Our Existence

By Joseph Zvirzdin

We present a model of the space-time continuum and the unification of all of the fundamental forces of nature. With that description we explain how the spirit of man developed upon our planet through the processes of evolution. We describe the origin of God and how the Spirit of God was generated in our universe. We then explore our own individual identities as eternal beings that have always existed, and discuss our unending projects and purposes in relation to God. In short, we unfold the meaning of life, and answer some of the deep and hidden questions of our existence.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Jul 17, 2019
• ISBN: 9780359789450

Book preview

Our Existence

Our Existence    by Joseph Zvirzdin

Copyright © 2019 by Joseph Zvirzdin. 

All rights reserved.  No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission. 

ISBN:  978-0-359-78945-0

Published by

Lulu Enterprises

860 Aviation Parkway

Suite 300

Morrisville, NC 27560

Acknowledgments

Special appreciation is due to my wife Catherine, and all of my children for providing me with the time that has been required during the summers, holidays, and other occasions to work on this project.  Their continued encouragement and support has helped me to believe in this work and has given me the strength to continue with it when it all seemed well above my abilities. 

I must also thank my family and friends for their feedback during this project.  They have on many occasions strengthened my resolve to complete this book.

This work does not represent the teachings or beliefs of any academic or religious group or organization.  I alone am responsible for what appears in this book.  Though I speak with an assuming voice and put forward principles as with some authority, I am simply expressing my personal conception of our existence. For me, it has been a refreshing exercise in explaining and comprehending the baffling complexities of life. My intent is only to share those explanations with others. I hope that it will benefit all who take any of their time to peruse it. 

Introduction

One can never consent to creep

when one feels an impulse to soar

Helen Keller¹

Throughout recorded history there have been witnesses to something beyond this life and beyond this world.   They have come back from death or near death, or their experiences have come about with no trauma or reason at all.  There are men, women and children (religious and not religious at all) who have firsthand knowledge of something that is not generally viewed or experienced by the majority. 

From what has been recorded it is apparent that throughout history there have been many thousands (probably millions) of people who are witnesses to a life beyond our limited physical vision. It is very likely that someone you know is a witness. 

The witnesses of the inner world will tell you that what they experienced is as real as anything they have seen, felt, or heard.  Yet some find it difficult to accept the testimonies of the witnesses at face value. And so, those who have experienced that other dimension to human existence soon learn to be careful who they share their experience with.  It is too sacred of a treasure for them to have it disparaged, or to have their honesty or sanity questioned. 

Surprising to me is that the scientific community seems more anxious to dismiss these claims then to explore them. It has been suggested that the rational explanation could be that it all results from abnormal activity of neurotransmitters in the brain, a lack of blood circulation, cerebral hypoxia, or a surge in electrical activity. 

In experiments with various chemicals, researchers have been able to induce out of body experiences in some of their subjects.  This has led to the suggestion, by some, that Near Death Experiences and other such phenomena are only physical symptoms of a chemical imbalance.  With a sweep of the hand they brush aside all of the intricate and detailed information given by the witnesses, forgetting that their own scientific conclusions are generalizations based upon hypothetical interpretations of the anecdotal descriptions given by their experimental subjects. 

The beauty of science is that it is an adventure.  Our challenge is to explore and to seek out the unknown. The truly scientific approach would be to admit that there are a multitude of unknown dimensions to this existence that we are only beginning to perceive. Why this anxious reluctance to consider these experiences as real phenomena? 

The types of contact with the unseen world are as varied as humanity itself.  The causes of their visits to the other side are also innumerable.  It would be unwise and unscientific to suggest that they are all the manifestations of a chemical imbalance.  We should not be so quick to jump to conclusions and dismiss the testimonies of so many. It would be wiser to listen to the witnesses and to hear what they have to tell us. 

Science is a discipline that prides itself on being an objective body of scholars searching for the answers to our existence, and yet we shy away from considering other dimensions to our existence and label them metaphysical or supernatural.  Could it be possible that they are natural phenomena?

Perhaps this impatient response to unknown phenomena is the result of the great gulf that now divides science and religion. Through the years religious authorities have been quick in condemning scientific thought, and a rift has developed between the two disciplines. 

In the continuing clash between science and religion it would appear at times that the great stumbling block has been the Bible.  But it is not really the text of that book that has been the problem, but rather the people who have interpreted it according to their own ideas. 

As you are aware, Galileo argued with the Church leaderships on the condemnation of Copernicus’ book on his heliocentric theory of the universe (Revolutionibus). Why was it that a Sun centered solar system was condemned as heresy? Because, as Copernicus predicted, …there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it.²

And what were the words in the Bible that were the excuse to deny reason? It is in the Old Testament, in the Book of Joshua. "Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.  Is not this written in the book of Jasher?  So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. ³

Now for me, I cannot see for the life of me how this passage of scripture says that the Earth is immovable and the center of the universe. I think that notion came from the mind of some man (probably Ptolomy), and it was that thought which became the interpretation of the word of God. Not God’s idea but the thoughts of men. 

And so we find the same problem today.  Why do so many sects insist that the Earth is only a few thousand years old? Well, it took only six days to create the entire planet and all living things in it according to Genesis. That does not seem reasonable to even the simplest minds. But fortunately the New Testament came along with the words of the Apostle Peter who said, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.⁴

Somewhere down the road those words became the sacred key to Earth’s history. This man-made idea has become a fact for some, that one day (as recorded in Genesis) is exactly 1000 years, like a beautiful and divine equation. But is that really what Peter was saying? 

For some, every syllable in the Bible (taken in or out of context) is a truth that correlates exactly with the physical universe. Where did that idea come from? As always, from the minds of a few men who assume they have the authority to determine those things.

Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler were all men of faith who believed that God was the author of the universe. But they would have some critical counsel for the religious ministers of our day who use the Bible to teach science. Kepler said that we should regard the Holy Spirit as a divine messenger, and refrain from wantonly dragging Him into physics class.⁵ Galileo pointed out that the Bible’s purpose was different from that of science.  He said, I believe that the intention of Holy Writ was to persuade men of the truths necessary for salvation… if the intention of the sacred scribes had been to teach the people astronomy [or the other sciences], they would have not passed over the subject so completely. ⁶

It troubles me when I see a minister with a Bible raised up in his hand proclaiming that with its authority he is sure that the Earth is a certain age, or that dinosaurs, humans, and everything else in the fossil record all existed together on Earth at the same time.  The reality is that those are just the thoughts and interpretations of a man. Some modern preachers do not realize that they are acting the part of the Holy Fathers and Inquisitors of Galileo’s day in their fight with the scientific community, badly distorting some passage of Scripture.

Now, on the other hand, some in the scientific community are no less at fault in their proclamations of truth.  Recently, one spokesman posted a video on the internet stating that we must now accept the theories and models developed from scientific inquiry as emergent truths and that scientific theories are truth whether we believe it or not.⁷   That attitude has stifled scientific progress in the past, and continues to do so today.  Here are just a few examples.

Origin of life hypotheses are sketchy at best, all biologists know that. In 1953 Stanley Miller and Herald Urey conducted an experiment that demonstrated the abiotic synthesis of amino acids and polypeptides (some of the molecules that make up living things).  The chemistry requires a reducing atmosphere (without oxygen), and it was assumed that the ancient atmosphere was filled with methane, ammonia, nitrogen, and hydrogen, but lacked oxygen. 

And so, a long narrative has been developed through the years which describes the coming together of these ancient molecules from the ancient atmosphere.  The molecules somehow formed into cells, and then eventually evolved into photosynthetic organisms (cyanobacteria).  These bacteria then generated the oxygen that changed our atmosphere a billion years later.  

However, in recent decades scientists have shown solid evidence that there was oxygen present much earlier, and that the ancient atmosphere was much the same as it is today. ⁸ More and more good research, published in accredited journals continue to confirm this analysis.⁹

Yet, despite the science that proves otherwise, the old speculative hypothesis has become an emergent truth.   You and I were taught it, and during this very school year almost every high school or university in the world will still be teaching this same creation narrative without mentioning the science that proves that it is unworkable. I personally am not troubled with having the theory of evolution around.  It is a useful model.  But a problem arises when some in the scientific community become overly anxious to preserve a theory because of personal beliefs. 

Another example: Since my days in high school it was considered a fact that the first humans to come to America were Clovis Man. They came by the land bridge along the Bering Straits.  This scenario was believed because of the archeological evidence found in Clovis, New Mexico, which dates back 11,000 years, coincides with the time that man should have arrived. 

Because of the great prestige of a few very popular anthropologists no one dared suggest anything different.  I was once warned not to write about coastal migration in my dissertation says Jon Erlandson, an archeologist at the University of Oregon in Eugene.  My adviser said it would ruin my career, ¹⁰

Because this theory was considered truth it took another archeologist (Tom Dillehay) 20 years (receiving harassment and ridicule) before he could convince the Scientific community (The Holy Ones) that Clovis Man was not the first here in America.¹¹

That is 20 years of damning our understanding.  Yet the theory is still taught today in social studies and science classes throughout the world as if it were a truth. Why?  -Because it fits with the Out of Africa narrative of human evolution, another emergent truth. 

And there are many other examples where a theory was taught as a truth and later found to be incorrect, but yet the idea persists for decades later. That is not because of science but rather because of the beliefs of men and women.

How can anyone in good conscience say that the current model of the evolution of the universe is an immutable fact?  Some theories allow us to look back 14 billion years and tell us exactly what happened at each millisecond after the universe came into being. With their mathematical models some have described exactly when quarks were formed or when the first atoms came into existence.  Others have described the properties of black holes and a myriad of other phenomena employing only mathematical models. 

There is certainly nothing wrong with these models.  They are wonderful devises for exploration and discovery. However, The Standard Model is inconsistent with General Relativity and cannot even explain gravity.  But so often the theories employing such mathematical conceptions are explained to us as if they were facts.  That is where science stumbles; when the thoughts and beliefs of men and women are taught as truths.

Ptolemy’s model of the universe was useful, it made fairly accurate predictions.  But scientific progress was stifled when the Holy Fathers turned his model into a sacred truth.  Some people in the scientific community feel a need to declare that scientific theories are truth, perhaps because their own beliefs require a mechanism for the creation of life without a creator, and those theories seem to support their beliefs. Scientific research is a wonderful adventure, but none of us is as objective as we might believe.

In every nation there is an explanation of man’s existence in religious terms.  These religions provide some reasons for unseen dimensions of human existence. But these explanations are also mostly the thoughts and ideas of men and women. 

Ancient prophets have told of a supreme being who has created all things in the universe, including our body and soul. Humanity has received instructions from this being.  He has provided a brief description of the continuation of our existence beyond the death of this mortal body.  If we follow his instruction it will be a wonderful and glorious place.  If we live contrary to the word of God then we will regret it. Much of the rest is just the thoughts and interpretations of the ministers. 

I am not content with that. I want to know why.  What is the reason for it all?  What is spirit? Where did God come from? What is the purpose of my conscious existence in human form on the planet Earth?

It has been imagined by some that we are like toys or pets that God has created so that he can give his attention to us.  Religions have taught that He wants to give us joy and peace forever, and in return He desires that we pray to him, sing to him, worship him, and obey him.  We were brought into existence to perform in a certain way whereby we may inherit heaven or hell.

Why? Is he bored?  Is eternal life so lonely that The Supreme Being cannot be happy without designing little insignificant creatures to play with?   This may seem a harsh analysis.  Yet, the traditions that we have inherited insist that we exist solely at the pleasure of another being.  If we are not insignificant playthings then why would such a being destroy the majority of his creations and confine them to eternal torture? 

A fundamental tenant of many religions consigns billions to a burning hell while an insignificant few are allowed to live on in love and peace forever.  It would seem that we are all like pawns that the supposed being of the most perfect love shrinks not from consuming in unquenchable fire; all because one group or another does not confess a particular form of faith or perform in a specific way. 

If our spirit or soul came into being at our physical birth by the designs of that Supreme Being, why is it not extinguished at death rather than sent to an endless hell?  It would appear from what has been taught that God wants suffering, it must be important to him.  Not just the sufferings of this life.  He wants the majority of human beings to endure the flames forever. 

We are not being rash here.  This is the beast that has been imagined.  If the explanations of the major religions are correct, then our existence has little personal meaning, for it is not our existence after all, but only the thoughts and desires of a separate entity.  My purpose must be my purpose, meaning, that it must not come from an external source. Each individual identity has a will. If it can be extinguished then it is not my will. It is then not my existence, but only someone or something else’s; a thought, a whim, a bit of clay to play with. 

If purpose is not owned by the individual, if our purpose after this life does not spring from our own personal will of existence, then we are merely appendages without a true will of our own.  Some would say that all is God’s, it is His purposes that are fulfilled, and that it enough for us to consider.  We have no right to question God or His purposes. We should be grateful that he in his kindness has brought us into being.  … Is that enough of an explanation for you?

Most of the major belief systems acknowledge the continuation of consciousness after this life, whether it is in heaven or in hell.  Why would consciousness continue forever if it were not eternal to begin with?  How can something become eternal? If God created your eternal spirit out of nothing, then what is it that the lucky ones get to do throughout all eternity?  Perhaps some would have no problem with playing harps and singing praises to the Supreme Being throughout endless time. They may walk about gazing at the features of their beautiful world, or peering down to those consuming in the flames of hell at times to remind them of how good they have it.

No wonder so many people find it hard to believe in such a being, and decide that there is no God, that spiritual things are only a figment of our imagination, and that God only exists in the thoughts of the deluded minds of the faithful. 

The skeptics view all existence (including all life forms) as nothing but the result of a series of random events. Our conscious human existence is only the result of billions upon billions of accidental occurrences originating from a singularity that suddenly expanded some 14 billion years ago.

Life and death are before us every day, and it is easy to assume that the way of all the Earth will be the way with us all, and as there was a beginning to our existence at birth there will also be an end at death. 

The position of the atheist is determined in part by the irrational behavior of the supposed God.  How can such a being, which is said to be kind, loving, and benevolent, be so cruel and inhumane to his children?  Why would such a powerful and intelligent being idly witness the misery and suffering of so many without intervening?  Where is the scientific evidence to confirm the existence of a supremely intelligent being at work in the universe?  

Some have reasoned that in man’s ancient past he was insecure and invented powerful beings (like a child invents an imaginary friend) to help him have some sense of control over the environment.  It seems plausible to some that mankind could have developed a faulty notion of cause and effect as he witnessed unusual events or had beneficial things happen to him.  This could explain why humankind now ascribes such things to the culturally developed traditions of a God.  

What do you say?  What are