"Creation stories, globally, refer to the almost unimaginably spectacular
and terrifying behavior of the planets...Creation originally referred to the
of the celestial spectacle and not to the universe." - Wal Thornhill
Given that we have two aspects of our reality, the physical or material
and the spiritual or the intangible, we can ask ourselves which one of these
came first or which one is ordinate versus subordinate. But
there can be no question as to which one is more important or meaningful
because WE are primarily beings with a mind, a soul or psychological
personhood, self identity, and all that goes along with these such as
traits and characteristics, and most importantly character, purpose and values. We have a body, but we are NOT our body.
It is just the vehicle or vessel for what we really are. Thus, the most profound questions regarding cosmology can
never be answered within the confines of materialism.
The materialist can SAY that the physical universe came first and
that life and the spiritual realities are just "emergent properties" of
the complex physical system, but this position posits something much less than
desirable. "Emergent property" without a preceding purpose—a spiritual
reality—is just a phrase meaning little more than a chance accident.
That leaves us as emergent property meat sticks only able to cope with
the vast and mindless material universe through our limited life and
intelligence. We can never know what other emergent property the
physical universe may throw at us. We could suddenly be superseded and
be left in the dustbin of cosmic history. Or, we could have another dimension emerge and be
added to our needs and desires, another dimension that can never be
satisfied. The nightmarish aspects that one can imagine from "emergent
properties" are extensive and depressing.
It seems far more satisfactory to think that mind and intelligence
with purpose created the physical universe instead of the other way
around. Probably most people in the world are here in their thinking.
But did the intelligence that created the physical universe just fling
it out there once and for all, kind of like a stand alone system? Or is
that intelligence intimately involved, constantly sustaining reality in its mind on an ongoing basis?
Just dealing with the astrophysical aspects, what is the creation cosmology that is implied by the paradigm of this site
and by the valid findings of astrophysics?
It would be a universe that is being constantly sustained and
enlarged by the mature, sane, "sinless" human beings out there that are
fully invested as equal citizens. The universe is NOT static but is
growing both in size and number of creator-sustainers. Vast amounts of "real estate" are being created and added
to what is already there, waiting to be developed by those to whom are
given this endowment. There is more "raw" real estate than we will ever
need for ANY reason.
What seems to make the most sense is from what we can see and interpret
is that certain galaxies, those that have been classified as having "active
galactic nuclei", are charging up, and at some point are ejecting what
are called quasars. Usually these are ejected in pairs in opposite
directions along the axial lines of the mother galaxies, but
occasionally the ejections are at an angle that distinctly differs from
the galactic axis.
These quasars are huge globs of protons or positive material that
initially travel away from the Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) center at relativistic velocities.
According to Halton Arp, one of the most eminent and reasonable
astronomers ever to grace our midst, their "matter" is new and highly redshifted. As they move away over time
there is a stream of electrons—mostly from the AGN—that catch up to
them, slow their velocity down, and decrease the overall positive charge
toward being more charge neutral.
At some point in this process each of these quasars differentiate into a
galaxy of individual stars, which further eject blobs of material that
eventually become planets and moons. At this stage they become
more mature, "normal" galaxies.
This is all in contrast to prevailing cosmology, and here is what Arp
has to say about that:
"After all, to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear
evidence for over 75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should
induce a modicum of humility." (Halton Arp, "What has Science Come To?",
Journal of Scientific Exploration.)
We have to wholeheartedly agree with Arp's assessment. Cosmological
thinking has been intellectually irresponsible with both its Big Bang and
Steady State conjectures. Kind of like having the attitude that would ask
the question, "Why would anybody ever consider more than two flavors of ice
cream, vanilla and chocolate? Or two colors of cars, black and white?"