Without the belief in some kind of original moment, some kind of completely organized entity without entropy, then it's turtles all the way down, and that's no good. There has to be an original particle, or you have some kind of mobious strip existence, don't you? So assuming that there is no mobious strip, that the beginning of existence did indeed happen at some point in time, and that there is indeed some kind of god particle, god consciousness, some kind of thing at the beginning then the question of course is where it came from, etc. So you need a 'god particle' before which there was nothing. And the question becomes whether or not there was some kind of intelligence within it. That is your question. And if you believe in the lack of intelligence of the god particle, then your beliefs stop right there. You have chosen that the god particle was an unthinking, incredibly condensed and orderly suitcase of universe dust that unpacked itself, and in fact continues unpack itself to this day, and our existence is the result of an infinite series of coincidences that have quite possibly happened before on different planets at different times.
Personally, I am a fan of the idea of the infinitely expanding and contracting universe, because I like to think that has a kind of balance to it. Now that I think about it, the likelihood of us existing at the same time as another species on a similar planet is very low. However the likelihood of something happening on one planet, and then later happening on another planet, is not so small. At least it's higher. Maybe we missed the boat. Maybe the big sentient being party already happened, and we're the last, or one of the last, planets to ever exist with sentient life. Considering the fact that Mars, for example, is a dead planet that was possibly once alive, and that all of the planets and star systems were once closer together, that doesn't seem so unlikely. Space travel from planet to habitable planet gets harder and harder every day, as a result of the planets and stars speeding away from each other, forever increasing the distance between them. Earlier, it would have been easier.
So, that is the universe that could exist within the mind of the believer in the non-sentient god particle. A believer in the sentient god particle really doesn't have to believe so differently. It becomes a matter of how sentient the particle is/was, and how involved it is in our day to day activity. So if the particle was sentient and did not really become involved in humanity, then the particle may or may not be aware of our existence, or it may have simply placed the beginning pieces and parts in motion, and is now watching things play out with some kind of end goal, like a sort of multidimensional scientist conducting an experiment. This is not really so far off from a non-sentient god particle belief, because in the end, nothing will interfere with the movement of the cosmos on any level. If the particle is benevolent, however, it may not necessarily be involved with us. It may be working for the benefit of a completely different race of, assumably, conscious beings. Our involvement with the god particle, and our evolution, may be completely geared towards the eventual benefit of that race, and not us.
Let's assume the god particle does indeed support us, specifically, and not someone else, and not everyone at once. Then we get into really specific stuff. Does it perform miracles every day? Isn't every moment when life continues a small miracle set in motion by the god particle? Does it follow us and simply hope for our success in our day to day endeavors? I know I can't answer any of these questions, but obviously my wine is not turned to water, nor is my water turned to wine. No one walks on water on a day to day basis. Why? Why is this? I prefer to believe in a god which allows us to make our human mistakes in the hopes that we will not suck at the end of it, in the same way that a parent allows its teenagers to sneak out, drink, and date that stupid emo kid from down the street, even though he's obviously a loser, because the parent wants to be supportive, and the parent knows that in the end, its child will be hung over, vomit, and then learn from its mistakes. Conversely, a parent also loves its child no matter what, so even when we decide to metaphorically marry the loser emo kid and then support ourselves by working at Mconald's, our parent god will still love us. So if God is like a parent, then we can't disappoint him, can we? Or we can, but that won't diminish that infinite love that we're talking about. So how do we know if we are performing the species equivalent of working fast food and living in a trailer park? We don't, I guess. But we can be secure in the knowledge that there is a god that loves us, so that we are hopefully more likely to be self-aware enough to pick ourselves up out of the trailer park, and start over again. I hope, for our sake, we aren't getting our bad choices tattooed on our collective metaphorical lower back.
No comments:
Post a Comment