Theory of Everything

Theory of Everything

Once upon a time there was a discussion among the gods over where to hide
the key to the Theory of Everything, so that their children would not find
it, and use that secret knowledge for undesirable purposes. Many proposals
were made, long discussions followed, but none of the ideas qualified.

Finally one of the gods said: Let's put the key inside our children; they
will never think of looking for it there for a long time; by the time they
are intelligent enough to discover the key to the Theory of Everything,
hopefully they will also be wise enough to use that secret knowledge
properly.

All the gods agreed, and so that is how the key to the Theory of Everything
came to be hidden within us.

Now here is the key to the Theory of Everything: the human genome.

Now here is the Theory of Everything: the human genome created the universe
for the production of human life in its own image, similarly as a seed
creates a tree for the purpose of self-reproduction.

One of the reasons why we remained in the dark is that upon high scientific
authority we have been told repeatedly -- and it is taught in nearly all
institutions of education, and is laid down in textbooks -- that the concept
of evolution from a simple beginning is scientific, but creation from the
highest form of existence is not; that evolution is a scientific theory
because it is subject to scientific tests and refutation, but the various
accounts of creation can neither be verified nor refuted through scientific
investigation; that no alternatives to evolution should be taught in our
public schools because there are no scientific alternatives to evolution.

These convictions, widely accepted and deeply rooted as they are, simply do
not tally with obvious facts. First of all, the concept of evolution from a
simple beginning makes no sense, scientific or otherwise. Let's face it: the
delusion that a simple cause can generate an effect greater than is found in
the cause is most irrational. The difference between the simple cause and
the complex effect has to come from nothing. So the evolutionists managed to
get their hocus-pocus into the public school curriculum.

Now, is evolution's concept of common descent false? Yes and no. If common
descent is from a simple beginning, the answer is yes. But if common descent
is from a most complex beginning, the answer is no.

This brings us to the evolutionist contention that no alternative scientific
explanation exists for the phenomenon of evolution. Just as the idea of
evolution from a simple common ancestor, this belief is another demonstrable
delusion. If we turn Darwin's concept of evolution from a simple beginning
upside down, and propose common descent from the most complex form of life
that exists, we get a rational theory that makes life the seed or common
ancestor of the universe.

Based on the fact that the parameters of our universe are exquisitely
fine-tuned for the production of life, and on the fact that the cosmic
system yields the complexity of human life, we are even allowed to infer
that human life created the universe for the production of human life in its
own image, similarly as a seed creates a tree for the purpose of
self-reproduction.

So the observation of nature tells us that if we roll back the expansion of
the universe in time, it is reducible not to an inanimate initial
singularity, nor to a quantum blip, but rather to a single and most complex
initial cosmic seed. If this seed theory of creation is correct, then we don't
need a theory of quantum gravity to describe the process of creation,
because the universe does not have a quantum origin, but a seed origin. Thus
there is no need to treat the universe as though it were a quantum particle.
Rather, we must treat it as a cosmic tree of life that unfolds from a single
seed.

The cosmic seed is postulated to be uncreated and immortal, because the
universe has no power to act upon the initial seed of its own origin, just
as a tree has no power to act upon the initial seed of its own origin.

We can rest assured that this account of creation is not a new invention.
The theory that human life constitutes the genotype of the phenotype
universe, or the cosmic system's input and output, has been preached to us
by many enlightened individuals. Christ is one of them. In Revelation 22-13
he disclosed the key to the origin of the universe: "I am the Alpha and the
Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Krishna in the
Bhagavad Gita is more straightforward. He told Prince Arjuna: "O Arjuna, I
am the divine seed of all lives. In this world, nothing animate or inanimate
exists without me."

Thus Krishna, just as Christ, tells us that human life is the procreative
seed of the universe. Even in Islam the Prophet Mohammed is described as the
seed of the universe. Finally, Manly P. Hall made this observation in his
monumental work, The Secret Teachings of All Ages (19th ed., Los Angeles,
The Philosophical Research Society, 1973, p. CLIV): "A philosopher might
declare that a universe could be made out of a man, but the foolish would
regard this as an impossibility, not realizing that a man is a seed from
which a universe may be brought forth."

So no fictitious gods or spirits are needed, nor Darwin's imaginary "natural
selection," nor the fantasy of a quantum fluctuation or big bang, only the
fact of human life's existence. As Christ told to Phillip, if you see me,
you see the Creator, Father, or Cosmic Ancestor. Christ was enlightened. He
knew, and preached, that the universe is human life's way of making
reproductions of itself, just as a mustard tree is a tiny seed's way of
making reproductions of itself.

Now I'd like to know what you have against this purely naturalistic theory
of creation. I don't mind if you call it the Grand Unified Theory of
Everything.

Kazmer Ujvarosy
San Francisco, CA