Chapter 23

Dispute over the creation of universe

Behind the creation of the universe is an unimaginable amount of energy shaped by very precise laws. They are primarily referred to as the laws of physics. The sudden emergence of energy and laws in the creation of space-time has been dubbed the Big Bang by scientists. This information was supplemented by the results of analyzes that this violent event occurred 13.8 billion years ago.

The theory of eternal existence must therefore answer two of the most important questions. The first is: What was this energy that built the universe? Theory answer: This energy is the physical filling of space-time derived from the primordial state of energy, i.e. from the Energy of the First Cause. The second question is: What are these laws that shaped the universe? Theory answer: These are perfect principles having their eternal source in the Intelligent Personality of the First Cause, which the theory calls the Original Being.

The theory of eternal existence shows that scientists analyzing the course of the Big Bang using Planck time stretching looks like explaining the phenomenon being studied, ignoring its most important source and the meaning of its existence. The lack of intentional participation of the Intelligent First Cause, called in my theory the Original Being, is a huge problem for scientists. They must state that they do not know what exploded, why it happened and how it happened. Moreover, the cosmological inflation they propose is not actually some isolated event, but simply the process of creating the space-time of the universe. It seems that their explanation of the creation of the universe is the miraculous emergence of "something" from "nothing", a bit like the proverbial "rabbit out of a hat".

It is now seen that the cosmological inflation that has begun continues to some extent in the form of the expansion of the universe. This means that the universe was always going to expand. Science recognizes that over different periods of time, the rate of this expansion depends on an undefined balance between different states of energy and matter. Of course, it is worth remembering that this balance (or lack of it) does not apply to energy or matter known to us in forms that can be studied by science. The process of expanding the universe depends on the alleged dark energy and the equally hypothetical dark matter. Exactly, it's about phenomena that are quite difficult to study, about which we know very little. Knowledge about dark energy and dark matter is still very scarce. So we do not know what may happen in the future, both in the near and in the farthest.

A common problem in the world of scientists is avoiding mentioning the emergence of the laws of physics according to which the cosmos was created. For they do not want to consider the possibility of the existence of a Creative First Cause. This means that scientists, when analyzing the fact of the creation of the universe, are not able to determine the source of the strict laws accompanying the appearance of a gigantic amount of energy.

The theory of eternal existence also applies to another irrational behavior of scientists. Namely, most of them define the beginning of the universe as the Big Bang. Then the same scientists challenge this naming of this cosmic event. The point is that this "burst" was not a typical explosion as we know it in our world. The creation of the universe did not look as if an explosive had been set off. It was silent, i.e. it did not produce sound waves. So there was no waveform indicating that galaxies, stars or planets are debris from the explosion. They are arranged in a completely different way than after a typical explosion. So you can see that the universe could not have been created in an explosion. So it was a rapid expansion of space. The beginning of the universe should therefore be called the Great Beginning or the Rapid Appearance of the Universe. In general, the science of the very beginning of the universe has very little knowledge.

Extending the above statements regarding the scientific description of the creation of the universe, it is worth knowing that my theory suggests a certain complement to scientific hypotheses. It may indicate the presence of a "divine source" of this phenomenon. Namely, the operation of the super force at the very beginning of the universe caused the emergence of a force field, called the Higgs field. It was in it that the most fundamental particles, i.e. the creative Higgs bosons, were formed, which gave mass to the forming matter. In other words, in this field there appeared "mass energy impulses" shaping elementary particles, whose "mass spore" could be this boson. It had to emerge from primary energy, which could be intentionally introduced into the emerging universe from the sphere beyond time and space. No wonder scientists called this particle "the divine particle", indirectly suggesting the possibility of the existence of an unknown primary energy coming from the First Cause. My theory adds that this force field constantly supports the fundamental subatomic forces that scientists read by the laws of quantum mechanics. Thus, the level of credibility of the scientific version can come close to the version of the theory of eternal existence, which says about the emergence of the universe from primary energy, i.e. from the Energy of the First Cause "belonging" to the Original Being.

Summarizing the above, it can be concluded that the theory of eternal existence, despite the clarification and straightening of scientists' statements, has nothing against the propagation of a scientific vision of the creation of the universe. This is because a very large percentage of humanity does not accept religious visions, and expects science to fully explain all phenomena observed in the universe; including its creation. As the creator of the theory of eternal existence, I realize that for the time being few people will be interested in it, and even fewer will accept it as their point of view. The theory of eternal existence deals with religious topics that science shuns. Therefore, before it convinces a larger group of supporters, it is good to constantly support science with the hope that one day it will take into account the necessity of the existence of the Original Personal Being who is the Creator of the universe. Science can therefore prove over time that the activities of the Original Being are also "scientific". Perhaps soon there will be a proper understanding of the meaning of His existence, both from the point of view of science and "non-scientific" phenomena.