of spiritual involution where that which was once created in purity had devolved to such an extent that chaos was the by-product.

The length of time that the earth-plane has been in existence is relatively insignificant in comparison to the duration of the myriad spirals of spiritual evolution and involution which have been in existence since long before the material-plane came into actual being. The earth-plane has only been in existence for as long as it takes a proper spiritual star to twinkle, as it were.

With this background, it is so very easy to see how life - spiritual life - did not originate through Darwinian evolution. Life existed for "aeons" before God brought this material plane into being for use in His Plan for the raising up of His children, and therefore our planet Earth is even younger. God created the laws of evolution. The Earth was a consequence of the laws of evolution, and out of the chaos brought about through man's involution long before the material plane came into being, came the Earth - because God's laws of spiritual creation are redemptive, and no matter how opposed to those laws man becomes collectively, those same laws are there to help man redeem himself. And out of the Earth came various forms of physical life that were going to enable all other forms of pre-existing spiritual life to gain spiritual evolution through material existence.

The children of God had fallen from perfection through abuse of freewill, and because God's children were supposed to be guardians of the humbler forms of creation, man brought those forms down with him to the various levels of involution to which he fell. Now here on Earth, God's beneficial evolutionary laws have worked so that there would be physical evolution capable of sustaining the souls of the children of God along with the souls of the lesser creations in his charge. God's wisdom would not be defeated by the lesser selves of His free-willed children.

While physical evolution appears to be purely according to environmental circumstances, this is only part of the picture. The Divine laws of spiritual Creation have always been the impetus behind all physical evolution, working on behalf of the original forms of the humbler creations of God, not just man. Thus what has been promoted on this Earth during physical evolution has been that which will accommodate those creations previously created.

If this has been read correctly, it explains the outline as to how Charles Darwin's natural selection theory and God's Divine Plan for the redemption of all creatures that have endured involution, including His own children - work in perfect harmony.

Reviewing physical evolution in the spiritual manner laid out here, it should be possible to see how spiritual evolutionary laws have been the genesis for the varied forms of physical evolutionary growth. From this it can be understood that the difference between ape and man is for a reason. The children of God required modern human-being physical bodies whereas the souls of creatures more akin to apes required the bodies of physical apes. As for the physical stage between so-called primitive man and modern man, those former physical bodies were used for soul-bodies of entities created by God which were neither the children of God nor of primitive apes but which still had an essential part to play in the Divine scheme of things. The boundaries of belief of the reader have probably already been pushed beyond their limit therefore suffice it to say that the clues for the existence of these latter-mentioned creatures are fairly abundant in contemporary human history but may not be too obvious and may remain a missing link in many minds.

So there is the chance for the Neo-Darwinians to see where their theory remains almost intact except that they need to go much further back in time and open their minds to the fact that life did not begin with single-celled amoeba but rather life began long before when the Divine Spirit created individual spirits out of Self which possessed freedom of will and which was predestined to be fully experienced children of God, and along with this individuality was created many other forms of life. The souls that modern day human bodies carry are designated as God's children and those children are responsible for the plight of the souls inhabiting God's humbler creations.

Does It Matter If People Teach Life Is An Accident?

Does it matter if people go out of their way to teach that life was an "accident" created from microbes and there was never any conscious design, and that life is encompassed solely in the physical birth and death of an organism, and to entertain any life after death notions is foolishness? Yes, according to information received from Spirit and recorded in original Greater World records (spiritual history), most assuredly it matters. Too many real accounts as well as the philosophical teaching itself demonstrate the same thing.

Without wishing to create erroneous notions with generalisations, an attempt must be made to explain this. The wiseacres who preach the foolishness of a Divine Creator, those who go out of their way to instil into the minds of others that to believe in anything supernatural such as a God or Afterlife, those who think that their intellectual understanding of life and its origin is somehow superior to others less inclined to leave their minds open to further possibilities of life beyond the earthly frame - such as these will find themselves in classes for the very young when they pass over into the Next World, and this only after they have accepted their gross error with burning humiliation.

It can be no other way. When we pass over we take our characters with us, we take our memories, we take the causation of consequences not yet worked out, we take what we have become. What we have moulded ourselves to, has become, as it were, hardened as clay in a potters kiln. We cannot change immediately with the change called death, we are very much the same but no longer do we possess a body of flesh. 

Now we find ourselves in Another Land. Can it be imagined how the one who was utterly convinced, and went to great lengths convincing others, that there was nothing whatsoever after physical death - can it be imagined how confusing this will be to such a one? Can it be imagined how devastatingly idiotic and betrayed by self such a person, once endowed with great intellectual ability of the earth mind perhaps, now feels?

Can it be imagined how impossible it would be for one who taught with such commanding determination and persuasive authority that to believe in anything other than pure material existence was something that belonged to a primitive culture that had not developed its thinking powers - how impossible that such a one could be told anything of life by anyone who had given credence to the thinking of that supposedly primitive culture and who had perhaps led an unnoticed and quiet life doing their humble duty, knowing deep within that Someone or Something far greater than themselves, had their best interests at heart?

The confusion and hurt experienced by the Neo-Darwinian at the assertion that he or she could possibly be wrong when all these other apparently less intelligent people who were foolish and superstitious enough to have faith in something supernatural, appear to be coping so naturally and happily with these New Surroundings in the Next World - the confusion that the wiseacre finds himself or herself experiencing is indeed painfully profound. And because of such confusion, much loneliness and aimless wandering is undergone until such a person is able to accept, slowly but surely, the new conditions.

And as it has been said, these are generalizations for the sake of explanation. Each character is different, and in relation to our subject, perhaps for someone who knew that he or she was dying and who was utterly convinced that consciousness would cease to exist with death because mankind is nothing but a cosmic accident, it may be the case that they do not initially demonstrate much consciousness, perhaps thinking they should have none at all (freewill is never interfered with). But this is not a lasting condition.

In essence and quite simply, it boils down to this spiritual fundamental - humility. The mind of the human in the flesh, whether religionist, materialist or scientist - needs to be open. Pride of mind should find no place in any single human being because when free from the restrictions of the flesh they will see that nothing they did or achieved was on their own, but rather they will see (perhaps not at first) that without the aid of unseen inspirers - they would have achieved nothing of worth. 

Understanding this should allow pride of mind to wither and die. The narrower the mind concerning the unknown, the more future trouble lies in wait. The warnings have been there throughout history concerning the necessity for humility. They should be heeded.

Often, as the slow realization dawns on the wiseacre that he or she was tricked by their own physical mind when on Earth, at that stage the excuse goes up that he or she was only able to follow facts and physical science presented those facts, therefore all else had to be disregarded because it appeared obvious to the thinking mind that the evolution of humanity was a consequence of aeons of randomness, and entertaining the thought of some kind of Supreme Being and plan behind it all was opposed to fact. However, such an excuse is quite empty and feeble because it was possible to know and understand the incomparably bigger picture of God's Greater World - He said that those who asked would receive and that those who sought would find. After all, it's summarized here by a human.

As a brief aside, and for the sake of context and wider persepective, this is not what happens to the religious fundamentalist with a very closed mind concerning his or her future life, who thoroughly believes and who has it firmly ingrained into his or her mind, that he or she is one of the relatively few millions who shall be saved in Heaven out of many billions who shall be lost in an everlasting Hell. Such as these, having never done anything particularly evil, find themselves in a pleasant land (pleasant in relation to an earthly existence) but see no others except those akin to themselves in eschatological thought. They incorrectly assume this is their rightful place for the coming eternity and fail to recognize in any form those, more spiritually advanced than themselves who have progressed much further into the spiritual spheres and who must wait - sometimes a long time - for the narrow-minded fundamentalists to understand that they are only just removed a sphere or two from the Earth in spirituality, and that there is yet far more spiritual growth to be undertaken by them.

Real Love

There is a small thought which needs to be appended to this subject. There are those who attempt to deny the existence and reality of Perfect Love. Their claim is that there is no such thing as unconditional love. They claim that all love is selfish, and the only reason an individual loves another individual is to make themselves happy.

Clearly, these thinkers must be ruled by the intellect to such an extent that reality is obscured. Firstly, it must be remembered that human love is not Divine Love - far from it. And yet, the argument for the existence of Unconditional Perfect Love can be reinforced by examples of the lesser human love.

For instance, although relatively few, there are parents with extremely hurtful children. The parent can spend year after year being hurt on purpose by the wicked child, and yet that parent can feel nothing but love for that child. This parent could not, even with the greatest stretch of the imagination, be said to be loving that child because it makes them happy. Loving that child, in fact, makes that parent unhappy in this circumstance. Loving that child may even bring on deep depression and permanent anxiety. And yet the parent continues to always love that child unconditionally.

This demonstrates, to the aware consciousness, the existence of unconditional love. The love is more than a simple duty, it is embedded in something which is an inherent part of the individual, it is the spirit itself, made of Love, and permitted or denied expression. The inherent love is completely for another, but in the case of some, demonstratively in those who can only perceive love as being selfish, the surrounding layers of self inhibit the purely altruistic nature of pure love, essentially part of Divine Love.

Unconditional love is a fact. That love exists because the unchanging spirit within that soul is a tiny particle of Unconditional Love, and is able to pour through when the deep desire is there to summon that love, and allow its release and expression in the physical world.

Ultimately, it will be noted, the only true happiness that a spirit shall ever be everlastingly content with, is the happiness which comes from the unconditional giving of spiritual love. This then, would be the very reason for existence - to release fully, and become, individually, a fragment of Unconditional Love untainted by the lesser self - journeying through the countless conditions in order to attune ones personality and characteristics to the wonderfully unique spark of individuality thought into being by, and emanating from that immeasurable and immutable Divine Perfection which is Unconditional Love.

For a concise spiritual explanation of the creation of the Earth and the material cosmos through Divine Will, please see this explanation.

For an explanation of how Darwin’s theory of Evolution and the Divine Plan of spiritual evolution harmonise perfectly, please see this explanation.

A message of warning given by Charles Darwin from beyond the grave at the Zodiac Circle

A further explanation of Charles Darwin's post mortem warning, by the teacher Zodiac


 Home  | The Zodiac Messages | Articles | Services | Visitors Book | Books | Site Map | Contact | Search 


Copyright © 1997 - 2014 christianspiritualism.org
All rights reserved.
© All rights are reserved for the content found on christianspiritualism.org. No content found on christianspiritualism.org may be copied, redistributed or published in or on any form of media; all content is for personal spiritual development only.


Back to content |