Make your own free website on

G is for God

Janansan Books. ISBN 0-968730

Copyright © 2000 – 2009

Library of Congress

All rights reserved

Paul Adams

Sherman Oaks, CA, USA


To Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, two of the most celebrated atheists of our time, men I admire for their acumen and genuineness. I hope gentlemen that by reading my essay you will come to discover your true potential. Your mercurial minds, engaging smiles and compassion for the underprivileged make you prime candidates for godhood. My only lament is that you resorted to selling your books instead of making them available gratis to the public, as I do here. Mixing commerce with philosophy sends a mixed  message that perhaps you are only in it for the money. It smacks of crass televangelism and empire building. You are much smarter than that. Why follow in the footsteps of those you criticize?


What is the meaning of life? That is the ageless question. For some it is a riddle best left unanswered. To others, this sort of discussion represents mere rhetorical fluff, a distraction from the weightier matters of eking a living, planning for retirement, and enjoying the moment. But, in the battlefield of ideologies civilizations rise and fall on the merits of an answer. This program is not a panacea for our social, economic, or political ills. It will take more than an eloquent economic theory or a sound theological treatise to cure this world’s ills. Why then contribute to the cacophony of theories and ideologies?

If theologians have answered the ageless question, then why is it that we pray one day out of seven for transcendence and the rest of the week we prey on each other? For too long, religion has answered the ageless question with paradox. The more esoteric its dogma and the more phenomenal its miracles, the firmer has been its grasp on its followers.

If it is cryptic or spellbinding or implausible they will come. But, we live in a highly rational, technologically advanced era in which we have come to expect more than supernatural wonders and token medieval mantras. Theology which fails to incorporate reason or deviates from certain absolutes ultimately disengages itself from reality and alienates its

followers. As panoramic as its canon may be, and as charismatic its oracles, if it attempts to answer the ageless question with dissonant postulates it will discover in due course that come they may, but sooner or later, they will go.

It is no wonder then that increasingly we have turned to science for meaning. Science is concise, and tidy. Yet, as open as we are to the idea of extra-terrestrial life, we still recoil at the thought of a higher intelligence intervening in our personal affairs. If God exists, we wouldn't be having all these wars, we lament. Of course, the flip side of that coin is: if God didn't exist, we would not have come into being in the first place during  that particular creative chapter, or perhaps brought into being in another far more repressed and uglier planet, or even into a planet where there was no challenge at all.


Science is not without its limits. Star Wars initiatives keep us at bay, tethering us like mad junkyard dogs to a crumbling planet. And at the pinnacle of our civilization we still cling to the notion that only the fittest survive. Of course, we sleep better at night when market indices are up; and we are renewed with hope at the thought that genetic engineers may soon isolate the immortality gene. In the meantime, NASA is stepping up its pace to probe the universe. As if we desperately need to

conquer outer space with our yet unconquered inner space. Tidy science is doing more than extending our life span; it is effectively branding our morality in time and space.

In an attempt to arrive at the meaning of life, let us first put to rest the spurious notion that truth can only cascade down from the burnished hallways of academia. Truth knows no social strata. It is not a function of erudition, status, race or political persuasion.

In this discussion we demonstrate our assertions logically by examining the concepts of truth, intelligence, existence, free will, justice, covenant, and godhood. With the exception of the odd metaphor and a few references to physics, the use of hyperbole, mythology, canonized or apocryphal sacred text, epiphany, incantation, history - whether allegorical, apologetic or anecdotal - is intentionally omitted.

The concept of infinity is particularly intriguing. How to describe endless space and time? Conversely, can existence be confined to a finite, closed universe? The mind has difficulty grasping either construct. We adopted infinity as our backdrop for the simple reason that mathematics cannot refute it. We do not catalogue cases in order to emerge with a moral code.

This is not a course in ethics. No path is prescribed; yet, various paths may intersect ours. The answer to the ageless question is neither shrouded nor encrypted in a furtive attempt to allure a following, or market books, but emerges as a critical mass which will hopefully arouse our sensibilities to the astonishing potential inherent in each one of us....and to the

magnificent tapestry we know as Life.

Chapter 1


What is the Truth? Furthermore, what is the importance of knowing the

Truth? From a young age we are taught to always tell the truth. We use

the term 'Integrity' to describe people who are True to their convictions.

High Fidelity describes an audio component that reproduces True original

sound. We consider Truth to be something immutable and

irrefutable. In geometry, something either is or is not congruent, or true.

Something true holds up to the test of time and scrutiny. It cannot be

 mistaken for anything else.

Science demonstrates Truth empirically. Philosophy arrives at Truth through

flawless logic. Religion establishes Truth (some would argue Irrationally) through

corroborated testimony. Truth cannot be confined by space and time. If a

particle of Truth was to be discovered logically or empirically tomorrow, it would not be

truer tomorrow than ten billion years ago. Electricity and fission

had always existed independent of their discoveries; and, so does much

of the undiscovered universe.

How to imbue meaning to the universe? Of all the methodologies used to discover

Truth, none is more potent than the scientific method. But, it is not

without its inherent flaws, as we shall discover. We could name the

principle by which science tests Truth as empirical certainty.

The only drawback with empirical certainty is that in order for new truth

to be demonstrated, science, or at least the instruments by which it quantifies

 phenomena must advance.

It is for this reason and for this reason alone that universal laws remain

shrouded. There are simply no instruments accurate enough with which to

measure and quantify All Truth. While empirical certainty is a necessary

filter for Truth, it is by no means a sufficient filter, for there is much in our

experience which empirical certainty excludes, and which we

nonetheless consider relevant, meaningful, and essential for our survival.

Entire sectors of the economy, such as the filmmaking industry, rely on the soft

science of psychometrics. Institutions and governments

are founded on such unquantifiable maxims as loyalty, love, and patriotism.

Therefore, adopting empirical certainty exclusively as our benchmark in

defining the universe precludes much of what we consider essentially a given in

our existence. Science is limited by a lack of instruments.

We have no choice, but to adopt a more inclusive principle by which to

explain the universe. Let’s call such a principle empirical probability.

It embraces that which we cannot quantify. 

If there is no scientific explanation for an event, then it is only Probably

True, not certainly True. Probability has its pros and cons.

Probability, the mortifying idea that uncertainty and

randomness pervades the universe led Albert Einstein to decry Quantum

Mechanics and exclaim: God does not play at dice. But, what did Einstein

know? In search for order and congruence, Albert spent the rest of his

reclusive life trying to discover a theory which would unify the

randomness of Quantum Mechanics with the congruence of Newtonian

Physics into a Theory of Everything. He never found it. Perhaps, he

started out with the wrong assumptions.

In order to begin explaining our universe, we propose an initial equation:

U= f(C)

Where U stands for Universe and C for Congruence. The equation is

starkly simplistic. It does not describe the operative laws of the universe. It simply

states: The Universe is a function of Congruence.

We can manipulate the equation to describe unique models. For

argument's sake we could say: U= f[g(C)] , where g represents the law of gravity, describing a

universe that is a function of only one law, Gravity; something which could never happen.

For an ailment such as a brain tumor to disappear inexplicably without

any medical intervention or for a myriad of other paranormal events to occur, the implication is

 that some process yet unquantifiable to science is at work. The unquantifiable law

which operates on the inexplicable can be referred to, for lack of a

better word, as Faith (a word I personal decry for its overuse. I could have used the phrase Law of

 Attraction, but that would have been another cliche).

Faith attempts to explain the inexplicable. The day inexplicable miracles can be explained with empirical certainty is the day they no longer will be referred to as miracles, but as procedures.

A more fitting equation for our universe might be:

U= f[ω(C)]

Where ω stands for all universal laws, discovered and undiscovered. This equation assures us that

just as the law of gravity operates in the case of a falling apple, so must

a law operate at some level in the case of, say, thought transference,

 clairvoyance, magic, prayer, out-of-body experiences, remote viewing, time travel,

 spontaneous combustion, extra-terrestrial life, exorcisms, levitation, or resurrection.

Just as science relies on a preponderance of evidence, conversely Faith

relies on a dearth of evidence. The more insurmountable the explanation, the greater

 the need for Faith.

Faith permeates our very existence. It can be found in the game theories of politics, the machinations of personal

relationships, the rules of commerce, not to mention religious worship.

Also commonly known as Trust, Belief, or Confidence, Faith is the bedrock of our

soft science we know as Business, without which life on the planet would

grind to a standstill. When parties to a transaction are said to be acting in Good Faith we

understand that the parties are expected, with some degree of certainty, to

uphold their end of the bargain. In order to arrive at a point where trust

can take root, however, sometimes a token of Good Faith or a pledge is

required to act as evidence that one will remain  - here is that word again - True to one's word.

In life, some of the instruments we use to convey our True intentions

include down payments, collaterals, personal guarantees, letters of

introduction and credit, engagement rings, dowries, vows, and oaths. In

finance, disclaimers such as 'past performance is no guarantee of future

results' indemnify financial advisers and infuse investors with Faith.

In investing circles sometimes the evidence is scant, and at other times it is

 virtually non-existent. When one's investment decisions are based on shreds of

 evidence - or, in more recent years, in shredded evidence - or evidence that runs contrary to

popular opinion, one is said to be a gambler, or a contrarian. 'Going out

on a limb' is an expression suggesting a person has perched one's

fortunes precariously on the edge of the abyss, thereby acting entirely on

unsubstantiated Faith; albeit, one is being simply True to one's convictions.

 The principle which most nearly approaches a maxim, or binding principle, particularly in Business,

is the principle of Covenant. A Covenant is the setting forth of terms, conditions and remedies by which

two or more parties come to an agreement, or as we say, arrive at a meeting of the minds.

Covenants keep the unquantifiable irrational portion of our existence in a semblance of rational order; they allow society to experience conflict, accord, resolution, and on a much grander context, Evolution, Progress, and Ascension. We are constantly submitting hard evidence and tokens of Good Faith. Entering into Covenants is as indispensable as breathing air. Faith and evidence, then, are the two constants of our evolution. In our most unreasonable quantum leaps of Faith we have produced some of our greatest achievements. Evidence and, in its absence, Faith are the twin pillars upon which rests the coin of the realm, Truth, in our congruent universe.

 As much as we wish to conveniently sidestep the issue of  Faith, we cannot escape the fact that our very civilization depends on it.  If a law was passed to abolish people of Faith, it would necessarily include Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, proponents of The Secret, Luciferians, Pagans, and any purveyors of sounder social order. 

Chapter 2


What processes Evidence and Faith? I am belaboring the point intentionally.  This is a crucial topic if we are to arrive at the Truth. Intuitively, we know the answer to this question to be: Intelligence, artificial or natural. The concept that only intelligence can comprehend the truth is a self-evident Truth, or a tautology. It is true because it simply is true. The act of comprehending denotes intelligence. The real issue at hand is 'scale of comprehension' and if the term 'God' can be used interchangeably with a High form of Intelligence.

 What constitutes higher intelligence? Design is a function of intelligence. A design that requires the collaboration of

several intelligences as masterminded by a super-intelligence is a far more complex design than one which involves a single intelligence. As well, a design that incorporates all universal laws is one that requires a higher intelligence than one that incorporates say, only one law. A design (and by inference, an intelligence) could be as quintessential and quaint as a

quark or as complex and comprehensive as a cosmos. 

The question raised is whether or not the universe was organized (some would argue Created) by a higher intelligence, an arch-mastermind, euphemistically referred to as 'God'. How high does Intelligence go? Given that we agreed to employ eternity as our backdrop, intelligence could be limitless. If one fact can be known, a second fact can also be known, ad infinitum. 

To answer the question from a different perspective we can introduce probability, Einstein’s nemesis. If we were to assume that everything happens randomly, then the universe must be forever mutating unpredictably. Albert simply could not accept this notion. In such a universe nothing would occur with any degree of certainty. It kept him awake at night.

Some events do seem to occur randomly in our violent and hostile universe. Things seem to bump into each other, or get sucked down black holes with irreparable consequences. An unpredictable violent universe could also be a well-calibrated transformational universe. Let's compare the universe to a top. If I take a top between my fingers and make it spin on a counter, to the untrained eye it may seem to wobble unpredictably and eventually spin out of control off the counter. But, if I understand the exact dynamics of the forces exerted on the top before each spin, I should be able to predict precisely how long it will spin and the complexity of its path..

 The story is told of a toddler clothed only in a plastic diaper who fell from a nine story balcony. On the

way down, the diaper filled with air and upon impact exploded into myriad pieces, absorbing his fall and in the process saving his life. Some would call this a miracle. Irrespective of the semantics, the probability of

recreating this event is infinitesimally minute, unless one knew how. Was the child saved by design or mere probability? There are many other stories like it. For some this was a case of providence interceding; for others it was all a matter of probability at work.

Weather is another phenomenon to which we ascribe probabilities. As a hurricane is about to make landfall, weather forecasters collect data from their instruments and predict with various degrees of certainty the probable

path the hurricane will take.

What if one was privy to the combined forces contributing to the dynamic of the hurricane? One could then predict its general and specific effects with 100% certainty. Conceivably, a higher intelligence with the right instruments and with enough experience, could calculate the seemingly infinite randomness of a hurricane right down to its last raindrop, and even alter its course.  

If we have arrived at a point in our development where after a mere one hundred years of scientific research we are able to clone life, what could we possibly achieve in another thousand years? Such a peek into the future is a leap of Faith no more daunting than retrospectively explaining our origins. I, for one, have not seen any videos of apes transforming into homo sapiens. I can only imagine the complexity of mounting legions of cameras which would record continuously over a period of a million years. Yet, I still believe in a form of evolution. I have Faith evolution is, to a certain extent, True. Given our predilection to analyze, invent and create, it is mathematically impossible for us, over time, not to develop into intelligences we refer to as 'gods'.  Perhaps, that is our destiny and the magnitude and its implications are far too staggering for us. And once gods, perhaps we will create life by bypassing the evolutionary process altogether. Perhaps, we will be in a hurry, and simply use our advanced knowledge of genetic engineering to produce ready-made life forms. Perhaps, some of us will use a combination of evolution and creationism. Perhaps, we will discover a yet third type of biogenesis. Perhaps, we will not wish to undertake such a big job as creating a galaxy all at once. Perhaps, we will be satisfied with creating a planet for starters, and progress to bigger and better things over time. Perhaps, not all of the universe is a product of design. What is so wrong with that? Perhaps, creation implies a collaborative effort, and is not the province of a single 'creator'.  Instead of saying, as an egotistical god would, "let me create", perhaps we will say, as egalitarian male and female co-creators, "let us create". Perhaps, the majority of us have not evolved to the point where we can even conceptualize our potential. Perhaps, it is an affront to our sensibilities to be confronted with a concept we have so vehemently denied all our lives. Perhaps, our yet to evolve Faith is focused more on what we can readily acquire in our short life span, than on what we could become as a race or individuals.

Perhaps, it takes a different kind of Faith to contemplate the possibility of becoming a god or goddess.  Perhaps, acknowledging our potential would require the disposal of our sacred cows, which provide plentifully for us. Perhaps, inherent in our evolution is a certain acquisition of humility, the acceptance that we have been wrong all along. Perhaps, the ability to eat crow in the universe is a quality found only in more evolved species.. Perhaps, by denying the existence of god, we are snubbing our nose to spite our face.

Perhaps the real obstacle to our actualization is not so much our genetic code, but our inability to self-actualize by conceiving the impossible.

Perhaps, there is a high probability that all of the above is true. 

 We come full circle. It is conceivable, probable, and certainly within the realm of possibility that certain intelligences, given the predisposition and time to do so, progressed (or evolved) to the point of comprehending all Truth and mastering Faith. We can call these intelligences for lack of a better word (and to the great chagrin of some our great thinkers) gods. We could even go as far as saying that our race is fast approaching godhood, if it doesn't destroy itself in the process, first.. The logical conclusion, by extrapolation, that we can become as 'gods' is inescapable. To deny this conclusion flies in the face of logic, and our strident scientific achievements. If immortality is within our reach, and biogenesis through genetic engineering is already a given, what more does it take to be as a 'god'? 

Having established that attaining godhood is not only conceivable, but probable, we must also consider the purpose of a god? Once having made rank, then what? Are there gradations to godhood? To come to a point of embodying all truth and then end up without a purpose would make for such a meaningless journey. 

If intelligences by definition Design, then we must suppose the 'most high gods' must have engineered the mother of all Designs. What could that Design be? And what could possibly be their motivation? Only two mutually exclusive motivations could come into play: altruism, or the desire to assist other intelligences in achieving godhood; or, its antithesis: enmity, where the aim would be to thwart intelligences from progressing further. Is it altruism or enmity that motivates the 'most high gods'? Considering the nefarious aims which the potentates of this world have, those who consider themselves de facto demi-gods by virtue of their immense wealth and power over the masses, it should come as no surprise that their motivation is anything but altruistic.

To do otherwise than assist others in their development, to deceive or sabotage, would run counter to the cardinal rule of being True, the mortar of a congruent universe. It only stands to reason then, that the demi-gods are counterfeits of the first order, de-facto impostors, aberrations, and straw-men. Only altruism, or Love, for lack of a better word, is an acceptable motivation for a god.

 Design can be expressed as: s = f(I), where I stands for intelligence and s for design. If we include our predisposition to Design as a significant factor in the universe, our equation of the universe becomes:

U= f[ωs(C)].

This evolved equation now accounts for all laws, randomness, and design. 

Chapter 3


Where did we come from? Now that we are here, it would be nice to

know where we came from. Is our arrival on this planet our final

destination or is it simply a stopover? In the previous segment we

concluded that the motivating force of the gods would be Love. We proposed

that it is feasible for intelligences to progress to a stage where they can

embody all truth and achieve godhood. We maintained that progression

denotes the exponential acquisition and embodiment of all Truth. In

keeping with the principle of eternity, let us propose that we have

always existed, that we have not been created nor can we ever be

destroyed. Then, why can't we remember our former existence? Is it by

chance or by design?

If it is by chance, then we must conclude that from time immemorial

upon arriving on earth we forgot our pre-earth life by pure coincidence.

The odds of that being the case are simply too staggering. That leaves us

with two other possible explanations: an inability to remember; and


Are we perhaps simply incapable of remembering? One would think that

in a progressive universe where traits are encoded in our genetic

memory, retaining a recollection of one's past should have been

embedded in our genetic code eons ago. Recalling one's pre-planet

existence should be as easy as recalling last summer's vacation. Since

that is not the case, we must conclude that this forgetfulness is not due

to any lack of ability, nor is it our bad luck. It can only be attributed to


Somehow, before arriving on earth, we would have understood the

disadvantages of remembering our pre-earth life, and would have

consented to a form of cosmic dementia. We would have understood

that retaining such knowledge would interfere with our mortal existence

on a planet.

The only way we could have been made aware of all the ramifications

would have been if the grand design would have been explained by

intelligences that had previously experienced a similar planetary

existence. What could have been the ramifications of knowing the past?

It could be that upon experiencing the hostile conditions of this planet

we would have yearned to return to the splendor and safety of our

former existence, causing the suicide rate to soar. It could also be that

our brains would have been incapable of coping with millennia of

memories, a case of infinite information overload. Irrespectively, a

temporary forgetfulness, not a complete eradication of our past

existence, would have been necessary in order for us to cope in this

mortal phase.

What reasoning could have prompted us to undertake such a journey?

Journeys mean new experiences. Conceptually, we had always understood

 a great deal in theory.

In order to incarnate theory, or become the Truth, however, contemplation is not

enough. Being aware that telling the Truth is important does not make

one truthful. One has not become the principle unless one has become

its embodiment, especially under adverse conditions.

Embodying the principle of honesty, for example, is not complete when

one acts honestly only at certain times, but, rather when one cannot but

act honestly under any circumstance. Then, and only then, can it be said

that one is the embodiment of honesty. Based on our understanding of

progression, we must have realized that our experience on a planet

would have been an essential stepping stone to our ultimate destination,

that of godhood. As a result of progressing into a mortal body, we would

feel pain and pleasure, sadness and joy, life and death, things which we

were not able to appreciate as disembodied forms during our quest for

Truth. By experiencing opposites we would come to comprehend the

universe more fully. Affluence would clash with poverty. Freedom and

tyranny would come into sharp contrast. Every principle would be

understood in context of its antithesis. Call it Ying Yang, the law of

opposites; it's all mere nomenclature. What matters is that the sweet

cannot be appreciated without the bitter.

As disembodied intelligences in our pre-existence we would have gained

only conceptual knowledge based on the principles of evidence and

Faith, those two pillars that make for a congruent universe.

Mortality, however, would provide the conditions to choose from a

spectrum of vices and virtues. Upon arriving in a hostile environment of

scarce resources clothed in a fragile body we would need to gain

experience by sorting through conflicting ideologies. A planetary

experience would permit us to fully comprehend the meaning of trust by

embodying trustworthiness. We could choose to become the

embodiment of courage, honesty and humility, or of cowardice, deceit

and vanity. Our actions on earth would be based primarily on Faith,

relying heavily on the testimony and traditions of those gone before us.

As children what choice do we really have? What do we know of the

scientific method?

Prior to our arrival on earth, we would have examined all evidence

supporting the case for coming to this planet.

Since our decision to come to earth would have been based on Faith and

Evidence, it would stand to reason that the most compelling evidence

would have been the evidence put forth by higher intelligences – the

gods - who like us had embarked on a similar journey. The gods would

have had to demonstrate to us, in unequivocal terms, that the journey

we were about to embark on was the same one they had once embarked on,

one which was rife with pitfalls and triumphs. We would have known the

risks and rewards associated with a mortal existence, and the fact that

there would be no guarantees of ever achieving our ultimate

objective. We would have also been given glimpses of intelligences who

had failed to embody Truth during their mortality.

These implications would have had to be fully outlined, disclosed and understood,

in order that we could never claim at some future point that we were never given true and plain full disclosure.

Then, and only then, with our eyes wide open, would we have chosen to step into mortality. Our decision would have been made without any form of coercion or duress.

By induction, we can adduce that our post-earth existence would allow us further exploration

of the Truth, in ways which we couldn't possibly imagine or experience in a 

 mortal body.

In order to incarnate all Truth, our post-earth

experience would of necessity allow us to comprehend the truth of all matter by

embodying all matter, experiencing the phenomenon by becoming the

phenomenon, knowing a neutrino by becoming a neutrino. In order for

us to comprehend a sun's core we would need to be a sun's core.

That might explain why the gods do not mingle with mere mortals - such an interaction

could pose a serious health hazard. And, if Faith plays such a vital

role here on earth, what role could it possibly play in the hereafter? Concocting a

galaxy could be as rudimentary as making a bowl of Jell-O.

Chapter 4


What is Free Will? Is Free Will the equivalent of Freedom? Free Will

refers to one's ability to choose. Freedom, on the other hand, is a condition

in which options and choices abound. The two are not one and the same, but closely

related. Free Will is an innate attribute of Intelligence. Since design

denotes choice from a given number of options; the greater the number, the greater

 the degree of Freedom.

Intelligence is a function of Free Will, but not of Freedom.

Prisoners, slaves, and hostages possess Free Will, but enjoy no Freedom.

Conversely, people with mental handicaps and small children may enjoy

Freedom, but their Free Will is impaired. The proper use of Free Will can

lead to greater Freedom. Substance abuse, for example, can deprive one

of the ability to fully experience Freedom. Education almost always

enhances Freedom.

If the Universe is a function of Design, and Design is a function of

Intelligence, and Intelligence is a function of Free Will, then the Universe

must be a function of Free Will.

Would the universe be congruent without Freedom? If there were no

choices, then of what use would be Free Will? Intelligences need choices

in order to progress. Free Will without Freedom is a universe without

purpose. One first chooses one's objective. Then, a course is set and

action is taken to meet the objective; the consequences which follow

are evaluated and the course is either maintained or adjusted. This

feedback mechanism of acting and evaluating we shall refer to as

accountability. If effects could not be evaluated, it would be impossible

to determine whether one made the right choice.

Motives give rise to objectives, and objectives are achieved by their

corresponding actions. This describes a universe in which thoughts play a

great role in the grand design of things. Thoughts can point one in the

right or wrong direction. If one's objective is to travel south, but one

instead finds oneself heading north, that constitutes a wrong action. If

one stops to realize that one is heading in the wrong direction, but does

not turn around, then one has no one to blame but oneself. That is what

being accountable entails.

We briefly touched on the subject of thoughts. Much attention has been

given to the power thoughts have in shaping one’s future. There is ample

evidence to support that theory. There is however one minor detail, that

has not been addressed adequately in any of the literature on selfempowerment.

And this detail can mean everything in one’s life; it can

make all the difference. This book is not the proper forum for such a

discussion. However, it is important enough to note it.

The detail is this: if there are higher intelligences capable of

communicating thoughts, then there is conceivably more than one

source for thought, one’s mind and other sources. The origin of the

thought is critical. Irrespective of the source, at the end of the day, one

must choose whether or not to act on the thoughts.

If attaining godhood is the universe's invitation to us, then any path that

deviates from that objective, even by a small degree, is the wrong path.

Instead of progressing, one may be digressing, or regressing. Actions are

not wrong because the universe has arbitrarily labeled them so, but

because they cause one to miss the mark. Wrong actions impose their

own penalties which may never be felt in mortality. But, this memory

lapse in mortality is temporary, and we will eventually come to know our

true cosmic position in relation to our objective. One may commit

atrocities with impunity in one's lifetime and live to a ripe old age, but

the universe keeps track of us with its highly advanced GPS. To be

accountable, ultimately, is to be able to differentiate between right and

wrong. It is to have a conscience, to be able to experience regret and


If one deviates by a small measure, one feels little regret. The

adjustment is minor. One can simply retrace one's steps. If, on the other

hand, one is off the mark by miles, the thought of having to retrace one's

journey can cause unfathomable regret. At its extreme, regret

approximates anguish. Regret laments the loss of Freedom and the

squalor of resources. Regret causes one to feel alienated from one's own

true potential and from others who are experiencing greater Freedom.

Regret, and its counterpart Joy, are the only gauges we have. Alienation

comes from the acknowledgement that one has embodied the wrong

principle, has lost time, and has separated oneself from communion in a

society of individuals who have embodied correct principles. Regret in its

many forms, from a sense of alienation to mental anguish, is the

necessary and distinguishing mark of a congruent universe.

The more choices one has to choose from, the vaster the degree of

Freedom one enjoys, the greater the latitude for error, and the greater

the likelihood of experiencing suffering. The catchy hip-phrase all is good

is a misnomer for everything comes at a price. The universe may

champion Freedom, but it also champions Congruence. It is not surprising

then, that we invest vast amounts of energy in order to mitigate the

effects of our wrong decisions. Dispensing with suffering seems to be the

final frontier of our ideological gurus and our sacrosanct scientific

community. Yet, without any suffering life can be meaningless.

Chapter 5


Why is Justice often referred to as blind? Justice makes certain that

everything balances out.

Justice is the great clearing house of the universe. It brings all causes and

effects to equilibrium. Painting a universe in which Justice is relative or

nonexistent is an exercise in futility, as we shall come to see. And we all

believe in Justice, now don't we?

If we include Justice in our equation, the universe transforms to:

U= f[wsj(C)], where j stands for Justice.

Attaining godhood involves more than simply refraining from doing

wrong. Godhood means embodying all Truth, and acting only for the good of others.


Failure to embody, to incarnate loyalty, altruism, etc. automatically

disqualifies one from experiencing the bliss of godhood. What happens if

one fails to measure up, or if one should be so unfortunate as to be born

at the wrong time and in the wrong place? What provisions and

remedies does the universe make for people in such instances? These

and many other seemingly unanswerable questions are what keep us

clinging to Neo-Darwinism, that tidy law of the survival of the fittest, and

humanism, the assertion that man can do it all by himself without any

assistance from any being outside this planet.

Abrogating a person's human rights is not a good thing. Neither is

committing murder. But, this is not a course in ethics. A universe where

any action is the right action, is a universe void of any suffering,

accountability, and ultimately, meaning. It is an inescapable fact that

actions produce corresponding consequences in the form of regret or

bliss. One is free to choose one's actions, but not free to choose their

consequences. And that keeps things tidy. One cannot break a law,

without breaking oneself against it. Mistakes, if duly noted and

corrected, can lead to greater Freedom.

In the final analysis, all are accountable, even those who have no notion

of right and wrong, for Justice is, after all, blind. And non-duality, the

position that asserts that all is good, only gives rise to chaos, to the

existential angst as our discussion will prove.

Conceptually, if intelligence is a function of Free Will, which is the

inherent ability to choose, and if one's ability to choose is impaired, then

logic dictates that one should not have to answer to Justice; as in the

case where one's morals were denigrated in childhood, or in the case of

a mentally handicapped person.

It is an affront to our sense of justice to suppose that such individuals

should be held accountable for actions which they were either

predisposed to commit from a very young age, or which they had no

control over. The insanity plea works well in a court of law. But, in a

congruent universe murder is murder, regardless of the mental state of

the perpetrator. Someone has to pay. Everything must balance out.

Justice is blind.

Then who will pay for the loss of that life? Who must suffer?

For Justice all that matters is that a wrong was committed, and someone

must pay the price; it's a tidy, simple principle; it's a matter of cause and

effect; if a law has been broken, the effects must be felt. Justice seeks to

keep the universe congruent. It ignores motives or circumstances. The

wonderful thing about Justice is that it is so consistent. It keeps the

universe in perfect equilibrium.

The reason we are so outraged at its exacting demands, of course, is

because we intuitively know that there must be a higher law at work,

some mitigating principle which offsets the caustic effects of Justice on

those who have an impaired Free Will. What is that mitigating principle?

There are four ways to mitigate suffering: 1. by commuting it 2. negating

it 3. preventing it, or 4. assigning it.

Commuting suffering only postpones the inevitable.

The next best method and one which has gained great popularity, is

negating its very existence. One does that by purporting that every

phenomenon, including suffering, is an illusion; that our senses are

subject to error, and therefore not reliable indicators of reality. The

reasoning goes something like this: since all which we experience is a

product of subjective sensory interpretation, then experiencing suffering

is a private subjective matter.

Another variation of the same theme is to negate suffering by negating

one’s Ego. How can suffering affect one’s being if one’s ego is an illusion?

By negating the ego, one need feel neither suffering nor joy, just a state

of endless now where neither thoughts nor feelings exist, which is

tantamount to saying: if you can't stand the heat, get rid of the

thermometer. But, this line of reasoning begs the question: if suffering

and bliss do not exist, then what, if anything, exists? If pain and bliss are

illusions, then who cares how one acts? If suffering is but an illusion,

then is there a need to comply with any law? And, furthermore, what

need is there for law to exist in the first instance? It, too, is an illusion.

Welcome to nihilism, where nothing really matters.

As well, this type of reasoning presents its own kind of spiritual necrosis

as one isolates oneself from the vicissitudes of mainstream humanity.

This is the legacy of negating suffering and the reality of self.

The inability, or unwillingness to recognize the suffering of others as a

necessary human condition leads to a type of dislocation; one becomes

increasingly incapable of empathizing with the joys and sorrows of

others. This dislocation leads to a sterile, uninvolved, detached


But, if suffering and joy are the common lot of all of us, and key

components of our existence, then so is justice.

The universe doesn't play favorites. Rich or poor, smart or senile,

accountable or not, Justice requires payment from all. One may choose a

given path, but by choosing it, one has also chosen the destination, thus

making life predictable and meaningful.

Just as there are many paths, there are also many destinations.

Notwithstanding the seriousness of a mistake, as painful as its

consequences, in the long term the suffering experienced may result in

that essential course adjustment that leads to godhood. Thus, we see

that negating suffering does not produce a congruent universe.

One, of course, can attempt to bypass suffering by preventing it.

Certainly, preventing it in the first place is preferable to experiencing it.

But, in a hostile planet brimming with intelligences that are competing

for the same scarce resources there is bound to be some suffering.

For the vast majority in this world it seems that the only way of

bypassing suffering is by assigning it to others.

It is the mark of a fallen world: assigning the blame, passing on the

suffering. Victims of this phenomenon experience what we shall call

Involuntary Vicarious Suffering (in contrast to Voluntary Vicarious

Suffering which we shall discuss momentarily). Assigning suffering is

pandemic. Scapegoats abound. Much of humanity has been assigned

suffering that it never volunteered for, let alone deserved.

In contrast, as we shall come to see, Voluntary Vicarious Suffering is the

cement which bonds the universe.

Voluntary Vicarious Suffering entails that one, of one's own Free Will,

volunteers to suffer on behalf of others. If the universe's objective is to

bring about godhood, and the purpose of Justice is to maintain

equilibrium, how does Voluntary Vicarious Suffering operate?

This brings us to the topic of a Vicar. Bearing in mind that achieving

godhood is a matter of not only being found blameless before Justice,

but also of being found completely worthy through the embodiment of

truth, the role of a Vicar would be twofold: to expiate, and to


It is one thing to not commit any wrong, it is quite another to actively

embody Truth in the face of great odds and opposition. A life that is void

of wrongdoing is a blameless life, and Justice demands no suffering of it.

A life replete with goodness is a worthy life, which Justice wants to amply

reward. Inasmuch as Justice cannot exact suffering of a blameless life,

likewise it cannot bestow bliss on a less than worthy life. In that context,

only a perfect life, a life that is both blameless and worthy qualifies for

godhood. A Vicar, therefore, must be able to both expiate for the blame

and compensate for the unworthiness of not only one person, but for all

that have existed or will ever exist. This combination of expiation and

compensation we will refer to as Mercy, also commonly known as grace

in some circles.

Mercy does come with its own set of parameters, especially as we

consider the motivation of the Vicar, and the effects of any Voluntary

Vicarious Suffering on intelligences with Free Will and those without Free


But first, let’s examine a Vicar’s motivation. What would motivate an

intelligence to suffer vicariously on behalf of others? Could the

motivation originate from a need for adulation? Adulation, although a

plausible motivation, is certainly not a guaranteed outcome. It could also

be argued that construing events so as to produce the desired adulation

compromises the notion of Free Will, and therefore, constitutes a form

of coercion. For this reason, adulation as a motivation must be


The more plausible motive, is altruism, or simply put Love for those who

must suffer at the demands of Justice. Love, as we shall discuss later,

may also prove to be the unifying mortar of the universe.

What other attributes would a Vicar possess? Since Justice requires the

guilty to suffer, a Vicar could not be guilty of any offense, for any

suffering experienced by a guilty Vicar would only appease the demands

that Justice imposed on the guilty Vicar, and on no one else. Justice,

therefore, requires a blameless Vicar, in order that the (unjust) suffering

suffered by the Vicar may recompense the demands that Justice imposes

on all those who are unjust. As well, logic dictates that a Vicar must

possess the capacity of enduring the cumulative mental anguish of all

intelligences, past, present, and future.

Since godhood implies total worthiness, a Vicar should also be the

embodiment of all Truth, or be totally worthy, in order to compensate

for any deficiencies found in the less than worthy. In other words, a Vicar

should already be a god.

On the unaccountable, those without Free Will, the demands of Justice

are as demanding as on those with a Free Will, the accountable. Let us

examine the type of life and death which would be required of a Vicar in

order to appease the demands of Justice.

The Vicar, being the embodiment of Truth, would need to experience a

life fraught with opposition, temptation, hate, and in the end, a life met

with an unjust, violent death; for if one claims to be the embodiment of

Love, then only an unjust, violent death would constitute the seal, the

final testament, that a gross injustice was perpetrated in the universe

against a perfect life, against a god.

A blameless life, a god's life, experiencing infinite mental anguish would

create an injustice or an imbalance in the scales of Justice that would be

noted by the entire universe; which injustice would eternally expiate the

unaccountable of their suffering. They would no longer have to

experience suffering for their wrongdoings. Justice would have been


A worthy life, a god's life, one that embodied all Truth, experiencing an

unjust, violent death would create another aberration in the universe;

which injustice would justify the unaccountable by compensating their

unworthy lives. We should note that should a Vicar experience no mental

anguish (as it would befit a blameless life), or die a peaceful death (as it

would befit a worthy life), then no injustice would be created, and the

errors and omissions of all intelligences would disqualify, bar, and damn

them from ever achieving godhood. If and only if, a Vicar could suffer

mental anguish and die an agonizing death could Justice be satisfied. This

is the effect, then, of a Voluntary Vicarious Sacrifice on those without

Free Will.

To update our equation, since Justice can be appeased by Voluntary

Vicarious Suffering, our equation evolves to: U= f[wsjμ(C)] , where μ

stands for Mercy.

We have examined the role of the Vicar on behalf of those who are

unaccountable, and have concluded that Voluntary Vicarious Suffering

can mitigate the effects that Justice imposes upon them. The importance

of Mercy becomes more apparent when one considers that it is the

highest form of Love, and cannot be expressed in the Universe without a

Vicar experiencing Voluntary Vicarious Suffering. Furthermore, in the

absence of Mercy, those who are not accountable for their wrong actions

must still suffer at some point of their existence, simply because Justice -

blind Justice - holds them accountable.

If Justice exacts suffering of those who are not accountable, then, what

of those who are accountable? How can Mercy or a Voluntary Vicarious

Suffering intercede on their behalf?

Chapter 6


What is a Covenant? A Covenant is the agreeing to abide by the terms

and conditions set forth by two or more parties, and, as we shall come to

see, the only instrument by which Mercy takes effect on those who are

accountable, those who possess Free Will.

As we shall see, Voluntary Vicarious suffering then, not only mitigates

the effects of Justice, but it also, in a far more significant way, champions

Free Will.

If Mercy was not dispensed freely to the unaccountable, to those without

Free Will, it would stand to reason that a gross injustice would pervade

the universe, and that the absence or presence of Free Will would be an

irrelevant principle. Mercy, then, champions Free Will.

Let us summarize our conclusions in a simple equation:

Mercy + Unaccountable = Free Will Championed

We just conceded that by applying Mercy on the unaccountable Free Will

is championed.

How would Free Will be affected if Mercy was dispensed freely to the


As it happens, Mercy applied freely to the accountable results in the

negation of Free Will. For, to obtain Mercy freely when one's Free Will is

fully functional implies that one can act wrongfully or fail to embody

Truth with impunity. In other words, one is not damned if one does and

not damned if one doesn't. Choice becomes irrelevant. Freedom

becomes irrelevant. And since it really doesn't matter what choices one

makes, Free Will also becomes irrelevant. Every choice is the right choice,

and we end up with the all is good non-duality position. In essence, Free

Will is dispensed with when Mercy comes with no strings attached..

Mercy + Accountable = Free Will Negated

For the accountable, those who committed wrong intentionally, logic

dictates, that for them, Mercy comes at a price, not freely. What quid pro

quo does the universe require of them, other than suffering? The price

can only come in the form of a Covenant.

The terms that would emerge would need to be as follows: if, and only if,

the accountable would voluntarily promise to cease from acting

wrongfully and attempt to embody truth, then and only then, would

Mercy be dispensed to them. This bilateral promise, or Covenant, would

need to be entered into with some symbolism, to evidence that both

parties entered the Covenant voluntarily.

In entering a covenant, there would be no compulsion brought to bear

from either side. The Vicar could not coerce intelligences into accepting

the terms, nor could accountable intelligences coerce the Vicar into

offering the Covenant; any duress or coercion from either side would

render the Covenant null and void. Free Will must be upheld at all costs.

Thus, only by entering into a Covenant without any compulsion could

Free Will be championed.

The gods would assist accountable intelligences in their quest for

perfection as long as they complied with the terms of the Covenant.

Those who would keep their Covenant would be distinguished from

those who would not keep the Covenant in two ways: by the peace they

experienced, as a result of Mercy assuaging the demands of Justice

(suffering), and, by their good deeds, evidence that they were becoming

more altruistic, or the embodiment of Love.

The gods would be bound to keep their end of the bargain as long as

intelligences kept theirs. Conversely, intelligences who would break their

Covenant could not expect the gods to keep their end of the bargain.

Since gods by their very nature cannot lie, it is with perfect certainty that

an intelligence that breaks the Covenant will not be afforded Mercy. In

summary, this is how Mercy operates on those who are accountable:

Covenant + Accountable = Free Will championed

The opportunity to enter into a Covenant would need to be made

available to all intelligences at some point during their mortal or postmortal

existence, for many would have died without even knowing of the

terms. Therefore, in order for the universe to remain congruent and for

Free Will to be championed, all intelligences would need to be given an

opportunity of accepting or rejecting the Covenant at some point of

existence. Alternatively, intelligences could opt to suffer their own

allotted suffering without the aid of a Vicar's Mercy and attempt to

incarnate truth without the instrumentality of a Covenant. Ascendency

and Suffering with or without the aid of a Vicar are the choices given to

all intelligences.

Chapter 7


Who or what is God? Can God be plural? Are there male and female versions?

The universe is congruent because Truth is immutable. Life

is a journey that can point towards godhood provided Free Will can reign

supreme. Since Design is a function of Intelligence, we must also

conclude that gods must stand united in a single grand purpose, which is

the deification of other intelligences. What mortals experience

intermittently as love, or altruism, a god must embody eternally. The

grand design is an opportunity for intelligences to enjoy the same

freedoms and joys that gods enjoy, and this can only be accomplished by

entering into a Covenant with the gods, in the case of those who are


In accordance with the principle of progression, the emotions mortals

have learned to compartmentalize must necessarily accompany them

into the next life, and beyond into higher spheres. It must be that gods

are able to feel appropriate emotions, as well as enjoy all the pleasures

of mortality. Their memories must be perfect and complete, and they

must enjoy the same relationships they once enjoyed on their planet.

Gods must be intimately involved in the progress of all intelligences.

They must have championed the principle of Free Will by allowing

alternative paths to co-exist within the grand design. Therefore, the

notion of natural selection, the story of the creation as well as other

traditions, myths, and theories must of necessity co-exist to create

choice, Freedom. If the answer is too obvious, there is no choice.

In all fairness to accountable intelligences, the gods must have chosen

intelligences from their pre-planetary existence at various stages of a

planet's history to act as teachers of the grand design. And, it would

stand to reason that the sooner intelligences embody Truth, the sooner

they can attain godhood.

Paradoxically, the universe naturally selects civilizations that have

substituted natural selection with Love.

Since gods are the embodiment of all laws and principles in the universe,

then our definition of a god is:

G = wstμ(C)

And, since:

U = f[wstμ(C)]

Then, the definition of congruent universe becomes: U = f(G), where G is

for God.

The Universe is a function of God


The most difficult concept for the human mind to grasp is that of

Eternity. The question arises: is there an end to intelligences? If

intelligence can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet there is an

infinite number of them, how is that so?

We must concede that a single principle must operate which allows for

an infinite number of intelligences to exist, in keeping with our original

view of a universe which encompasses eternity. What could this principle


From our vantage point, all we can say is we don't know; or more

precisely, we don't know what we don't know. There is a plausible

answer to all this, however, and it may rest on Love, a form of fractal

energy, an energy that increases and replicates itself with use. If Love is

an energy which can emanate from intelligences inexhaustibly, then we

have made a case for a universe that expands ad infinitum. Not only can

Love be passed on, but when passed on it leaves the donor with a

greater capacity to Love. This is the fractal power of Love, the

inexhaustible energy that is ever increasing. And perhaps that is the

meaning of life in a nutshell: Love is the all and be all.

Of course, for that hypothesis to be demonstrated scientifically, science

must first advance, instruments must be discovered...etc.

If Love engenders Love, then we have come full circle. The Love that we

crave is the same Love that gave rise to our existence. We always

existed, but only when we were loved did we awaken to the

possibilities, did we become engendered by gods. We, as the gods, are

made of the same stuff: Love. We have simply forgotten that. Is it any

wonder that we feel most despondent when we are not loving or not

being loved. We don't merely take on a loving nature in this hostile

planet; instead we uncover our very essence, for Love is what we have

always been.

For some, the choice was made a long time ago to show Love in love-less

conditions. In this life, circumstances constantly incite us to hate, recoil

and to cloak our loving nature.

Yet, each conflict is an opportunity to exhibit Love, our true nature.

A planetary existence is the gauntlet wherein we prove, against all odds,

that we are in-deed Love. The gauntlet is not a form of punishment, but

the testing ground, the corridor to Freedom. So that we could never

complain in the hereafter that we were never tested, and therefore had

no choice but to be Love. A planet gives us the opportunity to be

something other than our true nature and in doing so, it provides choice,

Freedom, and champions our Free Will.

As to how to explain an open ended universe, we can only surmise that

in order for the universe to have forever existed, there could never have

been a time when Love did not exist. The important thing to realize is

that we cannot come to a full understanding of all Truth in our short

lifespan, especially not with the built-in memory blocks we come

equipped with. What little we can grasp through logic or science is a

pittance compared to what we will remember and come to know in

future realms. In short: it is better to know little and be Love, than to

know it all and have missed the mark.

Meaning is all about being congruent. Any path that does not adequately

and coherently address the principles of truth, intelligence, existence,

free will, freedom, justice, mercy, covenant and god is devoid of meaning.

To refute Truth is to exalt madness. To negate Free Will is to negate

Intelligence. To deny Freedom is to champion tyranny. To eradicate

Justice is to hail chaos. To denounce Mercy is to embrace suffering.

Reason leaves us with no choice. We must choose.