

**How to Believe in God** _and_ **Science**

In Three Easy Steps

by Joe Provenzano

Copyright 2012 Joseph P. Provenzano

2nd Edition 2017

To my wife Linda for her encouragement, support and love—for all these years

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

Thank you for downloading this ebook. You are welcome to share it with your friends. This book may be reproduced, copied, and distributed for non-commercial purposes, provided the book remains in its complete original form.

Acknowledgements

I have been thinking about these issues for over fifty years, going back to my high school days. I could never remember or thank everyone that helped me work out these ideas. I will mention a few who have been especially helpful with this book. I'm not saying that any of them endorse all of the ideas in this book, but they certainly helped me clarify and better present these ideas.

None of this would have been possible without my wife, Linda. She has understood my passion for these issues since we got married in 1967 and she has made it possible for me to have the time to read, think and write. I love her more that I could ever express.

Our sons, Gary and Dan grew up hearing about and discussing St. Thomas Aquinas, Teilhard de Chardin, Conscious Energy, the existence of God and the rest of the issues you'll find in this book. Gary graduated with a math degree at Loyola Marymount in Los Angeles. He is very good with logical insights. Dan graduated with a Ph. D. in Applied Physics from the California Institute of Technology. Dan was also very helpful in developing the ideas in this book along with making sure that I got the physics right.

My brother-in-law Ron Morgan and I have been discussing philosophy and theology for many, many years. He has a deep faith in the bible and the teachings of the Catholic Church, but he does like to discuss these issues. Together we discovered a new way to think about how God might have created the universe. That idea is a key part of this book and is covered in detail in Chapter 7.

Father Richard W. Kropf, Ph. D, STD, my co-author in a previous book titled _Logical Faith,_ has been an invaluable source for many years. He understands Teilhard de Chardin better than anyone I've ever encountered and has been a great source of information about Church history and theology.

I received helpful answers to questions regarding cosmology from Dr. Shaun Hotchkiss, University of Sussex, and Dr. Brian Koberlein, Rochester Institute of Technology. Dr. Koberlein also granted permission for me to quote from one of his recent articles.

Many of my friends at JPL have been also been very helpful. Bob Chamberlain has a very logical mind has been a great sounding board for these ideas as well as also serving as the primary editor of all of my books. Zack Nolan and John Spagnuolo, Jr., a Ph. D. in Mathematics, both helped me greatly by reading and analyzing this book in depth. Also thanks to John for designing and drawing the cover illustration. Marcus Traylor and Jay Braun also provided helpful comments.

Others that have help me clarify and explain the ideas in this book include Foley Provenzano, Bryan Morgan, my very good friends Spencer Hoglund, Mark Romano, Ph. D., Gary Citrenbaum, Ph. D., as well as a long-time Conscious Energy advocate Ed (Joe) Crummey.

Thanks also to Eben Alexander, M.D., author of _Proof of Heaven,_ and Father Jack Mahoney, author of _Christianity in Evolution,_ for permission to reference their works.
Table of Contents

Preface

Introduction

Chapter 1. Three Steps and Three Concepts

Step I. Understand the different types of issues.

Chapter 2. What We Know, Experience, and Believe

Chapter 3. Additional Roadblocks to Belief in God

Chapter 4. Paths to God

Step II. Survey the models of how God could have created the universe.

Chapter 5. What is a Model?

Chapter 6. Models of Consciousness

Chapter 7. Models of How God Could Have Created the Universe

Step III. Accept that one of the inclusive models is possible.

Chapter 8. The Issues vs. the Models

Chapter 9. Overall Model Assessments

Chapter 10. Beyond Step III

About the Author

Other books by Joe Provenzano

Contact Joe Pro
Preface

There are many good reasons to believe in God, but for some people there are issues, or roadblocks, to having the belief. Some of these issues are related to what we know, or may someday know, from science, but there are also other types of issues. This book is for people who have any of these issues. It provides a three-step process to develop a belief in God that is consistent with the findings of modern science and all the other types of issues. If you do not have any of these issues blocking your faith in God or you do not want to believe in God, then this book is not for you.

Many books have been written that argue for the existence of God and many that argue against the existence of God. This is not one of those books; it is very different and it is based on some new concepts you will not find in those books. I believe that God is the creator of the universe, but that God did not design the universe nor did God intervene during the evolutionary process.

Some of the reasons for believing in God come from deep within and some are purely rational. However, in the end, I cannot have a faith that is blocked by scientific or logical arguments.

If you want to have a faith in God that is not blocked by issues from science or from anywhere else, saddle up and take a ride with me.

Back to Table of Contents
Introduction

This book is about how I have reconciled my belief in God with the findings of modern science and other issues. I realize that many others have written books about this and I have looked at many of their approaches and solutions. Most of these books base their arguments on repackaged, old ideas. A few introduce new ideas based on concepts from modern physics, e.g., using wave function entanglement to explain the relationship between God and human beings or the Uncertainty Principle to explain how free will works. I have not found any of these books convincing.

I have also looked at the scientific solutions, which are atheistic, and I have not found any of them convincing either. What you will find in this book is very different from what you'll find in any of these books.

The common, underlying problem with all of these approaches is that both sides are trapped inside the Materialist vs. Spiritualist Box. They do not capture the essence of consciousness and/or they limit themselves to the currently known laws of physics. You will see some new ideas in this book that are completely outside the box. This book is self-contained. You do not need to bring knowledge about philosophy, theology, or science. All you need to understand everything in this book is a mind that is open to new ideas and a willingness to think through the issues.

I have written this book because I'm convinced that the simple, three-step process described in the following pages will be helpful to a number of logical, scientifically-minded folks who are seeking new ways to reconcile their belief in God with the findings of modern science and other issues.

However, this book is not for everybody. I believe there are many approaches to believing in God. In this book I will be focusing on HOW I believe, not WHAT I believe.

But first, the WHAT: I was born and raised a Catholic and remain an active Catholic to this day. I believe in the truth of the Judeo-Christian tradition as revealed in the Bible and expressed in traditional Catholic Doctrine. I believe that God created the universe, that God gave us the Ten Commandments, that Christ was both human and divine, died for our sins, and that we can have everlasting life in heaven with God if we love God and love our neighbor as described in the Bible. I have a Masters in physics and believe in evolution and the findings of modern science. However, I do not believe in the atheistic interpretations of evolution and modern science. I am fully aware of the many popular attempts to put belief in God together with evolution and modern science, I do not find any of them convincing.

Next, the HOW: That is what this book is about. We'll cover the three-step process that I have developed to reconcile my belief in God with evolution, science and other issues. My particular solution is only an example of the process. You may not like my solution, but if you like the process, then you may be able to use it to develop your own particular solution. You will find that this process is very different from the arguments you have seen elsewhere.

Remember that HOW people establish their faith is only a vehicle to a goal. Being comfortable with your faith is the goal. Some believers may like to drive a car, others may like to fly, and I may choose to ride a horse through the mountains. The bottom line is that all believers need to arrive at a belief in God that they are comfortable with, regardless of how they get there.

Follow me, the new trail that I've found is this way.

Back to Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Three Steps and Three Concepts

The key this book is to understand the three steps, but in order to do that you'll have to have an open mind regarding three new concepts. In this opening chapter we'll briefly address the three steps and the three concepts.

First, let's discuss the three steps. If we want to find a faith that is consistent with the findings of modern science we have to clearly identify the issues that these findings pose to a belief in God. Examples include: was the universe designed to produce life and consciousness and was evolution purely natural? But there are also many other issues, not related to science that also may be roadblocks to having a belief in God. Examples include: the seeming contradiction of a good God with all the evil in the world, and the fact that God isn't more visible, especially to those who have faith. If we are going to overcome these issues, we have to fully understand each issue. Doing that is Step I. In this step I will list, discuss and categorize each issue.

Step II deals with the possible ways that God could have created the universe. Most people who believe in God have a mental model of how God created the universe, but they don't think too much about it. The same is true for many of those who do not believe in God. By this I mean that they have a model of how they think God is supposed to have created the universe, but that model doesn't make sense to them. The point is that there are a number of ways that God could have created the universe and each way carries a number of implications that cannot be ignored. Did God create the universe exactly as described in the bible; was evolution involved, was intervention into evolution necessary, was it a initial design that unfolded, was the creation of the universe a single-step or a multi-step process? In Step II we will look at all of these possibilities, using the term "model" as a way to characterize each possible way.

Each of these different models will deal with the issues identified in Step I in different ways. Some models will not do well against some issues. In Step III, we will do a detailed analysis of how each model addresses each issue. If you can find a model about how God may have created the universe that makes sense to you and that model is also consistent with the religious and scientific issues, then you have completed the three-step process. In other words, you can have a belief in God that is consistent with the findings of modern science. However, we want to go farther. We are looking for a faith that is also consistent with what science points to, but has not yet proven, and with all the other issues that are not related to science.

If it were obvious today how to take all three steps, I would not be writing this book. I will make the case in this book that it takes three new concepts in order to be able to take these three steps. Therefore, before we can begin to take Step I, we need to take a quick look at these three new concepts.

I am not claiming that any of these concepts are brand new, nor that they are my original concepts, but only that they are "new" in the sense that they are not popular today. In other words, they are not "on the table" along with the other concepts that are recognized as possible solutions to difficult questions about consciousness, life after death, and the existence of God.

First, let's start with consciousness. When the topic of consciousness comes up, there are two competing explanations that people discuss. Some favor the materialistic solution, which claims that consciousness can be explained by understanding the way that matter and energy work in the brain, using the currently understood laws of physics and the currently understood states of energy. Generally speaking, there are two basic states of energy recognized by modern physics: electromagnetic radiation and ordinary matter. These two states are related by Einstein's famous equation, which is presented and discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. Others favor the spiritualistic solution, which says that we have a non-material soul that is not comprised of matter or energy in any form.

People have argued about which solution is correct for centuries, but both sides agree that the materialistic and the spiritualistic solutions are both on the table. The problem is that both have serious issues that are discussed later in this book. It's time to get outside of this box and put a new solution on the table that is different from both of these (see Figure 1). The new solution is that consciousness is a completely new state of energy, one that has not yet, and perhaps never will be, detected in the laboratory.

 Figure 1. Conscious Energy: a way out of the Materialism vs. Spiritualism Box

When I say a new state of energy I simply mean that consciousness cannot be totally explained by the current laws of physics, but can be formed from matter and energy that are explained by these laws. In other words, consciousness as we experience it on earth is formed from standard matter and energy that have somehow transformed. I am not saying that we will never understand the new law or laws necessary to better understand consciousness, but only that the currently understood laws are not sufficient to do so.

This is the needed out-of-the-box solution that can bridge the extremes of materialism and spiritualism. If consciousness is energy evolved into in a new state, it can have properties different from the other states we have observed. For example, perhaps self-conscious energy forms some kind of energy field that is not necessarily dependent on the brain for its continued existence after bodily death. This opens the door to possibilities that were otherwise reserved for "spiritual" substances, e.g., not necessarily subject to entropy or decay. Chapter 6 provides a much more detailed explanation of this concept, which is simply called "conscious energy."

The second concept presented in this book is a consequence of the first concept. If matter and energy can evolve to produce consciousness as a new state of energy, i.e., conscious energy, then it's reasonable to assume that conscious energy could devolve and release the kind of matter and energy we study in physics. Actually, this is not a new idea, but is an ancient idea that can be found in some Hindu religions. As will be shown in Chapter 7, this concept allows for new ways to think about how God could have created the universe that are consistent with the findings of modern science and various religious traditions.

The third concept is that the way you think about how God created the universe has implications that greatly affect your attitude toward science and your ability to believe, or not believe, in God. This book presents not only the current ways of thinking about this, but also some new ways based on the concept of conscious energy. All of the different ways are presented as different "models" of how God could have created the universe.

Many people that have a faith in God have a mental model of how God created the universe that, upon further reflection, is inconsistent with the findings of modern science. If at some point they realize that and begin to think about it they will likely feel a need to choose whether they believe in God or science. However, there are some lesser-known models and some new models presented in this book that are inclusive. By "inclusive" I mean that they include both the notion of God as creator and the findings of modern science as reasonable possibilities. I am not saying that they must necessarily require God as creator. However, to be "inclusive" they must be consistent with the notion that God could have created the universe, and at the same time, be consistent with the findings of modern science.

If you can accept that at least one of the inclusive models is a possible explanation for how God could have created the universe, then you can take Step III. In other words, by merely acknowledging that an inclusive model is possible you are saying that you see a way that God could have created the universe in a way that is consistent with the findings of modern science. Therefore, any roadblocks you may have had to believing in both the existence of God and the findings of modern science are gone.

But, let's not get ahead of the process. First, we need to get out of the barn and head toward Step I.

Back to Table of Contents
Step I. Understand the different types of issues.

Some people would like to believe in God, but find it hard, or even impossible to do so because of one or more issues. In this step we'll clarify the different types of issues and look in detail at the important ones.

Back to Table of Contents
Chapter 2. What We Know, Experience, and Believe

There are many notions of "God," but in this book, I'll be referring to the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition and will use the traditional "He" or "Him" at times simply for convenience of speech. God is the spiritual, self-conscious creator of our universe, has no gender or "white beard," and wants us to be with "Him" after our death here on earth.

In order to understand all of the different types of roadblocks to believing in God, we need to look deeply at: what we already know about the universe from modern science, what we may reasonably know from science in the future, what we feel from our own experiences, and finally what we believe from the Judeo-Christian tradition. After that, we'll consider a few additional roadblocks. We could look at other major religious traditions, but not in this book. I will leave that for someone else.

" **Big Bang "**

First, let's look at what we "know" from science. I used the quotes around the word "know" because scientists are constantly in the process of gathering new data and could make changes to accepted theories at any time. All I can do in this book is use my best judgment on what I think is solid right now.

In the 1930's a Catholic priest and college professor suggested that our space-time universe began as an explosion of energy in a very small space, expanded and evolved to be the universe we see today. That concept came to be known as the "Big Bang." The basic idea has remained intact through the years, but some issues have arisen and modifications and clarifications have been made to this theory. According to the latest and most accepted understanding from modern science, this era of our space-time universe began about 13.8 billion years ago as a very rapidly expanding, dark, and near empty universe in a process called "inflation." The inflation period lasted only a tiny fraction of a second but took the universe from a very, very small size to something possibly bigger than our observable universe. After the inflation period, particles emerged from the potential energy in the expanding field. The universe suddenly got very hot and has continued to expand ever since, although at a much slower rate. Some scientists now refer to the Big Bang as the period after inflation, but for simplicity, we'll call the beginning as now described simply as the Big Bang.

I said "this era" of our space-time universe, because according to some recent cosmological theories, e.g., "Chaotic Inflation" and "Cosmology from Quantum Potential, " the universe did not begin at the moment of the Big Bang. Many of the traditional Big Bang theories require the Big Bang as the start of our universe because the math in those theories breaks down in what's called a singularity at that point. This is generally interpreted to mean that there is no time before that event. The Cosmology from Potential Model does not have this singularity, and many people have interpreted this to mean that there was no Big Bang. That's not what this theory actually predicts. Professor Brian Koberlein at the Rochester Institute of Technology has recently explained the subtle difference:

"The big bang is often presented as some kind of explosion from an initial point, but actually the big bang model simply posits that the universe was extremely hot and dense when the universe was young. The model makes certain predictions, such as the existence of a thermal cosmic background, that the universe is expanding, the abundance of elements, etc. All of these have matched observation with great precision. The big bang is a robust scientific theory that isn't going away, and this new paper does nothing to question its legitimacy."

The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure, but in this book I think it makes sense to use the Big Bang as known event, perhaps from an existing field of some sort, as the beginning of the space-time universe.

Evolution

According to the most commonly accepted theories, after the Big Bang the universe continued to spread and cool down. Eventually protons, neutrons and atoms began to form. In turn this led to the formation of simple molecules such as hydrogen. After billions of years and many complicated interactions, the universe eventually produced complex molecules, stars, galaxies, planets, etc.

On at least one planet, living creatures began to form and evolve. Eventually, there were creatures with more and more consciousness. Finally, human beings came into existence, started roaming the earth, and wondering where they had come from.

A simple graphical representation of this process is shown in Figure 2 below.

 Figure 2. The Big Bang and the Evolution of the Universe

In this figure, the dot at the left represents the universe before inflation, the arrows represent the passing of time, the burst symbol represents the inflation and the creation of particles of matter. The stars represent the development of stars and planets, and, of course, one of the planets is the earth. On earth, and maybe other places in the universe, matter evolved into living creatures. The tree represents the appearance of living creatures on earth. Finally, living creatures evolved to become self-conscious human beings. The stick person represents the appearance of human beings on earth.

Coincidences

Science has found that a lot of "coincidences" related to the values of the fundamental constants of nature are needed in order for life and consciousness as we know them to have evolved. The coincidence topic was originally named the Anthropic Principle but is now more often called the Fine Tuning Argument. The facts are not controversial, but the interpretations are very controversial.

Some of the facts that make up this issue are the following:

\- The ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron must be very close to what it is for atoms to hold together,

\- The charge of the proton and the electron are equal,

\- The relative strengths of the nuclear and magnetic forces must be very close to what it is for atoms to hold together,

\- The unique properties of water (ice floats),

\- The initial expansion rate of the universe,

\- The list goes on and on....

The point is that if any of these properties of nature were only slightly different—matter, life and consciousness could not have evolved. Clearly, these coincidences seem to imply that our universe was somehow designed or tuned to produce life and consciousness.

On the other hand, life and consciousness are very rare in the universe. There may be life on places other than earth, but in the overall universe, there's very little life and consciousness when compared to all the unconscious matter and energy. This raises the issue immediately addressed below.

Inefficient Creator

Modern science has taught us that it has taken over 13 billion years to produce life and consciousness here on earth. Furthermore, we know that earth is a most unusual place. We are finding more and more planets that might be like planet earth and have the right conditions for life and consciousness to develop. However, even if they all produced creatures like us, still the amount of consciousness produced in the universe would be extremely small compared to all the unconscious energy. Of course this is not an issue for science, but it is for those who want to believe in God. In ancient times, people believed God created the earth at the center of the universe. Now we realize that earth is only one small planet in the vast unconscious universe. For those who believe in God and believe that He created us, this inefficiency can be an issue. Is God really that inefficient at creating human beings to be in His image? Is God's design that inefficient, is God's creative process that inefficient, or what?

I think it's fair to say that the physically, i.e., observable aspects regarding the beginning and evolution of the universe, as generally described above, are not controversial for most people. So, I'll claim that this is what we "know" from science.

No Intervention?

Of course, some scientists claim much more than what I've listed above. For example, some will argue that science will someday explain everything, including life and human consciousness, without any need for God's intervention. In fact, there is a long history of science explaining more and more of the "gaps" in our understanding as time goes on. Claiming that God is needed to fill these gaps is called the God of the Gaps Argument. For example, there was a time some people believed that some god made the sun rise each morning. Now science has explained the sun's rising as due to the earth's rotation. So, we don't need God to fill that gap. Some argue that there are gaps like the emergence of life and human consciousness that science will never fill because God's intervention was needed. That may or may not be true, but in this book we are looking for a faith that is not dependent on what science may or may not find in the future. I personally believe that God's intervention was not needed for life and human beings to evolve. Nevertheless, the fact that science may someday explain how life and consciousness evolved without God's intervention is a issue for some people, and therefore I'll list this as an issue that "may be known" from science in the future.

Not Designed?

Another challenge to the belief in God coming from modern science is a counter argument that the coincidences discussed above are not really an indication that God designed or tuned our universe to produce life and consciousness. As a representative example of one such theory, lets look at a cosmological theory called "Chaotic Inflation." "Inflation" was popularized in the 1990's by Professor Alan Guth of MIT. Professor Andrei Linde of Stanford later made some modifications and introduced the concept of the "chaotic" behavior (as discussed below). I believe this theory is best and the most commonly accepted theory available today. That could, of course, change in the future as more accurate scientific data is gathered. We'll use this theory as representative of what science may know in the future, after all the gaps are filled, and see if we can find a faith in God that is consistent with it.

According to this theory our observable universe began and evolved exactly as described above, but the theory does not stop there. The chaotic inflationary expansion of the universe leads one to conclude that our universe, although seemingly tuned to produce life and consciousness, is not special in any way. Several universes with all types of basic constants exist. We would naturally be in one that would provide the possibility to produce life. The conclusion is that our universe was not designed to produce life and consciousness. Therefore, God did not design our universe. The discussion of chaotic inflation is given below.

The initial inflation produced a universe much, much larger than our visible universe. What we can see is limited by the speed of light and the age of our universe. Since light has been free to travel in our universe for "only" 13.8 billion years, there is a limit to how far we can see.

Inflation stopped in different regions at different times and, therefore, many other "bubble" universes formed outside of our visible range and will forever stay outside as the universe continues to expand. As long as the inflating area is big enough, it will give rise to new inflating areas, which will give rise to more and more "bubble" universes. This inflation process continues in an indefinite and chaotic way. The term "multiverse" has been coined to describe these ever-increasing "bubble" universes that are not visible to each other.

According to this theory, the constants in our universe are not unique and eventually all of the possible values of all constants will exist in some "bubble" universe somewhere. This provides an explanation for why we have the "coincidences" discussed above. Since all combinations of physical constants are possible, a universe like ours would be inevitable. Obviously we would be in such a universe because that's the only kind that would have allowed life and consciousness as we know it to exist.

Let's summarize and reflect on Chaotic Inflation before we move on. In summary, we have an unconstrained number of universes producing evermore universes, with all possible constants of nature, as time goes on. I would argue that there still has to be an initial inflationary event, but some would argue that the process goes back and there is no initial inflation. When I first realized that some might have this interpretation of this theory it reminded me of St. Thomas Aquinas. He argued that according to philosophy (but not scripture), the universe did not have to have a beginning in time, but nevertheless, did depend on God (who is outside of time) for its very existence and continued existence. Aquinas also argued that even though God could create angels, he would also create humans, rocks and everything else in the universe because God's creative process would not be limited. He would create in every possible way. There are many other ways that St. Thomas Aquinas' insights should be relooked at today, but this is not the place to do that.

In spite of the above paragraph, it would be very hard to reconcile the idea of chaotic inflating universes creating more universes with the concept that God designed the universe to produce human beings. Andrei Linde realized this and published a paper titled "Universe, Life, Consciousness" which included the following two paragraphs:

"With the expansion of science it becomes more and more complicated to talk about God in simplistic terms. Apparently, the laws of the universe work so precisely that we do not need any hypothesis of a divine intervention in order to describe the behavior of the universe as we know it. There remained one point which was hidden from us and which remained unexplained: the moment of creation of the universe as a whole. The mystery of creation of everything from nothing could seem to be too great to be considered scientifically.

"With the development of inflationary cosmology the situation somewhat changed. The possibility that the universe eternally re-creates itself in all its possible forms does not necessarily resolve the problem of creation, but pushes it back to indefinite past. By doing so, the properties of our world become totally disentangled from the properties of the universe at the time when it was born (if there was such time at all). In other words, one may argue that the properties of our world do not represent the original design and cannot carry any message from the Creator."

The bottom line of this summary and its implications is that Chaotic Inflation is not inconsistent with the notion that God could have created the universe, or at least the "void" or whatever the universe began to inflate from. However, this theory is inconsistent with the notion that God designed or tuned our universe to produce life and human beings. Therefore, if we are going to look for a way to believe in God and theories such as Chaotic Inflation, we need to view the Creator in ways other than as the designer or fine tuner of our universe. That is exactly what we'll be doing in Chapter 7.

But my point here is that science is not going to someday erase the possibility that God created the void or whatever the initial universe sprang from because that is outside the realm of science. Science starts with what we observe. However, science may someday be able to claim, as a known fact, that this universe is not special or fine tuned in any way. This is an issue for anyone who wants to believe in a God and who also believes that God designed our universe to produce life.

Here's one more thought related to Chaotic Inflation and the coincidences in our universe that are needed to produce life. It's not impossible to imagine that someday science could conclude that the variety of universes proposed with all the different constants of nature are not possible. Perhaps this is the only universe or perhaps there's something fundamental, but yet undiscovered, about how energy is released into particles. Perhaps the release always will produce universes like ours. This is kind of a reverse "God of the Gaps" situation where those who do not want to believe in God have to hope that science does not find this to be the case. If that ever did happen, all universes would have special properties that lead to life and consciousness, and it would be almost impossible, if not impossible, to argue that God or some higher consciousness was not somehow involved.

Next, let's move on to all the issues that are not raised by science. There are many things about the universe that we feel strongly about, but that have not yet, and may never be, fully understood by science. I'll hold the list to two important issues: consciousness and free will.

Consciousness and Free Will

We all feel an inner awareness of our surroundings and our own bodies, and are even aware that we are aware, i.e., we have self-awareness. We also feel that we have free will and are able to make free choices, at least in important matters. Certainly these are not roadblocks to anyone that wants to have a belief in God. However, the framework or model that we have for believing in God should shed some light on how consciousness and free will work in human beings.

Some scientists claim that free will doesn't really exist. Maybe that's because we don't see it in any equation, we haven't discovered it in any laboratory, or because it doesn't fit into a purely scientific framework. Some have tried to explain consciousness using only what we currently know from science, but in my opinion they have really only described a type of awareness. We can make sensors that are "aware," e.g., motion detectors, but they are not aware like a dog is aware. However, the purpose of this book is to help those who want to believe in God, not to critique scientific theories. Nevertheless, if I were going to rate scientific theories on how well they can explain consciousness and free will, I would not give them a very good rating.

In summary, from internal experience we have two strong convictions or beliefs:

\- Consciousness: Human beings have self-consciousness.

\- Free Will: Human beings have free will.

Religious Beliefs

Now let's turn to the important beliefs from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's extremely important to limit the list to ensure that non-essential, side-beliefs, added over the centuries, are not included. Basic beliefs are necessarily expressed in the terminology and understandings of the day, but unfortunately that process tends to add beliefs to the list. In later times, some possible explanations of the basic beliefs actually become added as beliefs themselves. Then, if new discoveries bring the added beliefs into question, that then brings the whole structure of beliefs into question.

For example, there was a time when a geometric center, which is obviously a special position, was thought to be a position of importance. Therefore, considering human beings to be the most important part of God's creation and thinking that God created the universe exactly as He wanted to, it was reasonable to think that human beings would be in the center of the universe. Over time this became an "added belief" and it gained stature and eventually came to be seen as part of the set of basic beliefs. When scientific findings showed that the earth revolved around the sun, and not vice-versa, a problem developed. Obviously, the problem was not one of science or religion, but a problem of additional beliefs that were unnecessarily added to the basic religious beliefs. In this case the unnecessary belief later turned out to be falsified by science, calling all religious beliefs into question. We are not going to make that mistake in this book.

Keeping the list to an absolute minimum, I claim that in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the basic, essential beliefs are as follows:

\- God, Creator: There is an eternal, self-conscious, spiritual God who created our universe.

\- Prophets: God spoke to us through the prophets, who provided their visions in words of the times in which they lived, and we have those words recorded in the Bible.

**\- Life after Death:** Loving God, loving your neighbor, being truthful, etc., as described in the Bible will allow a person to somehow survive death and be with God for all eternity.

**\- Christ as Savior:** Christians add the following beliefs (as a minimum). Jesus Christ was both human and divine. His life, death, and resurrection saved us from sin and death. He provides the perfect example of selfless love. If we follow his example, we will be fulfilled in this life and make it through death into the next life, an eternal life with God.

At this point we have a list of what we know from the findings of modern science, what some modern scientific theories suggest as possible about the universe and may be known in the future, a couple of fundamental items from our basic experience in life, and a minimum list of beliefs from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

In addition to the issues above, there are additional issues or roadblocks to believing in God. In the next chapter we'll discuss some of these additional issues.

Back to Table of Contents
Chapter 3. Additional Roadblocks to Belief in God

We have already looked at the roadblocks to believing in God that come from science, internal reflection, and from the essential elements of Judeo-Christian tradition. Here are a few more roadblocks that we need to consider:

Fallen State

There have been many theories developed to explain WHY God needed to become man (Christ) to save us from sin and death. By far, the most popular and the traditional explanation is the view of Christ as redeeming us from a fallen state. I did not list this as an essential element of the Christian part of the Judeo-Christian tradition because it is one explanation, and there are other explanations. However, it's by far the most popular one, and so much so, that many would argue that I should have included it with the essential religious issues.

The logic that this explanation is based on follows directly from the description about what happened in the Garden of Eden from the first chapter in the Bible. Although in this theory, individual human beings did not inherit any personal guilt from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, they did inherit all the physical weaknesses for sicknesses and the tendencies to commit certain sins. So, according to this theory, Christ is viewed as a redeemer, whose death was a sacrifice to God to atone for Original Sin. Christ's life and death raised us from this fallen state, overcame death, and "opened the Gates of Heaven."

A great benefit of this theory is that God is not directly responsible for us being in a condition where we are prone to sin due to physical weakness. In other words, in this theory God did not directly create us with an inherent physical tendency to sin.

If one does not accept that we are in a fallen state, one is faced with two questions: Why are we are prone to sin due to physical weakness and exactly what is Christ's role? Moreover, for those who believe in purely natural evolution as described by science, there is no place for the physical Garden of Eden on earth.

Without any intervention by God during evolution, the first humans would not have been in a fallen state. They would have been just like us, having all the physical weaknesses that we have. In other words without God's intervention, it appears that God created us with a tendency to sin and that the traditional role of Christ as redeemer needs to be reevaluated. Many Christian theologians have realized this and have worked on the problem. Teilhard spoke of Christ the Evolver. Jack Mahoney is example of a current Christian theologian who as taken this bull by the horns. He has provided a way to understand the role of Christ as saving us from sin and death, given evolution with no physical or mental Garden of Eden, and no Original Sin. He does this by following Teilhard's vision of creation and showing how Christ's altruism allows him, and ultimately us, to overcome death, which is inherent in an evolving universe. His book titled: _Christianity in Evolution._ Others have tried to retain God's intervention, but in a non-physical way only, but I'll not pursue this line of thinking in this book.

One could argue that the fallen state issue is an added belief and I shouldn't include it as one of the issues we need to deal with. However, it is so entrenched in Christianity that I have included it, with the caveat that I feel it is an added belief. I'm sure many others do not feel that way. I understand and respect their position, but there are consequences of including this as a belief, as we'll discuss in the following pages.

There's one final point on evolution and Christianity that I need to add before we go on. Many feel that evolution's claim that we evolved from apes is the problem that evolution poses for Christianity. That may have been initially true, but by now most Christians realize that the human body's evolution over time is not really a problem for believers, as long as humans are understood to be fundamentally different from animals. Humans have self-consciousness or a human soul, and therefore, can have a relationship with God, understand right and wrong, and this soul can be with God after their body dies. Science has not discovered a human soul, but certainly has not, and will never in my opinion, prove that it doesn't exist. (There's much more on consciousness in Chapter 6.) The real problem is that in a purely natural evolution, i.e., without God's intervention, there is no place for the physical Garden of Eden and the issues related to Original Sin.

The Problem of Evil

Saint Augustine, way back in the fourth century, argued that evil was the strongest obstacle to the belief in the existence of God. The basic argument goes like this: God is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. An all-knowing God would know that evil and suffering exist in our world. An all-good God would want to remove it, and an all-powerful God would be able to do so. The world is full of evil and suffering, therefore, God must not exist.

I'm aware of the counter arguments: that evil is a result of free will, that God uses suffering to make us stronger, etc. But I do not find these counter-arguments convincing. I think that the world is so full of evil and suffering that it really is hard to argue that the world is the work of all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful God, and that this is what He planned for us.

Traditionally, the best answer for the problem of evil is based on the idea that we are in a fallen state as described above. Let's look at this in more detail. In this view, God created our first parents, Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden, where they were close to Him with solid control over their own physical bodies. It was a paradise, but they were required to obey God's will. However, they had free will and chose to disobey God, committing what has come to be called the Original Sin. When they sinned, it was a sin due to pride, or just wanting to be free of God's will, or wanting to be more like God—something like that. It was not a result of the way God had created them, i.e., due to some kind of physical weakness. When they sinned, they were forced out of the garden, lost much of the control of their physical desires, and became subject to sickness and death. All subsequent humans have been subject to sicknesses, death, and have less control of their physical tendencies.

This literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden provides a logical answer to the problem of evil. All the suffering, death and the physical tendency to evil are not a result of God directly creating us, and the world, to be that way. They are the result of humans having free will, i.e., that possibility is inherent in the nature of free will. Of course there are many other interpretations of the story of the Garden of Eden, but to fully solve the problem of evil by removing all suffering, death and evil from God's direct responsibility, one has to come pretty close to the literal interpretation.

For believers in the Judeo-Christian tradition, this interpretation stood the test of time for many centuries. However, a literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden has become untenable with evolution, unless God directly intervened and created the physical Garden of Eden. Then that begs the question: If God can do that, why would He bother with evolution in the first place? Also, if we have to say God did do that, it wouldn't be consistent with our desire to find a faith consistent with science and without needing God intervening to fill gaps. The bottom line is that the discovery of evolution has reintroduced the problem of evil as an issue for those who want to believe in God and what is known, and may be known, from modern science.

We don't directly experience God

We pray to God but God doesn't talk back to us, at least not in any obvious way for most people. If God loves us, why is God so hard to find? I've heard all the standard answers to these questions, but I don't find them convincing. Again, the traditional answer to this issue is that we are in a fallen state.

Summary

So, in summary we have three additional roadblocks to belief in God that were not listed in the previous chapter:

\- Fallen State: We are in a fallen state due to an Original Sin and Christ's death redeemed us from that fallen state. This is an issue for Christians who also believe that we evolved as understood by science, because with purely natural evolution, there would be no physical Garden of Eden, and hence no Original Sin on earth that put us in a fallen state.

**\- Problem of Evil:** There is so much evil and suffering in the world, that it's hard to understand how God could let that happen. The best current explanation for evil is tied to the fallen state and evolution issue. We need some new ideas to overcome these roadblocks.

**\- No Direct Experience:** Most people have no direct experience of God. If God loves us, why is He so hard to find?

At this point, the challenge of this book is clear. We're looking for a path that:

\- is consistent with what is known from modern science,

\- is consistent with the theories of modern science that may someday move from theory to known,

\- accommodates two of the very basic experiences that we have: consciousness and free will,

\- allows us to hold the basic beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and

\- overcomes the additional roadblocks listed in this chapter.

And, yes we're going to find that path in three easy steps.

But before we complete the first step, it's worthwhile to realize that not everyone needs such a path. In order to keep this whole effort in perspective, let's spend a few minutes discussing the notion that there are different paths to God for different people and some paths simply jump over all of the issues. We'll do this in the next chapter.

Back to Table of Contents
Chapter 4. Paths to God

The Ten Commandments are guidelines about what to believe and how to conduct our lives, but not HOW to obtain the underlying belief in God. When asked what is the most important commandment Jesus replied:

"The most important one is this: 'Listen, Israel! The Lord our God is the only Lord. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second most important commandment is this: 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.' There is no commandment more important than these two." (Mark 12:28-31, Good News Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979. Note that all Biblical quotes in this book are from this source.)

I think it's fair to say that this summarizes the essence of what most of the great religions have said over the centuries. Obviously, these two commandments are an indication that God does not want us totally focused on our own selves. It's also obvious that, even in the purely human realm, we tend to honor those who sacrifice something of themselves for others.

Notice, however, that in the long tradition of religious guidelines there are no requirements on HOW a person needs to reach a belief in God. In fact, Jesus even said:

"...Father, Lord of heaven and earth! I thank you because you have shown to the unlearned what you have hidden from the wise and the learned..." (Luke 10:21).

I think what Jesus is saying here is that very often increased knowledge of worldly things can cause roadblocks to faith in God. Certainly that has been true for me, and that's exactly what this book is about. The bottom line is: I don't think God cares HOW or what kind of internal thinking path a person uses to get their faith, so why should we?

There are millions of people who have worked through these problems in many different ways. Obviously, many saints and martyrs come to mind. I know a lot of people who have well-thought-out positions regarding their faith. I will not ask them to read this book; they simply don't need it. If what you have learned about the world does not pose any roadblocks to your faith in God, then you do not need to be reading this book either. However, if you are like me, ride on with me.

In the previous chapters I've listed a number of things that can be roadblocks to believing in God, some have to do with science and some do not. For a guy like me, all of these roadblocks are in my way. For some people, none of these roadblocks affect them at all, and others have problems with some of the roadblocks, but not others. We are all different and our minds work differently.

For those that can just believe and trust God, there are no roadblocks. They may not have answers that satisfy them, but they don't care. Others may be affected by the roadblocks that are raised by science, but not by the other roadblocks—or vice versa.

To me there's nothing worse than seeing two believers arguing about aspects of their faith that are not really essential to the faith, but instead are aspects of the path they used to get to their faith. The problem is that they don't realize that this is what is happening between them. What I mean by "aspects of the path" will be clear when we discuss how different models represent the different paths and different beliefs come with different models.

Again, if you are the type who can just fly over the roadblocks and arrive at a solid belief in God, then you don't need to read any further. I respect your position, and if I could fly with you, I would.

However, if any of these roadblocks are blocking your path to a belief in God, and you're looking for a path around them, then head your pony this way, and follow me on to Step II.

Back to Table of Contents
Step II. Survey the models of how God could have created the universe.

Everybody that thinks about God has some kind of notion about how God created the universe. I call these "ways of thinking" or "models" about how God created the universe. It turns out that there are not very many different models to choose from. However, a model that a person favors says a huge amount about what they think about God and science. In this step we'll take a good look all of the popular models that are currently "on the table" for people who have a tendency to believe in God. Then we'll introduce one more. But, first let's discuss exactly what I mean by a "model."

Back to Table of Contents
Chapter 5. What is a Model?

For the vast majority of my working career I was involved in developing abstract models of complicated processes for the U.S. Army, and then turning those models into complex software simulations. The reason I say "abstract" is because you shouldn't model everything even if you could. The higher level the model, the more abstract it needs to be. For example, if you are training individual soldiers in urban environments, you need virtual reality models of individual buildings, floors, stairs, etc. If you are training three- and four-star generals, you need more abstract models of logistics, troop movement, force mix, air support, etc., in order to create the types of decision situations that generals will encounter.

Building the higher-level models is more art than science. Fortunately, I have had the great pleasure of working very closely with some retired three- and four-star generals. These individuals have a knowledge and experience base that ranges from muddy-boot privates in the field to high-level social dinners and meetings with heads of state. They have an uncanny ability to judge what is important in different situations, and I have learned a lot from them.

Over the years, I have come to realize that people, even in their ordinary lives, use models to understand the world around them. I do not mean models that are turned into software programs, although in principle they could be. Most people are not even aware that they have these mental models. In this book we are going to make the important models of how God could have created the universe explicit, and therefore, very understandable. Normally these models remain semi-hidden and unexamined in the backs of most peoples' minds.

But, just to be sure we all understand what I mean by a mental model, let's consider a simple example of a well know event that happened in the past. The example is the revolution of the colonies that formed the United States of America. The facts of what actually happened are well known. The controversy and the mental models arise, however, as soon as we ask the deeper question of why or how did it really come about.

The traditional model is that the colonies were being treated unfairly, suffering "taxation without representation." The founders were unselfish patriots willing to risk everything on a long-shot, great experiment to found a unique country that was based on the freedom of the individual person, with a small, non-intrusive, federal government. In order to do this they developed the Bill of Rights, which is based on the assumption that every human being is created "equal" in the sense that each has an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—and this right comes from our Creator. The government does not give these rights and, therefore, cannot take them away. It was recognized that a central government was needed, and many compromises were reached within the overall effort to limit the power of the government to a minimum. Everyone understood that these ideals were very high, but not always achieved, and certainly not at first. For example, slavery was allowed. The consensus was that a severely limited federal government with emphasis on the freedom of the individual was far better for most people than a strong central government with decisions made in a top-down manner. The basis for this belief was a strong faith in the individual.

An alternative model is that the founders' effort was flawed from the start, being based on bad assumptions, and not really carried out in an honest manner. According to this model the reliance on the freedom of individuals was a bad assumption. The alternative assumption is that individuals pursuing their own happiness, without government oversight, will lead to oppression of the poor by the rich. A strong central government is needed to protect individuals from themselves: needing severe restrictions on guns, energy, food, etc. This model also claims that the founders were not honest in their assertions, for example, slavery was allowed while claiming that everyone was equal.

Note that both sides can agree on the facts of WHAT happened while completely disagreeing on WHY or HOW the underlying forces brought about what actually happened. Obviously there are very important implications on positions and actions taken today by voters and politicians based on which model they believe in.

If such disparate models can be developed to describe something as recent and as well documented as the beginning of the United States, we should certainly expect people to have different ideas on why the universe has the properties it has, and why and how it might have begun. But before we take a look at the way different people think about how and why the universe could have begun, we first need to take a look at the different models of consciousness.

Back to Table of Contents
Chapter 6. Models of Consciousness

Consciousness is arguably the most intimate experience of our existence, yet we have a really hard time defining it. It turns out that how we think about consciousness sheds a lot of light on the ways we can think about the how and why the universe could have begun. So, we need to spend a few pages discussing the models of consciousness.

The best I can do is to say that consciousness is a special kind of awareness that animals have of their bodies and their bodies' relation to the environment. A key aspect of consciousness is the feeling of unity, the "I" or "my" that we all just take for granted. It's my foot, my future, I will do this, etc.

Another aspect of consciousness worth mentioning is that we know of at least two ways that our perception can be stimulated: normal everyday input from the five senses, and while asleep due to dreams. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. Given those two ways, one can only wonder what technology will bring in the future and it's certainly easy to think of a conscious energy field getting input—even if not connected to a body.

Yet another very interesting aspect of consciousness is that as self-conscious creatures we can, at least mentally, move outside of our current location in space-time. We can think of being in other places and think of other times. I'm not saying that we can escape space-time, but I'm saying that consciousness has some ability to reach beyond the place and time where our bodies are located. We can even think about dimensions outside of space-time. Physicists do it all the time. I think there's an opening here to understand how God, who is obviously outside of space-time, could communicate with the prophets or how we might someday actually escape our space-time existence.

When we look at a car we see a machine where the parts work together to perform a function. Take off the brake, step on the accelerator, and it moves. We think of the car as a "thing," but not in the sense that we think of a living creature as a thing. It's clear that the body of a living creature is a machine, where the parts work together to accomplish many different functions, but is that all?

This question has challenged philosophers, theologians, medical doctors and probably most other people at some point in their lives. Again, there are no proofs, but there are models, and I believe that's the best and quickest way to discuss the issue. Actually, there are only two popular models.

The Material Model of Consciousness

According to this model we are simply the sum of the parts that we are currently able to see when we look at the parts of the body. One school of thought goes so far as to deny that consciousness even exists, but most adherents of this model claim that the parts work together to somehow produce the phenomenon that we experience as consciousness. Of course, for all who believe in this, the Material Model, there is no God and no life after death. There's nothing to live on after we die.

I have several problems with this model. The first is obviously the difficulty it has in explaining the special unity of consciousness in the experience we feel so deeply. Notice I said: "... that I..." Yes, I'm aware of the many recent books that claim to "explain" consciousness. I just don't find any of them convincing. The same is true for the related topics of purpose and free will. If you look into the equations of modern physics, you will find no hints of consciousness, purpose or free will.

I'm not saying this model is wrong. If you like the Material Model of Consciousness, that's fine, but please, stay on that horse and keep reading.

The Spiritual Model of Consciousness

At the other end of the spectrum we find the Non-Material or Spiritual Model of Consciousness. According to this model we have an immortal "soul" that is the seat of our consciousness. Many in this school of thought believe that God infuses a soul into each human being. The soul is non-material and therefore not discoverable by scientific methods. This solution solves the issue of the unity of consciousness that the Material Model does not. It also provides a mechanism for life after death, which appeals to many people. Furthermore, it can't be proven wrong by science, but it certainly isn't—and can't be—supported by science in any way.

I have a couple of problems with this model. The first is that it requires God intervening into evolution. We are looking for solutions that do not require this.

The other problem I have is that I find it very hard to understand how a spiritual substance, which is completely different from material substances, could interact with the body. If my soul decided to raise my arm, how does a non-material substance interact with a material substance, i.e., the brain, to trigger the electrical or mechanical impulses to make my arm move? I know that proponents of this model argue that the soul is not a separate part of the person, but is somehow united with the body to form the person. I just don't find this argument convincing.

I'm not saying this model is wrong. If you like the Spiritual Model of Consciousness, that's fine, but please keep reading.

Teilhard's Model of Consciousness

Unfortunately, there are almost no models on the table that are in between these two models of consciousness, but there is at least one. That model comes from Teilhard de Chardin. A long time ago, when I was in college studying philosophy and theology, I discovered the writings of the Jesuit priest and scientist, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and they had a very positive effect on my faith. He is famous for his efforts to combine his belief in God with his belief in science. He had a "sophisticated faith," but he strongly believed that was important because it was the only kind of faith that he could have, and he believed that would be even more true in the future. Here are a few of his own words from _The Christic,_ reprinted in _The Heart of Matter,_ page 100:

"As, of course, I know only too well, in spite of the ambitious grandeur of my ideas, I am still, in practice, imperfect to a disturbing degree. For all the claims implicit in its expression, my faith does not produce in me as much real charity, as much calm trust as the catechism still taught to children produces in the humble worshipper kneeling beside me. Nevertheless I know, too, that this sophisticated faith, of which I make such poor use, is the only faith I can tolerate, the only faith that can satisfy me—and even (of this I am certain) the only faith; that can meet the needs of the simple souls, the good folk, of tomorrow."

It is for this reason that I am writing this book, i.e., to help the good folks of today and tomorrow. I wish I did not need a sophisticated faith; my life would have been a lot easier. For those interested in Teilhard, Chapter 12 of my earlier book _Conscious Energy_ is a good start, however, there are many fine books written on Teilhard, and certainly many excellent books written by Teilhard himself.

According to Teilhard, packets of matter and energy have a "without" and a "within." The without is what we see in the laboratory. The within is a kind of internal, organizing structure. These are two aspects of the same substance. Protons and electrons have a within as well as animals and human beings. The within in human beings has the special property that the awareness is not only an awareness of the body, or the without, but also is an awareness that it has awareness. This is the self-awareness that ultimately allows us to produce art, act morally, and develop science.

Teilhard's Model of the without-within fits perfectly with his model of God's Creative Process, which is discussed in the next chapter. The evolving within is not a result of God intervening into evolution, but emerges naturally. The evolved within of humans reaches the level of self-awareness and, being more than a mere awareness of the without aspect of the human body, can survive death. Explaining life after death for humans makes sense with this model. Also, the interaction problem that I have with the non-material goes away because the within of the human being is an integral part of the human. It's easy to imagine how if the within wants to do something, it can interact with the without to make it happen.

However, I do have an issue with Teilhard's Model of Consciousness. The concepts of without and within are vague and I have trouble really getting my head around them. I continued to think about ways to express these ideas in more concrete ways. What I eventually came up with is the concept of "conscious energy" discussed below.

As I mentioned above, I have problems with all of the popular models of consciousness—different problems with the different models, but problems with all of them. It seems to me that energy is the underlying substance of our universe and understanding how different states of energy possess different properties is the key to understanding consciousness. I do like Teilhard's concept of within, but I'm going to try in the section below to make that concept more understandable using different properties for different states of energy. As an example of how different states of the same underlying substance can have very different properties, think of something as simple as water. At room temperature, water is a liquid, but if we get it cold enough, it becomes solid, and no longer flows. If we get it hot enough, it boils into steam and floats into the air. It's still the same underlying substance, but depending on the pressure and temperature, water can exhibit very different properties.

The Conscious Energy Model of Consciousness

Einstein's famous equation _E = mc_ 2 states that the amount of energy present in a particle of mass m is equal to the mass of that particle times the velocity of light times itself, or "squared." What's important to us from this equation is that "pure energy" in the form of electromagnetic radiation can transform into regular matter and vice versa. In other words, physics has told us there are at least two states of energy, which have very different properties and they can transform into each other.

**Electromagnetic Radiation:** There is a large spectrum of electromagnetic radiation of various wavelengths, which includes regular, everyday light like we get from the sun or light bulbs. Energy in this state has the property that it is always in motion. If fact we always see it moving in a vacuum at the same speed, called " _c_ " in physics, the speed of light.

Matter: In this state, the energy exhibits very different properties. It does not have to move, and in fact even when it does, it cannot move at the speed of light. I like to think of energy in this state as "congealed" or concentrated energy. These particles of energy include protons, electrons and all of the elementary particles in the zoo of modern physics. In Teilhard's terms, they each have a different within. I suppose we could define different states for the different particles, but that's not necessary for our purposes. I just think of all matter as made up of particles with different variations, but still in the same basic state of energy. The particles of physics and combinations of them into elements, molecules, and objects of everyday experience are what we call matter. Nevertheless, when closely examined all of these particles still show some wavelike characteristics of fields of energy.

**Conscious Energy:** Here is where it gets interesting. When we get to the consciousness in animals we have basically the three choices discussed above on the table, and I'm going to suggest a fourth. In the Material Model, animal consciousness is a phenomenon that happens when the structure of the animal brain reaches a certain level of complexity, but there is not a new thing present. In the Spiritual Model, animals have a consciousness but it resides in a non-material, but non-immortal soul. Their soul is not a state of energy. In Teilhard's model, there is no talk about states of energy, but he would certainly say that the within of animals is different from non-living things.

I think the logical conclusion of Teilhard's model, or at least the way it makes the most sense to me, is to think about consciousness as a new state of energy, energy in a conscious state, or simply, conscious energy. I imagine it as a unified field of energy that emerges from the complex interactions in the brain of animals that spans the brain and interacts with the brain. It is not in one isolated place or point. That is consistent with what we have learned from brain surgeries and brain-damage cases. As energy in a fundamentally different state, conscious energy can have properties not observed in the other states. In this case consciousness has the special feeling of unity, awareness of the body and the body's relation to the environment that we experience, but find so hard to explain using only radiation and matter.

**Self-Conscious Energy:** In the case of human beings, we know that we know. We have self-consciousness. In terms consistent with the concept of conscious energy, we would say that the human conscious energy field has the further capability that it is aware of itself. In other words, it is self-conscious energy and that is different enough from mere conscious energy to warrant calling it a new state of energy.

Note that conscious energy fields are only aware of the body and the body's relation to the environment. Therefore, if the body dies, a conscious energy field has no basis of existence, and we would naturally expect it to cease to exist in that state at the moment the body dies. It would transform back into regular matter and radiation. The situation is different for self-conscious energy fields because in addition to the knowledge of the body and the body's relation to the environment, a self-conscious energy field has knowledge of itself. Therefore, in principle at least, a self-conscious energy field might somehow be able to survive the death of the body.

So at this point we have four different models of consciousness: The Material Model, the Spiritual Model, Teilhard's Model, and the Conscious Energy Model.

**Some Advantages of the Conscious Energy Model:** Note that with respect to life after death for human beings the Conscious Energy Model can be interpreted in three ways:

**Option 1:** There is no life after death. Self-conscious energy fields, although aware of themselves, are in this option totally dependent on the brain for their existence. At the moment of death they lose their identity as fields and the energy returns to radiation and matter. This interpretation will appeal to those who do not believe in God or in the afterlife.

**Option 2:** There is always life after death. Due to awareness of themselves, self-conscious energy fields are by their very nature not dependent on the brain for their existence. In other words, when energy becomes self-conscious, it becomes immortal (an immortal soul) and will survive the death of the body. This interpretation will appeal to those who believe in God and in the traditional understanding of heaven and hell for life after death. This option has the same effect (immortality of the individual) as does the theory that God infuses an immortal soul into each human being. It just provides another way of explaining the immortality of the soul.

Note that this option also gives new insights into how we might view the "final judgment." In this case, the relationship of the field with the body and with God at the time of death will immediately determine its final state. If the field is totally focused on the body (selfish, no belief in God), it will not be able to join with God and will go to hell. If the field has enough focus on the higher issues (God, helping others, etc.) it will join with God at the moment of bodily death. It's always a good sign for a model when it can give new insights into old issues that have been hard to understand or explain.

**Option 3:** There may be life after death. Although in principle the self-conscious energy field could survive the death of the body, it is in this option very dependent on the brain for its existence. It would not survive the death of the body unless it could be grounded in something outside of the body before the body dies. With this option, those who do not go to heaven would simply cease to exist as conscious entities, i.e., there's a traditional heaven but not a traditional hell.

One could probably apply the same three options for the human _within_ in Teilhard's Model, but I don't believe he ever did that. It appears that Teilhard considered the self-aware human within to be a new form of the within, one which would necessarily survive the death of the body, i.e., like Option 2.

**Additional Advantages of the Conscious Energy Model:** It's important to make a few more comments on the Conscious Energy Model. From a purely philosophical, i.e., non-religious, point of view, there is no reason to assume that only humans can have self-conscious energy fields. I personally think that only humans do, but I can't prove that some porpoises or other animals don't. Sometimes our border collie makes me wonder. Maybe some day we'll be able to detect the existence of a conscious energy field in a laboratory. Who knows?

While we are speculating, consider the possibility that a man-made machine, a super-supercomputer, might reach the level of complexity required to spawn a conscious energy field. There's no reason the "body" supporting a conscious energy field would have to be flesh and blood.

All of these options and speculations demonstrate the flexibility of the Conscious Energy Model of Consciousness. In fact, there is nothing about this model of consciousness that would preclude using it as integral part of all of the models that will be discussed in Chapter 7. Furthermore, you could be a person who does not believe in God or life after death and still use the Option 1 Version of the Conscious Energy Model as a way to understand consciousness.

However, in this book we will be looking at the models that involve God as creator. In all of these models one could use the conscious energy fields for animal souls and self-conscious energy fields for human souls. For example, one can believe that God infuses a soul in each human being and that the soul He infused is an immortal self-conscious energy field. On the other hand, it is very easy to imagine that the conscious and self-conscious energy fields evolve from the lower states of energy. Obviously, the same can be said for Teilhard's Model.

The reason the Conscious Energy Model is so versatile is that it takes full advantage of the concept of change of state. Energy in different states can exhibit different properties. Superconductors conduct electricity with no friction. There are many such examples in physics. Maybe someday there will be a "Physics of Conscious Energy." However, for now conscious energy is just a philosophical model that we can use to think about these issues.

At this point you should now be able to think about how consciousness could be a form of energy. I'm not saying you have to believe it, but just that you can think about it as a possibility. I want to put the idea of conscious energy "on the table" along with the other models of consciousness, and that's all we need at this point.

**God, Angels and Devils:** The concept of self-consciousness as a field of energy with the unique property that it is aware of itself as an existing entity provides a new way to think about God, angels and devils.

God can be thought of as the self-existing source of all self-consciousness, and that is the way I think of and refer to "Him" in this book. Obviously there's no body or gender associated with God in this model of consciousness.

Angels can be thought of as created self-conscious energy fields closely associated with God. They don't have wings and fly around space-time as often pictured. Both God and angels exist in a realm that is in another dimension, outside of space-time.

Some of the models discussed in this book allow for the existence of devils, or Fallen Angels, continuing to exist in realms apart from God. Other models discussed do not.

Free Will: There's one more important point that comes naturally from the notion of consciousness as a state of energy with the properties of awareness and self-awareness. That point is the concept of free will. I addressed that concept in my book _Conscious Energy._ In that book I referred to radiation, energy, conscious energy and self-conscious energy as States 1 through 4 respectively. From _Conscious Energy,_ pages 194-195:

"Question: Is there really such a thing as free will, and if so, how can it be explained, given the validity of the laws of physics?

"Answer: Yes, but it only exists at the higher states. The "laws of physics" argument has long been used as an argument against the existence of free will. It basically says that all activity can be described by these laws and, therefore, is not really free. However, we have not observed energy in the higher states in any laboratory. Even though we know many things about energy, we cannot say which laws hold when it transforms to another state. As I have pointed out many times, the laws of fluid dynamics are not valid for water if it is frozen or in turbulent flow—even though it is still water (H2O). Therefore, even though we do not question that the laws of physics are valid in States 1 and 2, we cannot assume that they are valid in States 3 and 4. Since free will applies only to the higher states, the 'laws of physics' argument is not valid.

"In order to further support the claim that free will does exist, we need to explain how it is possible for it to operate. When a particle moves under the influence of more than one force, the forces combine, and the strongest force has the greatest influence on the movement. We could say that the particle has some 'awareness' of the forces, but it has no ability to change the strength of the forces. This is a very simple explanation of what happens in States 1 and 2.

"A self-conscious energy field is also acted on by 'forces.' The other old philosophical argument against the existence of free will is that a 'decision' simply reflects the alternative with the strongest influence. In other words, a person deciding is like the particle moving, and the relative importance of the alternatives corresponds to the relative strength of the forces. I agree with this analogy, but it is not an argument against the existence of free will. The reason that it is not resides in the nature of consciousness.

"A conscious energy field is not only 'aware' of the influences, but these influences have meaning and future implications. This is not true of the moving particle. The net effect of this is that the conscious energy field has, to some extent, the ability to set the strength of the influences. Therefore, free will should not be thought of in terms of the ability to choose a weaker influence over a stronger one, but as the ability to control the strength of the influences.

"Free will is a phenomenon associated with energy in State 4, and to a lesser extent to energy in State 3. It should be expected in a universe of increasing consciousness."

**A final Thought on Consciousness:** One of the most startling, informative, surprising, and I'm sure many will say, controversial insights into consciousness comes from the Near Death Experience (NDE) of Dr. Eben Alexander ( _Proof of Heaven,_ 2012). Dr. Alexander is a world-class neurosurgeon. He was raised as a Christian, but gradually lost his faith over the years as he learned more about the brain. It seemed to him that the Material Model of Consciousness was the only model that could be correct, and as a result, lost his faith in God and the possibility of life after death.

Then he developed a very serious brain disease and was in a coma for a week. They were just about to remove the life support systems, figuring that he would not return, or even if somehow he could, he would be mostly in a vegetative state. At that point he suddenly opened his eyes and soon completely recovered.

During his time in the coma he had an NDE like many others in which he experienced a heavenly realm, other conscious entities, and even a loving interaction with God Himself. Needless to say, he recovered his faith in God and the afterlife.

What makes his NDE unlike every other NDE is that he had a special kind of brain disease that would have prohibited his brain from producing the kind of NDE experience that he had. In other words, he is able to argue, as a world-class neurosurgeon, that his conscious experience during the time he was in the coma could not possibly have been produced or supported by his brain in any way.

I will not go into any of the details because Dr. Alexander's book, lectures, and website are easily available. However, what's important to us in this book is that he no longer believes that the Material Model of Consciousness is correct. In fact, the subtitle on his website is "Consciousness is the Most Profound Mystery in the Universe." Furthermore, in his interviews he has stated that there is no one who has ever lived who could write the first sentence in a book trying to explain "What is Consciousness?"

I have never had an NDE or any kind of mystical experience, but I have had this kind of gut feeling about consciousness for a very long time. That's why I think the Conscious Energy Model of consciousness makes so much sense. If everything is energy in some state, and consciousness is so special that it's not just some combination of matter and radiation, then it's logical to think of consciousness as a form of energy existing in a new state, not yet discovered by science.

We have now completed discussing the models of consciousness and we are ready to discuss the models of how God could have created the universe. That is the topic of the next chapter. Hang on a little tighter, the ride is about to get a lot more exciting.

Back to Table of Contents
Chapter 7. Models of How God Could Have Created the Universe

There are a number of models of how and why the universe began and developed that are "on the table," i.e., recognized by a fairly large following today, and a few that are being introduced in this book. Given the purpose of this book, we are going to focus only on the models that involve God as creator. Those models are:

Models currently "on the table"

\- Creationism

\- "Evolution+" (two versions)

\- Intelligent Design

\- "Teilhard's Model"

New Model

\- "Fallen Angels" or Fallen Angel Model (FAM)

Some of these models have popular names and some don't. The ones with quotes are my names, provided here because they do not have popular names. Of course there are other models involving God as creator, but most are combinations or variations of these models. The set listed above is sufficient for the purposes of this book.

Before looking at the individual models, let's take a quick look at the basic possibilities of the ways that God could reasonably have created the universe. See Figure 3. There are other possibilities besides those shown in this figure, but they don't make sense with the view of God as creator. For example, we will not discuss the possibility that God's creation was some kind of accident or mistake.

If the universe was created by God, He either created it in a single-step or it took more than one-step, i.e., a multi-step process. By multi-step I mean that He created something other than the universe, and then that something transformed or emitted something else that either became our universe or lead to something that eventually did. (Note that anyone who believes that God created human beings through evolution believes that He did so in a multi-step process.) If God created the universe, He either planned the way He did it or He had no choice. By no choice I mean that the act of creation simply is what it is, there was no other way for it to happen.

Figure 4 shows how the models that are currently on the table fit into this framework. In the text below we'll provide explanations of each model and it will become clear why each is placed where it is in this figure. Note that there are no current models in which God created the universe in a multi-step process. In this book we'll add a new model and it will fit into this category. The new model is made possible by the notion of conscious energy and is shown in Figure 5.

 I believe that this is a full set of models, i.e., that everyone who thinks about God as the creator of our universe has a concept of creation that corresponds to one of these models—or a variation of one of them. Given that, each person seeking a faith in God, or seeking ways to strengthen their faith, should consider asking which model (or models) best helps overcomes the issues or roadblocks discussed in the previous chapters. But before we can evaluate these models against the issues, we must first take a look at each one of the models.

**Creationism (C):** Creationism (Figure 6) is based on a literal, or near literal, interpretation of creation as described in the Book of Genesis, the first book in the Bible. Genesis was written thousands of years ago, long before the scientific process itself was even an idea.

 Figure 6. Creationism (No evolution, God is directly involved at every step as described in Genesis)

**Evolution+ (E+):** In this model, God created the world through evolution, but it was not a purely scientific process (Figure 7). God's intervention was needed to override or add-to the laws of nature at key points during the evolutionary process. The "+" indicates that God's actions are a necessary addition to the purely natural evolution that is governed by the laws of science as we know them today. There are several variations of this model. In each variation, God intervened at different times and in different ways. On one end of the spectrum, God directed the evolutionary process in a hands-on manner, making physical modifications, starting evolutionary directions and so forth. We'll call this end of the spectrum E++, implying God made many changes during the otherwise natural evolutionary process. On the other end of the spectrum, God rarely intervened, and only did so in ways that would not be counter to the currently known findings of modern science as stated in Chapter 2. Typical interventions for this latter case would be for the initial creation of the universe, a spark that started life, and the development of the non-material human soul. In this variation of the Evolution+ Model, there is nothing that contradicts the current findings of modern science as discussed in Chapter 2. We'll call this end of the E+ model spectrum simply E+.

 Figure 7. Evolution+ (God is involved at only a few key points)

**Intelligent Design (ID):** According to those who believe in the Intelligent Design Model (Figure 8), the coincidences, inherent in the laws of nature at the moment the universe began, are far too great to have just happened, therefore, there must have been a designer. We'll consider the pure case where God built the coincidences into the matter and energy at the moment of creation, and then allowed the results to play out exactly as described by modern science. In other words, in this model God does not intervene after the initial creation of the universe. What we observe is the result of God's intelligent design unfolding over time. There is no "+" in this name because the evolutionary process, after the beginning of the universe, is exactly as described by science from the moment of creation up to and including the appearance of human beings.

Of course there are many variations of the Intelligent Design Model where God did intervene during the evolutionary process, e.g., to infuse immortal souls. However, for the purposes of this book we'll consider these Intelligent Design+ Models to be variations of the Evolution+ Model discussed above, and therefore, we don't need to treat them as separate models.

 Figure 8. Intelligent Design (Evolution by God's design, but no intervention)

Teilhard **'** s Model (T: God **'** s Creative Process): Teilhard's vision of creation is that what we learn about the universe from science is God's creative process (Figure 9)—no more and no less. It is not that God designed it this way, but rather, that this is the only way that God can create. God somehow brought energy leading to the Big Bang into existence and "pulls" it toward Himself from that point onward into increasing levels of consciousness and complexity. God does not directly intervene in non-natural ways to modify the process. Teilhard did not speak of angels. I believe that Teilhard's vision of God's creative process did not allow for direct creation of pure spiritual, conscious beings (angels).

Like the Intelligent Design Model, human beings evolve to have immortal souls. In Teilhard's case it's the self-conscious "within" which is able to join with God after the body dies. Note that even though Figures 8 and 9 look alike, with God being directly involved only at the moment of creation, the underlying models of creation are very different and have very different implications.

 Figure 9. Teilhard's Model (The evolution we observe is God's creative process)

The next three models are the new models introduced in this book, which are made possible because of the notion that consciousness is a new state of energy.

Devolution: The Devolution Model was not mentioned in the list above because it does not involve God as creator and we are not going to look at it in detail. Nevertheless, we need to discuss it briefly here because it's the foundation for the FAM model that we will be looking at in detail. The Devolution Model (Figure 10) is built on the concept that consciousness is another, not yet scientifically-discovered, state of energy, and if regular energy (matter and radiation) can evolve to higher states, i.e., to conscious energy, then conscious energy can devolve into matter and radiation. In this model, some unspecified field or fields of conscious energy devolved to lower states, and in the process, released energy, ultimately leading to the creation of our space-time universe.

This model does not need God, as described in the Bible, for creation or for any intervention. In this model, the whole process of evolution, after the initial release of energy from conscious energy, is discoverable and explainable by science. Of course this does not mean that science can explain consciousness using the current laws of physics and the currently known states of matter and energy. It assumes consciousness is a new state of energy, not yet discovered by science.

Since this model does not necessarily involve God as described in the Bible, we will not use it as part of our three-step process. That's why it wasn't listed at the start of this chapter and why we won't evaluate it against the issues or roadblocks in the way of faith in the God of the Bible.

The idea of devolution is not a new idea. In some ancient religions there is a concept whereby some gods or elements of the spiritual world degenerate or precipitate somehow to become the matter and energy of this universe in a process that is like evolution run backwards. In scientific terms it could be thought of as an increase in entropy. In Figure 10 below, the large circle represents conscious energy, and the smaller circle is conscious energy in a lower, somewhat devolved state. A special case of this would be that it completely devolved and in that case, there would be no smaller circle.

A very simple analogy for the Devolution Model is a broken vase. When a vase is broken, much of the original goodness and beauty are lost. In principle, all the parts are there to reconstruct it. However, it would take the right conditions, a lot of time, and nobody would expect a perfect recovery.

 Figure 10. Devolution (Evolution, started by a devolution of conscious energy)

Fallen Angels Model (FAM): Most of those who believe in God in the Judeo-Christian tradition believe, as stated in the Bible, that God created purely spiritual beings, called angels, in a spiritual realm. They also believe that God created our universe in the space-time realm. Some of the angels sinned and could no longer remain in the realm so closely associated with God.

In the Fallen Angel Model we identify the unspecified conscious energy in the Devolution Model as Satan or the Devil and the Fallen Angels of the Bible. In other words, we link the departure of the Fallen Angels with the creation of a completely new realm, very much separate from God's realm. The new realm is the void or the quantum potential or whatever it is that ultimately became our space-time universe.

"Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, who fought back with his angels; but the dragon was defeated, and he and his angels were not allowed to stay in heaven any longer. The huge dragon was thrown out—that ancient serpent named the Devil, or Satan, that deceived the whole world. He was thrown down to earth and all his angels with him." (Revelation 12:7-9).

In another biblical text, Christ said:

"I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." (Luke 10:18).

The basis of the Fallen Angels Model is the concept of God as pure, uncreated, self-conscious energy. His creations are "made in his image" and are pure, but created, self-conscious energy.

In the terms of conscious energy, these angels were self-conscious energy fields. They had no physical tendencies to sin, just as Adam and Eve in the traditional Garden of Eden. However, as free creatures, they understood that they were not equal to God and some of them, resenting that, rebelled or made a decision not to be with God and not to follow His will. That's consistent with the essence of what free will means.

In this model, self-conscious energy must by its very nature always continue to exist in the state of self-consciousness. This has two consequences. First, the "bad" angels become devils and retained some of their consciousness, although in dimmed state, apart from God. They lost some of their conscious energy and the energy of their relationship with God. That lost energy was the energy that ultimately led to our universe. Using current physics models, one could say this was the source of the energy that inflated, ultimately leading to our universe. These fallen angels are still around and are actively engaged in trying to get us to do their will instead of God's will.

Ephesians 6:12 "For we are not fighting against human beings but against the wicked spiritual forces... "

The second consequence is that every human being's self-conscious energy field will survive bodily death. However, not all will be joined with God. Therefore, this model is consistent with the existence of the standard, conscious, eternal hell for the fallen angels and the fallen souls of human beings.

Some will argue that creation in this model is a form of Gnosticism, which includes the belief that our universe was created by someone or something other than God, but that's an incorrect statement about the Fallen Angel Model. It's true that the creation of the universe in this model should be viewed multi-step process, but God is the creator, and there is no other creator of the universe. There is nothing in Christian Theology that specifies HOW God created the universe from nothing, just like there is nothing that says He must have created the first human beings in a single step, i.e., most Christians recognize that He could have used a multi-step process we call evolution.

It's also important to recognize that modern physics continues to find more and more "non-material" aspects at the most fundamental level of our universe. Fields that fill all of space-time, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and non-local interactions are just a few of the aspects discovered by modern science that have properties beyond the purely material realm. It certainly makes sense to think that the fields of pure energy that became present in space-time at the moment of the Big Bang could have come from non-material fields of energy.

In Figure 11 the fallen angels are represented by the large circle that devolves into the smaller circle, releasing energy exactly as in the Devolution Model. Of course, the Fallen Angels are no longer able to remain in the close presence with God and the other angels. The good angels are presented by the large circles that did not devolve.

Matthew 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Away from me, you that are under God's curse! Away to the eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels!...' ."

 Figure 11. Fallen Angels (Same as Devolution, but the unspecified consciousness that devolved is considered to be Satan and the other fallen angels)

As a Christian who has a traditional faith, I prefer FAM over Evolution+ because it is not only consistent with what is currently known from science but is also consistent with what science may establish as known in the future. Many additional reasons why I prefer this model will become clear in the pages that follow.

Note that even though the term Fallen Angles Model is new, this model of how and why the universe began is not new. Teilhard considered something like this, but not using the terms of conscious energy and changes of state. His thoughts are in an essay called _Reflections on Original Sin,_ which was published posthumously in a book _Christianity and Evolution,_ A Harvest HBJ Book, 1969. The way he formulated this concept did not involve angels and did not appeal to him, nor does it appeal to me. I would love to ask him if he ever thought about this happening to only some of the angels.

**Demolished Angels Model (DAM):** The Demolished Angel Model is a special case of the Fallen Angel Model. In this model (Figure 12), created energy in a self-conscious state cannot exist on its own. To exist in a pure spiritual form it must be united with God. It can also exist as a natural part of a human body as a field in the brain. It just cannot exist on its own.

This version of the model is almost the same as the Fallen Angels Model, except that the Fallen Angels completely fragmented or were "Demolished" when they left God's presence. Therefore, there are no conscious devils, and hence the name Demolished Angels Model. All of their energy devolved into what ultimately led to our space-time universe. A corollary of this model is that when people die, their conscious energy fields either join with God or they cease to exist as conscious entities, i.e., there's no conscious hell in this model. In my earlier book, _Conscious Energy,_ I referred to this model as the Angel Fragmentation Scenario (AFS).

Obviously, this DAM model (pun intended) represents a departure from traditional Christian Theology and will not be further discussed after this chapter. However, all of the ratings that are given to FAM in the later chapters also would apply to DAM because it is just a special case of FAM.

 Figure 12. Demolished Angles (Like Fallen Angles, but the fallen angels cease to exist as a conscious entities after the fall)

**No Proofs Possible:** I do not believe that it will ever be possible to prove as correct, or disprove as incorrect, any of the models of creation that do not involve God's intervention. That's because everything that's observable is IDENTICAL from our point of view in all of these models.

Consider this very simple analogy. Suppose you lived in the Middle Ages, were standing inside a castle, and saw a rock flying over the wall. It could have been the result of some kind of accident; perhaps a tree fell and somehow flipped the rock into the air. It could have been thrown by someone needing help or someone trying to cause damage. It could have been the first of several more to come in an attack. The point is that when looking at the rock all of these possibilities would look EXACTLY the same from your point of view at that time.

It's the same with the universe. All we can do is look at the evidence and project backward in time. Science has done a fantastic job, giving us a description of what happened starting a very, very small fraction of a second after the beginning of our universe up to the present time. But science cannot prove how and why our universe came into being. Even if it just popped into existence from "the void," then we can ask where did the void and the laws of physics that allowed it to happen come from? Even if there was an infinite regression of universes into the past, we could still believe, as St. Thomas Aquinas argued, that it still owes its existence to God. However, there are issues raised by modern science that seriously challenge the concept of design as discussed in earlier chapters, which we'll address in the coming chapters.

Remember, the purpose of this book is to look at all of the models describing how God could have created the universe, compare these models to the important issues, and then let you readers draw your own conclusions. If you happen to like a model (or models) that is consistent with what is known from science and the important aspects of religion, then you will be able to take all three steps. If not, you won't.

**Further Thoughts on the Fallen Angel Model:** The concept of fallen and fragmented angels as the basis for the Big Bang occurred in 1979 during a rare ice storm in Dallas, Texas while my brother-in-law, Ron Morgan, and I were discussing these kinds of issues. The particular problem we were wrestling with was: Why would God take billions of years to create human beings in an evil and suffering-filled universe, if He can instantly create angels in the spiritual realm. We were trying to visualize the ideas on a piece of paper. I still have that piece of paper, and a copy of it is shown below as Figure 13: St. Thomas Aquinas, Teilhard de Chardin, and the Angels.

If you look at the drawing you'll be able to see exactly what we were thinking. We put St. Thomas' vision of creation on the left and Teilhard's on the right, both written with the broader pointed (blue) ink pen. Of course, St. Thomas didn't know about evolution over time, but he did understand creation as a hierarchy of being. God is the creator at the top, angels are just under God in the hierarchy, then humans, animals, plants, matter, and something he called "prime matter" at the bottom.

On the right we had Teilhard's vision of the Big Bang with time on the horizontal axis and increasing consciousness on the vertical axis. The entries are almost the same except Teilhard didn't have prime matter or angels, and of course Teilhard's vision was an evolution over time. Radiation and elementary particles evolved into atoms, molecules and so on.

We put a question mark by angels because Teilhard didn't have them and they didn't seem to make sense, given what we know about the long evolutionary process. Then we began to think about what might have happened. Eventually we saw the "fall" as downward movement and the arrow at the left was drawn. Then in a flash we saw the "missing link" between the two models and moved the head of the falling arrow to the right—right to the Big Bang. Soon we had the concept that the matter and energy of the Big Bang could be thought of as "unordered spirit." It was a moment we will never forget, and honestly, we have never looked at the universe the same since then.

My wife must have sensed something was going on and she snapped a picture to capture the moment. That's Ron on the left and me on the right in Figure 14. If the picture were taken today, you'd see quite a bit of grey hair showing up nicely against that dark background.

 Figure 13. Thomas Aquinas, Teilhard de Chardin, and the Angels

Figure 14. The brothers-in-law discussing Thomas, Teilhard and the Angels (1979)

An important point is that combining ideas from science, theology and philosophy is what made this idea possible. The Big Bang and evolution came from science, fallen angels in the spiritual realm came from theology, and the notion of conscious energy came as a philosophical speculation on consciousness. This would not surprise many in that long line of thinkers who have believed that theology, philosophy, and science all look at the same truth from different angles. But here we are going one step further, we are suggesting that we need to use all three of these disciplines working together in order get insights that are not available any other way. Up until now science and theology have not worked together and have not expected synergy in that union. Not only do we believe that they have to work together, but must do so with no hidden agendas, and with the understanding that truth is truth and that no discipline has all the answers and insights.

Let's pursue this thinking just a little further here. If energy can exist in a pure self-conscious state, i.e., a spiritual state, and then devolve into the space-time matter and energy of this universe, then we should be able to learn something about the spiritual realm by looking at matter and energy in its most basic states. As a matter of fact, physicists have found many examples of strange, "non-material" aspects of the fields at the most basic level. I think physicists are starting to see that our universe, with all of it's coincidences, are a necessary consequence of the way that non-material fields and/or conscious energy devolves, loses energy, or "comes apart."

We have tried to take a few small steps in this direction and we invite those who are interested in the basic concepts of Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity to take a look at our website: www.proandsons.com. This will continue to be an on-going effort and we will be posting new ideas, papers and collaborations as time goes on.

Back to Table of Contents
Step III. Accept that one of the inclusive models is possible.

In this final step, you'll get to do some shopping, deciding which models of how God could have created the universe make the most sense when compared to the issues. Each model carries with it a number of implications. Obviously, you'll prefer the models that make the most sense to you for the issues that are most important to you. Of course your preferences are not final. I have favored different models at different times of my life. You are likely to favor more than one model at the same time, and some more than others.

We will be focusing on the models that involve God as creator because that's the purpose of this book. Some of these models are completely consistent with the findings of modern science and the existence of God. These are the models we are defining as "inclusive." You will find that some of the inclusive models have implications on how to view God's relation to the universe and other matters of religion that are not the same as traditionally done. However, if any of the inclusive models seem to you to be reasonable ways that God could have created the universe, then you can take all three steps. Of course, there are many other issues, some related to what science may someday prove, and some not related to science at all. We'll look at all of these issues.

Back to Table of Contents
Chapter 8. The Issues vs. the Models

Every model carries its own implications about a lot of different topics. In this chapter we're going to focus on how the models and their implications stack up against the issues we identified in Step I. Here's a summary of the issues discussed in Chapters 2 and 3:

Known from Modern Science:

**\- Big Bang:** Our space-time universe began in a very, very small volume. It may have been a hot explosion preceding an inflation of space-time or a cool "explosion", i.e., an inflation of space-time, leading to a hot release of particles. Either way, for our purposes, the basic idea is the same and we'll just use the "Big Bang" as the start of our universe.

\- Evolution: The evolutionary process produces everything we can observe in the universe, including human beings, but life and consciousness are very, very rare.

\- Coincidences: There are many "coincidences" inherent in the laws of nature, which are necessary for the formation of particles, molecules, stars, life, human beings and everything else we find in our universe.

\- Inefficient Creator: If God created the universe as a home for self-conscious human beings, why are conscious creatures so extremely rare and why did it take so long? Does it make sense to believe in a God that is really that inefficient as a Creator?

Theories from Modern Science:

**\- No Intervention?** Science may someday explain how everything evolved, including life and human beings. In that case, no intervention by God would be needed.

**\- Not Designed?** The postulated multiverse would produce _all_ kinds of bubble universes with _all_ kinds of different constants of nature. If that were the case, eventually a universe like ours would be bound to happen. That would mean that universe is not designed or tuned in any way.

From internal experience:

**\- Consciousness:** Human beings have self-consciousness.

**\- Free Will:** Human beings have free will.

From the Christian tradition:

\- God, Creator: There is an eternal, self-conscious, spiritual God who created our universe.

\- Prophets: God spoke to us through the prophets, who provided their visions in words of the time they lived, and we have those words recorded in the Bible.

**\- Life after Death:** Loving God, loving neighbor, being truthful, etc., as described in the Bible will allow a person to somehow survive death and be with God for all eternity.

**\- Christ as Savior:** Christians add the following minimum set of beliefs: Jesus Christ was both human and divine. His life, death, and resurrection saved us from sin and death. He provides the perfect example of selfless love. If we follow his example, we will be fulfilled in this life and make it through death into the next life, which is an eternal life with God.

From additional roadblocks:

\- Fallen State: The traditional Christian thinking is that we are in a fallen state due to the Original Sin of Adam and Eve and Christ's death redeemed us from that fallen state. This is an issue is for Christians who believe that we evolved as described by science. This is so because with purely natural evolution, there would be no Garden of Eden on earth, and hence no Original Sin on earth that put us in a fallen state.

**\- Problem of Evil:** There is so much evil and suffering in the world, that it's hard to understand how God could let that happen.

**\- No Direct Experience:** Most people have no direct experience of God. If He loves us, why is He so hard to find?

From the previous chapter we have the list of the models of how God could have created the universe that we are going to evaluate against the issues discussed above. Note that we have added the E++ Model to cover the spectrum of the E+ models.

\- Creationism (C)

\- Evolution++ (E++)

\- Evolution+ (E+)

\- Intelligent Design (ID)

\- Teilhard's Model (T)

\- Fallen Angels (FAM)

Here's the way we'll grade how each model stacks up against each issue:

A = Completely agrees and gives good insights as to why or how

B = Generally agrees with no serious, unanswered questions. Does not give good insights as to why or how

C = Generally agrees, but has some serious, unanswered questions

D = Questionable on agreement, unclear, or controversial

F = Disagrees or is inconsistent

In the remainder of this chapter we'll cover each issue, model by model and summarize the results in a table. In order to keep the table as simple as possible, we'll group the issues where it makes sense to do so. The model's rating for the category will be the worst rating the model received for any issue in that category. We'll have the following categories: What we know from science now, what some scientific theories claim now and what may go from theory to known in the future, what we know from our inner-most experiences, the most important beliefs in the Christian tradition, and some additional issues. We can't grade the additional issues together because they are unrelated, so each of these issues will be graded separately in the table.

 However, before we start going through the issues, Table 1 contains the summary of my assessments.

Before we go any further, I know that a whole lot of folks who read this book are not going to agree with all of these assessments, but that's not the point. This book is about a three-step process on how to acquire a belief in God and science. I'm giving my version of the process only as an example. The point is that if you see what I did, you can follow the three-step process yourself. You will most likely have different assessments and maybe different issues. However, if you end up considering that an inclusive model is at least possible, you can have a belief in God that is consistent with the findings of modern science.

If you're lucky enough to have a model that you've given a grade of B or better for all the issues you feel are important, then you'll have a fully integrated way of looking at science, your internal experience, and your religious beliefs, and there won't be any roadblocks to your faith. Furthermore, wherever you have a grade of A you'll have additional insights into why things are the way they are. Many people do not have insights on these issues, whether or not they believe in God.

I also need to point out that whenever I say I don't like or understand something, I'm not saying it's wrong. I am not using the famous "argument from ignorance" which basically says that since I can't figure it out, it must be wrong. What I'm doing in this book is giving you one concrete example of a general three-step process that you can use to get to a goal. We are all very different and bring different life experiences to this problem. Once you see the process carried out for my example, you can make and fill out your own table.

OK, having said all of that, let's ride over to the general store and look at the merchandise in detail, going through each issue, one at a time, assessing how each model stacks up against that issue. Of course, not all of the issues below are important to every reader. Therefore, readers should focus on the issues that are most important to them. We'll begin with the four issues that we have said are known from science.

Big Bang: Our space-time universe began as an "explosion" or inflation of energy in a very, very small area.

Note that in listings below you'll see the model name, then my grade for this model on this issue, and then a short comment on why the grade is what it is.

\- Creationism, F, Not consistent with biblical account

\- Evolution++, A, Created that way by God

\- Evolution+, A, Created that way by God

\- Intelligent Design, A, Designed that way by God

\- Teilhard's Model, A, That is God's creative process

\- Fallen Angels, A, Devolved from conscious energy

All that science can tell us is that when we look at the universe and extrapolate backwards in time, we see that our space-time universe began as an extremely small region of energy that quickly expanded and then evolved to be the universe we observe today. Whether it came from nothing, "the void" (wherever that came from), from a spiritual realm, e.g., devolved conscious energy, or was directly created by God, it would look EXACTLY the same to us at this point. Therefore, I rate all but Creationism as A because that type of beginning is what would be expected with all the evolution-based models.

**Natural** Evolution: The natural, evolutionary process produces everything we can observe in the universe, including human beings, but life and consciousness are very, very rare.

\- Creationism, F, God created without evolution

\- Evolution++, F, Physical Intervention

\- Evolution+, B, Requires God to fill a few gaps

\- Intelligent Design, A, Works as designed

\- Teilhard's Model, A, Agrees with evolution

\- Fallen Angels, A, Devolved from conscious energy

In the E++ Model, God physically intervened into the evolutionary process in ways that match some of the more literal interpretations of the Bible. For example, in many of these models God would have created a physical Garden of Eden after evolution reached a certain point of development. Although science cannot prove that this didn't happen, I have to rate this kind of intervention as being inconsistent with the overall findings of modern science. It just doesn't fit with the evolutionary process as described by science. Some will argue with me on this.

In the E+ Model the interventions by God are much less observable, e.g., the infusion of an immaterial, immortal soul that cannot be detected by science. In this case the E+ Model generally agrees with evolution, but gives no insights why God would use evolution to create humans if He had to intervene at some point anyway.

There is no direct intervention by God in the ID, T, and FAM models. Therefore, they are all identical from the instant of the Big Bang up to the evolution of human beings, and therefore, all fit precisely with evolution as described by science.

**Coincidences:** There are many "coincidences" inherent in the laws of nature, which are necessary for the formation of particles, molecules, stars, life, human beings and everything else we find in our universe.

\- Creationism, F, God created without evolution

\- Evolution++, A, Created that way by God

\- Evolution+, A, Created that way by God

\- Intelligent Design, A, Designed in by God

\- Teilhard's Model, A, God's creative process

\- Fallen Angels, A, Devolved from conscious energy

In the E++, E+ and in Teilhard's Model, God is intending to create life and consciousness, so it makes sense that the initial energy of creation would have the properties to let this happen.

In the ID Model, God actually designed the energy of the Big Bang to be able to evolve life and consciousness without any further intervention.

The FAM Model are made possible by the concept of conscious energy, i.e., that consciousness is a new state of energy, rather than by being fully explainable using only the currently known states of energy (radiation and matter). Thinking of the energy that formed the Big Bang as a "breaking" or falling from a conscious state makes one expect it to retain something of where it came from. That "something" results in the coincidences that allow some of the energy, under the right conditions, to return to a conscious state.

Inefficient Creator: Why are conscious creatures so extremely rare and why did it take so long for them to develop? Does it make sense to believe in a God that is really that inefficient a Creator?

\- Creationism, F, God created without evolution

\- Evolution++, B, Doesn't seem to make sense

\- Evolution+, B, Doesn't seem to make sense

\- Intelligent Design, B, God's design is inefficient?

\- Teilhard's Model, A, God's creative process

\- Fallen Angels A, Fragmented, expect slow & inefficient

With the Evolution++, Evolution+ and Intelligent Design models, we would expect God to create over time, but the results from science certainly seem to indicate that the process is extremely long and inefficient. I cannot say that this contradicts what these models say, but certainly these models give no insights why there is so much inefficiency. Hence a rating of B seems fair.

Teilhard's Model states that what we see is God's creative process, no more and no less. Bringing forth order from disorder is a time-consuming, trial and error process. It's just the only way God can create. I'll give it a rating of A.

This is another instance where the FAM adds new insights that have never been possible with the current models. Whenever something breaks apart into pieces, we expect that a long and time-consuming process is going to be required to repair it, and even then, we don't expect to ever get the original beauty and or completeness back. However, given the concept that conscious energy is a highly ordered state of energy, it certainly makes sense that if our universe began as a sudden devolution of conscious energy into disordered energy that it would retain some of the "basic ingredients." Nevertheless, we'd expect that evolution back to consciousness, if possible, would be an inefficient, time-consuming and error-prone process. That's EXACTLY what science has told us about the evolution to consciousness.

These first four issues are summarized in Table 1 as what we know from science. The value you see in this table for each of the models is the worst rating that the model got for all of the issues in this category. The rolling up of the worst value for each category of issues is the same for all of the categories below except for the Additional Issues category, because these issues are so different that we need to rate them separately in the table.

Now let's move from what from what we actually know now from science to what some scientists believe to be the case. These items could become issues for those who believe in God. The point is that it's possible that evidence could increase and someday reach the point where we would add these to the known list.

**No Intervention?** Scientists will someday explain how everything evolved, from the beginning of our universe up to and including life and human beings. If that happened, we would know that was no intervention by God at any point along the way.

\- Creationism, F, God created without evolution

\- Evolution++, F, God did intervene, many times

\- Evolution+, D, God did intervene, at least spiritually

\- Intelligent Design, A, No Intervention by design

\- Teilhard's Model, A, Intervention not possible

\- Fallen Angels, A, Intervention not proper

Evolution+ does not require that God physically intervene into evolution in ways that would be physically observable, but it does require at least a spiritual intervention for the souls of human beings. Therefore, I believe a D is a fair rating. With Intelligent Design we would not expect intervention because everything that happens was designed to happen by God. In Teilhard's Model, the process we observe in science is God's creative process. There's no place for intervention. In the Fallen Angels Model, God respects the consequences of free will. He would not be expected to intervene, unless invited in a conscious way. "Knock and the door will be opened."

**Not Designed?** In modern cosmological models like Chaotic Inflation, our universe is just one of all possible kinds of universes. It is not special in any way and was not designed or tuned in any way.

\- Creationism, F, God did design the universe

\- Evolution++, F, God did design the universe

\- Evolution+, F, God did design the universe

\- Intelligent Design, F, God did design the universe

\- Teilhard's Model, A, No design, only way

\- Fallen Angels, A, No design, result of sin

Saying that God did not design the universe is not consistent with Creationism, Evolution++, Evolution+ or Intelligent Design. However, it's perfectly consistent with Teilhard's Model, which says that what we observe is the only way God can create. It's simply God's creative process. With FAM, certainly there is no design. Our universe is the result of a sin or break with God. When that happens, this is just what you get when conscious energy devolves. Someday scientists may derive the equations either confirming what theories like Chaotic Inflation suggest, namely that all possible kinds of universes are possible. On the other hand it's very likely they may conclude a universe like ours, i.e., one that seems to be designed or tuned for life, is what you must get when conscious energy fields devolve. FAM covers both of these possibilities.

Now it's time to move on to the issues that we feel from our inner experience.

**Consciousness:** Human beings have self-consciousness.

\- Creationism, B, Unexplained reaction with body

\- Evolution++, B, Unexplained reaction with body

\- Evolution+, B, Unexplained reaction with body

\- Intelligent Design, C, No mechanism identified

\- Teilhard's Model, A, Increasing Consciousness is basic law

\- Fallen Angels, A, Devolved from conscious energy

According to the Creationism Model, we are created in God's image and are given an immortal soul by God. This certainly does explain consciousness and free will, but it doesn't give any insights into how an immaterial soul could interact with a material body. Therefore, we have general agreement, but without insights into the specific mechanism of how it might work.

I feel that the E++ and E+ models, due to God's direct intervention with an immortal soul, should be rated the same as in the Creationism Model.

With ID there is no mechanism for explaining how we could develop or acquire an immortal soul or any other way to have consciousness or free will.

In Teilhard's Model, the drive to increasing consciousness and complexity is the most fundamental law of the universe. This is God's Creative Process. God is intending to create life and consciousness. Teilhard's description of the within allows us a way to think about how something could evolve and become conscious.

FAM gives fresh, new insights into the consciousness and free will that we experience because it sees our consciousness as a new state of energy having come from a pre-existing form of conscious energy.

**Free Will:** Human beings have free will.

\- Creationism, B, Unexplained reaction with body

\- Evolution++, B, Unexplained reaction with body

\- Evolution+, B, Unexplained reaction with body

\- Intelligent Design, C, No mechanism identified

\- Teilhard's Model, A, Explained as a property of consciousness

\- Fallen Angels, A, Devolved from conscious energy

The arguments for the ratings for C, E++, E+ and ID are the same as the arguments for consciousness above. One would expect free will to emerge in Teilhard's Model where the universe driven to higher and higher levels of consciousness. Free will is a natural aspect of a self-conscious creature. FAM is based on the exercise of free will and it would be expected that free will could emerge from the ashes of a bad free will choice.

The next four issues come from the Christian tradition.

God, Creator: There is an eternal, self-conscious, spiritual God who created our universe.

\- Creationism, A, God created the Universe out of nothing

\- Evolution++, A, God created Big Bang out of nothing

\- Evolution+, A, God created Big Bang out of nothing

\- Intelligent Design, A, God created Big Bang out of nothing

\- Teilhard's Model, B, God created Big Bang out of nothing

\- Fallen Angels, A, God created Big Bang out of the spiritual realm, which He created out of nothing

Certainly all of these models are consistent with the notion of God as Creator of the universe. Almost all of them give good insight into the creation process because of God's involvement although they all provide quite different explanations.

However, the issue of God as Creator in Teilhard's Model is a little more difficult for me to understand. God is the ultimate in consciousness and spirit, but in Teilhard's model God can only create energy leading to radiation and matter in a Big Bang fashion. The fact this is simply God's creative process is a concept that I have always had some difficulty in accepting. Nevertheless, this concept is in complete agreement with what we know from science. It just doesn't give me any insight as to why it has to be this way. Therefore, for this issue, I'll give Teilhard's Model a rating of B.

Unlike Teilhard's Model, the FAM allows for God, the uncreated Conscious Energy, to directly create pure conscious energy fields (angels). That makes a lot of sense to me.

Prophets: God spoke to us through the prophets, who provided their visions in words of the time they lived, and we have those words recorded in the Bible.

\- Creationism, A, God's message of salvation

\- Evolution++, A, God's message of salvation

\- Evolution+, A, God's message of salvation

\- Intelligent Design, A, God's message of salvation

\- Teilhard's Model, A, God's message of salvation

\- Fallen Angels, A, God's message of salvation

All of these models have God trying to communicate His message of salvation. It makes sense that He would contact those who were able to receive that message. Holy people, trying to serve God and neighbor, would naturally be open to receiving direct revelation from God in one way or another. These Prophets wrote down these messages.

**Life after Death:** Loving God, loving neighbor, being truthful, etc., as described in the Bible will allow a person to somehow survive death and be with God for all eternity.

\- Creationism, A, Infused immortal soul

\- Evolution++, A, Infused immortal soul

\- Evolution+, A, Infused immortal soul

\- Intelligent Design, C, No mechanism described

\- Teilhard's Model, A, The within survives bodily death

\- Fallen Angels, A, Self-conscious energy is immortal

In the C, E+ and E++ Models, God infuses an immortal soul, which easily explains life after death.

The issue of Life after Death is problematic with the Intelligent Design Model. Although this model is in general agreement with the concept, there is nothing defined that could survive bodily death. For example, there is no God-infused immortal soul or a new state of energy.

For the Life after Death issue, Teilhard's Model has everything going for it. The purpose of God's creation is to bring forth conscious beings and have them be with him forever. The notion of a self-conscious within fits the natural evolutionary process and yet gives a mechanism for life after death.

In the FAM Model, energy evolves from radiation to self-consciousness in a natural process, with no intervention by God. When it reaches self-consciousness, it becomes self-sustaining and hence, immortal. Note that for this model the humans that survive death and join to God and become pure conscious energy fields similar to the angels, who were directly created by God. That tells us something about heaven, e.g., it's not literally gold streets, and this agrees with what Jesus said about those who die and go to heaven. Jesus said:

"For when the dead rise to life, they will be like the angels in heaven...." (Mark: 12:25).

**Christ as Savior:** As a minimum, Christians add the following beliefs: Jesus Christ was both human and divine. His life, death, and resurrection saved us from sin and death. He provides the perfect example of selfless love. If we follow his example we will be fulfilled in this life and make it through death into the next life, an eternal life with God.

\- Creationism, A, Fits with Christ as described above

\- Evolution++, A, Fits with Christ as described above

\- Evolution+, A, Fits with Christ as described above

\- Intelligent Design, A, Fits with Christ as described above

\- Teilhard's Model, A, Fits with Christ as described above

\- Fallen Angels, A, Fits with Christ as described above

Note that the description of Christ as Savior as described in the paragraph above says nothing about the Garden of Eden, Original Sin or a Fallen State. We could be in a Fallen State or we could have evolved to be the way we are. This issue is about Christ saving us from the state we are in, regardless of how we got into that state. All of these models are consistent with this issue and provide their own insights into the issue.

Now we will move on to the Additional Issues.

Fallen State: We are in a fallen state due to Original Sin and Christ's death redeemed us from that fallen state.

\- Creationism, A, Garden of Eden, Original Sin

\- Evolution++, A, Garden of Eden, Original Sin

\- Evolution+, D, No Garden, No fallen state?

\- Intelligent Design, F, God's design is for all this evil?

\- Teilhard's Model, F, Not in a fallen state

\- Fallen Angels, A, Result of Angels fall

For the C and E++ Models, we are in a fallen state as described in the story of the Garden of Eden.

This issue brings up the key challenge for the E+ Model. The challenge is to explain how the first humans could have evolved as described by science and yet have been in a Garden of Eden with no physical tendency to sin. Then, there is an additional need to explain how the effects of their Original Sin was passed on to all other humans, putting us in a fallen state.

Perhaps theologians can work out a "mental Garden of Eden" in the Evolution+ Model, which is consistent with physical evolution, where God intervened to allow the first humans to be in full control of their bodies. The reasoning might go something like this: "Though science and evolution cannot tell us anything about when God gave man and woman a soul, at that first moment when they received their immortal soul, they must have been in a state of grace. For them to have sinned, they would first have to have a relationship with God. The Divine needed to breathe into and sanctify their bodies before there could be a sinful act. The body can come from evolution, but the soul cannot. We can see in the Garden of Eden story how man and woman appeared in their first environment in a state of peace and security and intimacy with God. They having just received a soul were in a state of grace and this state was capable of continuing in that condition unless they sinned."

There are many issues that would have to be worked out including: How are the effects of the sin passed on to all subsequent humans? I will not pursue this line of thought in this book because I want to remove from consideration any God of the Gaps who has to intervene into the evolutionary process. In any event, I think the Evolution+ Model can rate no better than a "D" on this issue at this point in time.

There is also serious problem with the ID Model regarding this issue. With this model there is no Garden of Eden and no Original Sin. What we see in this universe is designed by God to be what it is. In other words, we are created with all the material weaknesses toward sin by God's design. Therefore, Christ is not redeeming us from sin but, rather, from the way God designed us to be.

When we think about Teilhard's Model and the Fallen State issue, we hit the problem that Teilhard has had with gaining a larger acceptance among Christians. In Teilhard's Model, which is completely consistent with scientific evolution, there is no intervention by God, and hence, no Garden of Eden. Therefore, no Garden of Eden and no Original Sin by the first human beings. This means that Christ is not redeeming us from an original sin, but rather is in Teilhard's words, Christ is a "Co-Evolver." A new theology of Christ's role is needed to go along with this model. As I pointed out earlier, Jack Mahoney's Christianity in Evolution is an excellent place for the reader to start seeking new answers for this issue.

The Fallen Angel Model is in line with the traditional vision of the Problem of Evil and the Fallen State issues. Although there is no Garden of Eden on Earth and no Original Sin of the first humans in a pure state, there is the Original, Original Sin of the angels. They were in a pure state where the only sin they could make was the sin of pride. Some did just that, and the result was their immediate removal from God's presence, loss of some of their energy, and the Big Bang. Therefore, although the process is the same as envisioned by Teilhard, it is not God's Creative Process, but rather the result of the sin of the angels. Unlike with Teilhard's model, in these models God could have turned away from the Big Bang and remained only with the good angels. However, God did not turn away. This is consistent with the parables that Christ told about the one lost sheep and the lost coin. In these two models, as in the more traditional C and E+ Models, God sent His only Son, Christ, as a Redeemer to save us from an Original Sin.

Another point which favors these models over the human Adam and Eve is that only some of the angels sinned. I can understand some free-willed creatures sinning, because that's the nature of free will. In the Adam and Eve story, God created the first two humans and both of them sinned. With FAM, only some of the free creatures sinned, which is in line with what we would expect.

**Problem of Evil:** There is so much evil and suffering in the world, that it's hard to understand how God could let that happen. This issue has a lot in common with the next issue, which seems to imply that God is hiding from us since most people do not have a direct experience of God.

\- Creationism, A, Garden of Eden, Original Sin

\- Evolution++, A, Garden of Eden, Original Sin

\- Evolution+, D, What is the source of all the evil?

\- Intelligent Design, F, God's design is for all this evil?

\- Teilhard's Model, A, It's just God's creative process

\- Fallen Angels, A, It's the result of the Angels' sin

In the C and E++ models, the close communication with God was lost in the Garden of Eden. This introduced all kinds of evil in the world.

If God decided to create humans through evolution with minimum intervention as described in the E+ Model, then there are only three possibilities that I can think of: (1) God is responsible for the evil, (2) there's an original sin of some kind and the evil is an indirect result, or (3) this is the only way God can create. The typical explanation provided by those who prefer some variation of the E+ Model is based on the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. However, as discussed above there are a lot of unanswered questions with this approach. I'll stick with the rating of D at this point.

The ID Model has even more serious problems with this issue, as well as the next issue. I think the logical conclusion of Intelligent Design is that the result we observe is God's design. Given that, one has to ask: Did God design this world so that it would have all the evil and suffering that it has and so that we couldn't see Him?

When it comes to the tough issues of the Problem of Evil and No Direct Experience, Teilhard's Model provides excellent agreement and insights. We are in an evolution to God, both as individuals and collectively; this is God's Creative Process. At this point we are only this far along the way. God is doing the best He can but He exists in another realm. It's not His fault that we can't see Him. We're only creatures that have evolved from simple forms of matter and energy, just now reaching a self-conscious level. We are very much tied to our bodies and our bodily needs and wants. Evil and suffering are to be expected in, as Teilhard would say, a "multitude undergoing organization." Everything has to be tried in the evolutionary process, and there will necessarily be a lot of mistakes and problems. For an excellent discussion of the problem of evil in an evolving universe see _Evil and Evolution_ by R. W. Kropf. I'll give Teilhard's Model a rating of A for these issues.

Here's another place where FAM offers new insights. Since the energy is the same as in Teilhard's Model, the logic in the above paragraph applies to these models, but these two models also offer additional insights. Unlike the vision of God in some other religions, the Judeo-Christian God is so good and holy that He will always act in a way this is consistent with His character. For example, God will not tell a lie to achieve some good purpose. He respects the free will and the consequences of his creatures. With this understanding, we should not expect God to "force" his way into a realm that was created by an act of rebellion against Him. In summary, since the energy came from a sin in the spiritual realm, this issue, the problem of evil and the Fallen State can all be seen as a result of the Original, Original Sin of the angels.

**No Direct Experience:** Most people have no direct experience of God. If he loves us, why is He so hard to find?

\- Creationism, A, In a fallen state

\- Evolution++, A, In a fallen state

\- Evolution+, B, No good explanation

\- Intelligent Design, F, God's design is to hide from us?

\- Teilhard's Model, A, It's just God's creative process

\- Fallen Angels, A, It's the result of the Angels' sin

The C and E++ Models have us in a fallen state and therefore, we would not expect to have direct experience of God.

As stated above, the E+ Model does not have a good, clear way to explain how we are in a fallen state, which would explain the lack of direct perception. If God chose to create us through evolution, it's reasonable that we would not evolve with a clear way to perceive Him. However, there are no insights why God would choose to do that. I'll give E+ as a B on this issue.

With the ID Model, one has to assume that this is God's design and wonder why would God design a process where we would come to be in a way that could not perceive Him? The only rating I can give ID on this issue is an F.

With Teilhard's Model, we understand that God wants to us to be with him, but this is the creative process. Hence we would expect this situation.

With FAM, we are evolving from a fallen state and would expect that our senses would be limited to the world we evolved into.

**Inclusive?** This is not actually an issue, but rather an assessment of whether or not each model generally agrees with what is known from modern science and the essential issues from traditional Christian religion.

Three rating are possible: No, Yes, and Yes+.

To get a Yes rating for Inclusive, a model has to generally agree with no serious, unanswered questions, i.e., have at least a B rating, with what is known from modern science and the essential issues from traditional Christian religion. If not, the model will get a No rating. (Note that many Christians will choose to consider the Fallen State as a essential issue and Jews will want to remove the beliefs about Christ as an the essential issue.)

However, what we really want to find are the Inclusive models that do well on all the issues, especially the issues that may come from modern scientific theories. These models will not only agree with what we know now from science, but also with what is suggested by theories such as Chaotic Inflation. These Inclusive models will be rated as Yes+.

Given these definitions, the ratings are as follows:

\- Creationism, No, Rated F on Science-Known

\- Evolution++, No, Rated F on Science-Known

\- Evolution+, Yes, B on Science-Known, A on Religion, F on Science-Theory

\- Intelligent Design, No, A on Science-Known, C on Religion, F on Science-Theory

\- Teilhard's Model, Yes+, A on Science-Known, B on Religion, A on Science-Theory

\- Fallen Angels, Yes+, A on every issue

Creationism and Evolution++ are rated a "No" because they have ratings of F for what we know from science.

Evolution+ agrees with what we know from science and the major issues from religion, and therefore, gets a rating of Yes. However, it is not an ideal solution for a number of reasons. By minimizing the intervention by God, it doesn't fit well with the Additional Issues and it doesn't fit well with the issues that come from some scientific theories.

Intelligent Design gets a rating of No for Inclusiveness because it has a rating of C on Religion.

Teilhard's Model not only gets a rating of Yes+, but it is the prototype and basis of all the models that get that rating. A basic part of Teilhard's vision is that consciousness is not some freak, afterthought of evolution, but rather something much more important—even though it evolved from the unconscious as described by science. God as creator makes perfect sense in this model. Reading Teilhard's _The Phenomenon of Man_ changed my life forever. However, as I mentioned earlier, many traditional Christians feel very strongly that we are in a fallen state because of an Original Sin and that Christ is our Redeemer. This is an essential element of the faith and, therefore for these Christians, Teilhard's model would not be considered Inclusive.

The A on Science-Theory ensures that anyone liking this model will have no difficulty now, or probably ever, believing in God and science (both what we know now and what we will likely know in the future) from science. Furthermore Teilhard's Model is rated as B or better on every issue except one, namely the fallen state issue. That's because with Teilhard's model there is no place for an original sin. However, notice that this model gets a rating of A on both the problem of evil and the no direct perception of God even without needing to view us as being in a fallen state. No other model does this.

FAM gets A ratings on all the issues. Since I feel all of these issues are important, you can see why I prefer this model over all the other ones.

The bottom line is that the moment that you can accept any model you consider Inclusive as a plausible explanation for how God could have created the universe, then—at that moment—you have taken all three steps. This is true because at that moment you see a possible path where the known, science-based roadblocks to your faith are gone.

OK, that completes the assessment of the issues verses the models. In the next chapter we'll wrap up the evaluation process with some overall comments on the models.

Back to Table of Contents
Chapter 9. Overall Model Assessments

The first observation is that none of these models can perfectly answer all of the issues for everybody. Even the Fallen Angel Model, which I rated as A on all of the issues, does not give answers that will appeal to everybody. My ratings are based on what I consider to be good agreement and insights, but that's based on my vision of reality. The way these models answer some of the issues are not consistent with traditional answers. However, I think this leads to a key conclusion we can draw from this effort, i.e., there are no traditional answers to all of the issues that I raised in this book. Therefore, a person today, who is looking for insights into these issues, has only a couple of choices:

\- If you believe that one of the models that is not Inclusive is the only possible way that the universe could have begun and developed, then you won't have good answers for many of the issues raised in this book.

\- If you believe that one or more of the Inclusive models is a possible way that the universe could have began and developed, then you do have answers with good insights for many, and in some cases all, of the issues. However, you have to realize that some of these answers are not the traditional answers.

Now, let's briefly overview each model.

**Creationism** does exactly what it claims to do, i.e., take the Bible as literal truth. By doing this, it allows believers to avoid what they fear is a slippery slope. Of course they are correct to have this concern. Once you start saying that some parts of the Bible are not literally true, it's hard to say where that process stops.

Yes, I realize that I'm on that slippery slope, but I've lived on it all my life. I have provided here what I consider to be the shortest list of basic truths from the Bible, but I think we have to do that for the reasons that I mentioned. In any event, Creationism is not consistent with what we know from modern science, but those who favor this model don't care. They figure God just made the universe appear the way it does when we examine it, or in some cases, they don't even think about science at all. If some of you who like this model are still riding with us, I have no argument with you. I would be very happy if I could have a faith that was this strong. Remember, it's not how we get faith and live accordingly that matters to God, but only that we do.

Moving on to the Evolution++ and Evolution+ models, I know that there are a lot of people who believe in God and in some variation of these models of creation. Yes, there are currently gaps in science's explanation of evolution, and yes, science may never be able to close them. However, as I said before, I do not like any model that is open to the "God of the Gaps" argument. I don't want my faith to depend on a model that could someday be proven wrong by a new scientific discovery. There are also other areas where the models do not provide insights where I would like to have them. Evolution+, however, is an Inclusive model because it does agree with what I have listed as what we know from science.

The Intelligent Design Model, where God did not intervene during evolution, seems on the surface to offer more than it really does. I think that when you logically think it through, several severe problems come to light. For example, consciousness is so rare that God's design to produce consciousness appears to be very inefficient at best, we are born with a physical tendency to sin, and so much suffering and death appear to be a part of God's design for us.

Teilhard de Chardin is my hero. His picture hangs right over my desk here as I'm writing these lines and I just looked at it again. If I came across as too critical of his ideas, I am sorry for that. Without Teilhard, I don't know what would have happened to my faith. Certainly, I would never have had the idea of conscious energy or any of the other ideas presented in these pages. If you are having trouble believing in God and this book accomplishes nothing but introduces some of you to Teilhard's ideas, then I would consider it a major success. I have only presented a very, very short summary of his ideas. I have not shown you his optimism and vision for creation, especially its evolution toward God because this book is focused on trying to present a three-step process for reconciling science and religion. Teilhard saw evolution as God's creative process and Christ as leading the way. So, when you see that F rating for the Fallen State Issue, it only means that Teilhard was presenting us a brand new vision for what Christ's role is in space-time. His model got that rating because it's different from the traditional vision of Christ's role, not because it's necessarily wrong or it's a bad vision. Remember theologians are always working on new ways to explain our basic beliefs in the terms that are better suited to the times in which we live. Whatever you do, please do not avoid Teilhard based on any statements in this book. Teilhard may very well be correct in all of his insights, and I may be trying too hard to get a model that matches our old ideas. A number of people have told me that. On the other hand, if you believe that we're a fallen state based on a Original Sin and that that's essential to your faith, then Teilhard's ideas will not be consistent with that belief.

Of course, you've noticed that I prefer the Fallen Angel **Model** the most. Clearly it offer many advantages, but again, like everything else, these advantages come at a price. The advantages include: agreement with what is known from modern science, with the new scientific theories and what may someday be known from science, new insights into consciousness and free will, and they retain the notion that Christ has redeemed us from an original sin. Moving the Original Sin from Adam and Eve to the angels who sinned allows us to be consistent with evolution and does not require God to intervene into evolution to create the Garden of Eden on earth.

Another advantage is that this model provide new insights into one of the oldest mysteries in Christianity, namely, why and how did the effects of Original Sin get passed along to all the descendants of those who sinned. The change of state, Big Bang, and resulting evolution are consequences of the sin and they have naturally led to the universe as we know it, with all of its evil and suffering. Obviously, it would not have been possible for all of this to be explained in this way at the time Genesis was written.

On the other hand, some will not like the fact that this model is not nearly as optimistic as Teilhard's Model, which is also consistent with evolution and does not require God to intervene into evolution to create the Garden of Eden on earth. Teilhard's optimistic view saw all of creation going to God in the end, which is also a theme in much of St. Paul's writings. Fr. R. W. Kropf, my co-author on _Logical Faith,_ wrote his doctoral dissertation on this very topic. His ideas are documented in a book titled: Teilhard, Scripture & Revelation: A Study of Teilhard de Chardin _'_ s Reinterpretation of Pauline Themes. Cranbury, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University/Associated University Presses, 1980. The Fallen Angel Model sees our universe as a mess, born from a fault or sin, and heading to a heat death. All God can do is to do is try to save as many souls as possible before that heat death ends the process.

Another issue is that some will just not like the idea that our universe began as a fall or sin. However, this offers a way for God to have created this universe, exactly as we find it to be, without requiring that He designed it that way. This appeals to me because I see bad guys winning and innocent people getting bad deals. It's just not the way I'd imagine a designed creation of a good God working out. Seems to me if God did design this world, it would be more like the old Western movies in the 50s. You knew who the good guy was, who the bad guys were, and you knew who was going to win. The only suspense was exactly how the good guy would pull it off. Our universe is not like that.

The third thing that some will not like about these this model is the fact that God is limited in what He can do in space-time. God does not just jump in and fix the problems. Perhaps He physically can't because He's in another dimension or perhaps He chooses to respect the effects of free actions. Those favoring an "all powerful God" will not like this. However, they then have to explain why God doesn't jump in and fix it.

Note that at the moment of the beginning of the Big Bang, the situation for all of the models that incorporate the Big Bang (E++, E+, ID, T, and FAM) the energy is EXACTLY the same. There is no difference at all. The only differences among all of these models are: Where did the energy come from and why does it have the properties it has?

Does anybody know for certain and can prove which model of how and why the universe began is correct? The answer is, of course, no. Let's be honest, we are talking about "before" the Big Bang. The answer to that question is not only outside the realm of physics, it's almost outside the realm of imagination. No matter what models you prefer, God or no God, you will find issues that are not addressed, or not addressed to your satisfaction.

Also, regardless of which models you prefer, you have to admit the universe is weird, to say the least. Teilhard said:

"Indeed our sensory experience turns out to be a floating condensation on a swarm of the indefinable. Bewildering in its multiplicity and it minuteness, the substratum of the tangible universe is in an unending state of disintegration as it goes downward.

"On the other hand the more we split and pulverize matter, the more insistently it proclaims its fundamental unity.

"In its most imperfect form, but the simplest to imagine, this unity reveals itself in the astonishing similarity of the elements..." (The Phenomenon of Man, pg. 41.)

A good friend of mine, Gary Citrenbaum, who has a Ph. D. in theoretical physics and stays current on these issues, said recently that our universe is so weird that it just can't exist, and that our whole universe must be a model in somebody's computer. I'd like to think he was joking and, of course, I don't agree, but it certainly points out how weird our universe really is.

When I was much younger I didn't think of the universe as being weird. In fact, I considered science to be a kind of expanded common sense and that religious beliefs were weird. Needless to say, that was not good for my faith. A nun once told me in elementary school that heaven was not a place, but rather a state of existence. I really did not understand her at all, and thought that was really weird. Now I've come to realize that what she saying was that heaven is real but we cannot detect it. Heaven is not in space-time, it is not material, or it is in another dimension.

Nowadays physicists talk about other dimensions all the time. Experiments and analysis have led them to postulate the existence of fields that have non-detectable, non-material aspects. Many of them believe that there are other dimensions inside our space-time universe and many other universes outside of our space-time universe. The point I'm making is that whether you believe in God or not, you have to realize that the world we live in is not nearly simple as it appears. There are many aspects to reality that we cannot directly see or sense in any way. All of this is a somewhat humbling experience and has made it much easier for me to believe in God, heaven, realities that exist in other dimensions, and that our universe most likely came from the spiritual, non-material realm.

An overall assessment of the models would not be complete without mentioning that there are several possible connections that could be made between these models. For example, there's no reason why fallen angels have to result in one universe. Maybe they formed multiple universes. Maybe they formed the "void" or the energy from which universes spring and inflate. There are all kinds of possible relations between these various models, leading to new models of how and why the universe began. The possibilities for combining and refining the models are endless, but we have covered the basic options in this book.

The bottom line of this assessment is that if you decide that one of the inclusive models provides a plausible explanation on how God could have created the universe, you have taken Step III. In other words, you can have a faith in God that is consistent with the findings of modern science.

We've almost reached the end of the trail. Stay in the saddle and let's ride a few more pages.

Back to Table of Contents
Chapter 10. Beyond Step III

My vision of God is that He loves us and wants us to be with Him and that somehow that should make sense given the universe we live in. So, let's go beyond Step III by taking FAM and working through some issues not on the chart.

Does the model match your overall view of God and creation?

I see God as uncreated, self-conscious energy. Uncreated Energy is not my term, but was used by Catholic theologians centuries ago. However, it certainly seems to fit with the Conscious Energy Model. It also seems fitting to me that if uncreated, self-conscious energy were to create or reproduce itself, it would create self-conscious energy, like itself. In nature we see living beings reproduce their own kind. Snakes have baby snakes, humans have baby humans, etc. It's reasonable to me that God as pure uncreated self-conscious energy or Spirit would create spirits (angels, or whatever you want to call them) as pure self-conscious energy fields. Given free will, it's not surprising that some of them would sin and somehow leave the presence of God.

Using the Fallen Angel Model, it makes sense to think that the beginning of space-time, being based on a rebellion against God, would have "squeezed God out." The resulting space-time universe would not have God's full active presence, even though it ultimately came from God.

However, in what is probably the most famous and quoted sentence from the bible we have:

"For God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life." (John 3:16).

With FAM, God did not have to become involved with this universe at all, much less give His son. He could have remained completely in heaven with the angels who stayed faithful to Him. That is not the case for all of the other models of creation.

What this means to me is that God chose to "pull" the disordered energy towards Himself while trying to find a way to get some of the energy to become conscious, and then to be with Him. We see this pull as an evolutionary tendency toward increasing complexity and consciousness. Teilhard saw this as the most fundamental aspect of evolution and called it "The Law of Increasing Complexity and Consciousness."

Eventually, life and conscious creatures evolved into existence. God, being conscious, then had a portal to penetrate into space-time because consciousness had appeared in space-time. God worked through the prophets to give His message of salvation. Then, "in the fullness of time," Christ appeared to further establish a link and to be an example. This meant that God was finally able to fully enter the universe and personally give us the message of salvation. The bottom line is that with the Fallen Angel Model the whole evolutionary process can be viewed as a return to consciousness and a return to God.

Here's a couple of quotes from the New Testament that fit this situation:

"What do you think a man does who has a hundred sheep and one of them gets lost? He will leave the other ninety-nine grazing on the hillside and go look for the lost sheep. When he finds it, I tell you he is happier over this one sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not get lost. In just the same way your Father in heaven does not want any of these little ones to be lost." (Matthew 18:12-14).

"Or suppose a woman who has ten silver coins loses one of them—what does she do? She lights a lamp, sweeps the house, and looks carefully everywhere until she finds it. When she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together, and says to them, 'I am so happy I found the coin I lost. Let us celebrate!' In the same way, I tell you the angels of God rejoice over one sinner who repents." (Luke 15:8-10).

This is the vision that I have of how God would respond to a universe created as described by the Fallen Angel Model.

Can God perform miracles in this universe?

According to this model, God is not able to directly produce miracles in the matter and energy of this universe (or chooses not to, respecting the consequences of free will). Yet, according to the Bible, Christ, who Christians believe to be God, did perform miracles. Moses and some of the other prophets also performed miracles. I have certainly been aware of this issue for a very long time and it is not an easy issue to deal with. However, again, FAM provides new insights. With FAM, there is no direct link between God and radiation and matter. In fact, as stated earlier, I see the formation of our space-time universe as an expulsion of God's presence, or probably better stated, most of His influence. Therefore, some kind of linkage needs to be established between God's realm and the radiation and matter in space-time. I think the linkage is established through consciousness that is tied to radiation and matter in space-time. The prophets, saints, and certainly Christ, as God incarnate, were very close to God and yet were a very real part of this universe. I see the linkage of God to the universe as happening through the self-conscious energy of the people close to God, yet living in this universe. We are God's hands and feet, if you will. See Figure 15.

Here are two examples of the linkage between faith and the ability to do miracles that I found in the New Testament:

"Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked him. 'Why could we not drive the demon out?' 'It was because you don't have enough faith,' Jesus answered. 'I assure you that if you have faith as big as a mustard seed, you can say to this hill, 'Go from here to there! and it will go. You could do anything!" (Matthew 17:19).

"Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is respected everywhere except in his own home town and by his relatives and his family.' He was not able to perform any miracles there, except that he placed his hands on a few sick people and healed them. He was greatly surprised, because the people did not have faith." (Mark 6:4-6).

Can FAM give an explanation for how bread can become the literal Body of Christ in Holy Communion, which many Christians believe that it is?

We normally think that a "body" is composed of flesh and blood. The traditional Catholic explanation for this mystery comes from St. Thomas Aquinas, centuries before the dawn of modern science. St. Thomas based his explanation on two terms from Aristotle: "substance" and "accidents." Substance meant what the thing really was, and accidents meant what we perceived when we sensed it. In the natural order of things, the accidents flow from the substance. A piece of bread normally looks like a piece of bread: light, chewy, etc. But God can change the underlying substance if He wants to, without changing the accidents. In this case, when priests say as Christ said, "This is my body," God changes the substance of the bread to be the flesh and blood of Christ, but the accidents remain the same. This explanation has stood the test of time and cannot be proven wrong, but it would be nice to have an explanation that uses modern concepts and modern language.

In the terms of conscious energy, the "body" is the radiation and matter that house or support the conscious or self-conscious energy field. Normally this means that the conscious energy field resides in the brain. Note that there's nothing here that necessarily implies that a body has to be flesh and blood. It just has to be the matter and energy that house or "host" the conscious energy field. If someday we could get a computer to produce a conscious energy field, the body would be the metal, silicon, etc. that make up the hardware. (On a side note, if we could make a computer that produced a self-conscious energy field, would it be a crime to shut it down? Oh well, let's worry about that when and if it ever happens.)

If Christ's spirit were to enter in a special way into the bread, but it stayed bread, we could use the term "body" for the bread, even though it stayed bread, because it's the matter that's housing the spirit of Christ. Maybe that's what Christ meant when he said: "This is my body." I know this is a new way to think about the word "body," but it makes sense to me, and I think is logically consistent with what the notion of "body" really means if you think about it in a general sense.

What is the future for the belief in God?

Well, before we start to guess at the future, let's take a quick look at the past.

**Before Consciousness:** Obviously there was no belief in God in this universe before consciousness and self-consciousness evolved.

**Early Humans:** Given self-consciousness, there arose a realization of the implications of one's actions based on an understanding of causality. This, of course, is the basis of morality, and also what made early humans wonder why the sun rose, why it rained, etc. They began to believe in "gods" that made these things happen.

**Jews and the Old Testament:** God revealed Himself to the Jews as the one true God who is "personable," i.e., a single, self-conscious God who created us, loves us, and wants us to be with Him. Old Testament writings show an expectation that if one does God's will that God will make it better for us in this life.

**Christ and the New Testament:** Christ did not want to destroy, but rather to fulfill the scriptures. I think what he was doing was saying that God may help us some in this world, but God is not of this world, and our real goal is to be with Him after we die. In other words, do not expect belief in God to lead to a paradise on this earth and do not believe that people who have bad luck are sinners. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Christ and eleven of his twelve disciples were martyred for their faith. It is also supported by several of his statements:

John 18:36 – "My kingdom does not belong to this world; if my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. No, my kingdom does not belong here!"

Luke 9:23 – "And he said to them all, 'If anyone wants to come with me, he must forget himself, take up his cross every day, and follow me."

Luke 23:43 – and to the repentant sinner on the cross next to him: "Jesus said to him, 'I promise that today you will be in paradise with me."

Modern Science: In the period of time since modern science began to explain why the sun rose, why it rained, and almost, but not everything else that we see in this world, the belief in God has declined for a number of people. I say "almost" because consciousness, and especially self-consciousness, free will and purpose, are the deal-breakers. If you really believe that science will someday fully explain self-consciousness, free will and purpose—using only the currently known laws of physics and the currently discovered states of energy—it is probably hard for you to believe in God.

Teilhard de Chardin: Teilhard believed that consciousness evolved from matter and energy without God's intervention. However his great insight is that consciousness is not some freak of nature or something that can be fully explained using the currently known laws of nature. This insight changes everything. Teilhard's ideas initially gathered a large following, but have lost favor in recent years. I think Teilhard was far ahead of his time with his insights but his use of unusual terms, like "within" and "without," do not do justice to his insights. He was also a combination of scientist, believer, and mystic and mixed ideas from these realms in ways that tended to confuse people.

**From now on:** I think people will start to realize that consciousness is the most profound mystery in the universe, as Eben Alexander has said many times. Given that, and the use of new terminology like "conscious energy," "change of state," etc., will allow more and more people to accept that the inclusive models introduced in this book to describe credible ways that universe could have begun and developed. Science is already leading us to conclusion that there are non-material aspects at the most basic levels of our universe (Higgs Fields everywhere, non-local interactions, Dark Energy, etc.). I believe that before long most physicists will believe that it's more likely that our universe evolved or devolved from non-material, i.e., spiritual, fields of energy than it is that the universe appeared out of nothing. Maybe science will discover new laws, or even detect conscious energy fields in a laboratory. Either way, I believe that more and more people will begin to realize that a belief in both God and the findings of modern science does make sense. Some of the new models presented in this book even agree with the speculations of modern cosmologists. Given reasonable, inclusive models, there is no longer a need to choose between God and science. You can have it all.

Some final thoughts

The trick about the Fallen Angel Model is that it takes advantage of the fact that energy in different states can have very different properties, and it do not make God directly responsible for everything in this universe. As a result, it allows completely new and exciting answers to age-old problems like, the problem of evil, evolution, and Original Sin.

I could go on with examples of how to apply FAM to other issues and questions, but I figure that by now you've gotten to the point where you could do this yourself using FAM.

In summary, if you think that any of the inclusive models (Evolution+, Teilhard's Model, or FAM) provides a reasonable explanation of how the universe could have begun and evolved, then you have completed the three-step process. If not, you might want to start over, develop your own list of issues, find your own models, and do your own assessments. If you end up with an inclusive model then you can the third step. In any event, remember the model is only the path to the goal, which is to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Now, let's take care of the horses.

Back to Table of Contents

###

Thank you for reading my book. If you find it helpful, please consider writing a review. Also, consider contacting me if you have any comments, questions or problems.

Joe Provenzano
About the Author

Joseph P. Provenzano "Joe Pro" worked for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for over thirty years, building computer models and simulations for the U. S. Army. Before that, he graduated with a Masters degree in physics with minors in philosophy and theology. He has previously written two books related to this topic, which are listed immediately below. Joe Pro is a straight shooter. Known as "Tex Fiddler" in the Single Action Shooting Society®, he's a three-time Senior World Champion Cowboy Action Shooter. In this book he's offering a simple 3-step process, with his opinions provided only as examples of the process. His years of thinking about the roadblocks to his faith in God can help you—if you are open-minded to some new ideas.

**Other Books Written by Joe Provenzano**

_Conscious Energy,_ 1993 and 2000.

_Logical Faith,_ co-authored with Richard W. Kropf, Ph. D, STD, 2007

Information about these books and links to obtain them are at the website below.

**Contact Joe Pro**

I would like to hear from you regarding the ideas in this book. I am also available for questions and limited speaking engagements.

joepro@proandsons.com

My website is Provenzano and Sons — Philosophy and Theology.

It contains information about my other books, some philosophical essays, and a couple of links to cowboy action videos of "Tex Fiddler" and my wife "Wild Bird."

Back to Table of Contents

