A Grain of Sand

A Grain of Sand

By Andreas Michael Theodorou

Copyright 2015 Andreas Michael Theodorou

Smashwords Edition

****~~~~~****

Acknowledgements

Many people and in many different ways contributed to the realization of this project but I have to distinguish the motivation and overall assistance provided to me by my dear wife Penny and my good friend Costa Saroglou with whom I debated for hours some of the critical arguments and evidence used in the development of the final theory. I sincerely thank them.

It would also be remiss of me not to express my gratitude and thanks to Mark Coker founder of Smashwords Publishing, for the help he provides to aspiring and professional authors in preparing, publishing and distributing their eBooks worldwide. His three books on formatting, marketing and achieving success in publishing, are truly invaluable.

****~~~~~****

Dedication

This book is dedicated to the two latest star additions to the family, Evan Andreas Jerome and Stelios Theodorou.

****~~~~****

Table of contents

PART 1

Introduction

Chapter 1-Definition of the Creator

Chapter 2-The search begins

Chapter 3-The main ingredient

Chapter 4-Energy utilization and Human development

Chapter 5-The Master and the Tool

Chapter 6-Under cross-examination

PART 2

Chapter 7-Death and after-life

Chapter 8-The celestial competition

Chapter 9-A simple relationship

Chapter 10-Communicating with Unigod

Chapter 11-Re-evaluating basic beliefs

Chapter 12-Summary and quick reference

Epilogue

About the Author

PART 1

Introduction

The natural human curiosity motivated nearly all members of the species to wonder about the origins of the Universe and the origins of life. The subject of the possible existence of an intelligent Creator provided the main item for endless debates which unfortunately until now, have not reached a definite conclusion. If therefore you belong to the group of people who are still searching for a definitive answer or if you belong to those who, at some point in time, lifted their eyes to the sky looking for the super being who would console them, give answers to their questions or explain the confusing events which are happening in their life and all around them, then this book is guaranteed to guide you to conclusions which once and for all will answer your queries in an honest, unbiased and logical way. It is an objective and as humanly possible straight forward investigation into the subject concerning the existence of a Supreme Power which created whatever exists in the Universe and possesses qualities and characteristics corresponding to the ones universally accepted to describe the concept of Deity or God. This investigation guides the reader, step by step, through the process of analyzing the evidence available and guarantees to provide an honest, realistic and definite answer, once all the pieces of this great puzzle are fitted together. The answer may not agree with the preconceived ideas or beliefs of every reader but it will be to the intellectual and spiritual satisfaction of the reader who remains objective and willing to accept solid evidence even when this evidence contradicts long held, yet unsupported by evidence beliefs. At no point during the investigation the reader will be requested to accept anything on faith, there will be no axiomatic or dogmatic declarations and all conclusions will be based on irrefutable proof.

I am certain that expressions of doubt or even sarcasm started forming on some readers’ faces and I do not blame them. After all, there have been thousands and thousands of debates, discussions, scientific researches, theologian studies and philosophical theses on the subject of existence and nature of God. Since there has never been a universally acceptable resolution of the issue, it is only natural that anyone claiming to have the elusive answer will be viewed with suspicion and serious skepticism or even contempt. For this reason I would like to beg any prospective readers to show enough patience and tolerance until they have finished reading PART 1 of this book. I assure them that they will be rewarded with an answer which is bound to change their approach and understanding of matters important not only to their lives but also to the broader environment. PART 1 deals exclusively with the evaluation of available data based on simple scientific facts and without tricks of logic or sophistries it arrives at certain conclusions which can withstand all tests of reasoning and validation of evidence. Common sense and basic education at secondary school level is all which is required in order to follow the whole discussion and associated arguments which lead to definite and quite exciting conclusions. I foresee that the conclusions will pleasantly surprise many readers, will sadden some others and will even cause anger to very few, but the unavoidable outcome is that no reader will be able to reject the conclusions, because firstly they are derived through a solidly logical process and secondly they are supported by undisputed, well documented and well known evidence.

The question of course that looms big in one’s mind is If the answer requires only common reasoning and widely known scientific facts, why the answer has not been forthcoming much earlier? Let us then attempt to provide some reasonable excuses for humanity’s failure to resolve in a definitive way the issue pertaining to the existence and nature of God.

It is normally expected that complex questions and puzzles will have equally difficult and complex answers. Sometimes the human mind is simply not prepared to accept the obvious simple answer, especially if it is in some sort of conflict or disagreement with widely held beliefs. It has been mentioned that the question regarding the existence and nature of God has been the subject of endless scientific, philosophical and theological debates for thousands of years. In the course of human history many theories saw the light of day but none offered a universally acceptable solution as it is indicated and confirmed by the existence of a great number of different religions. Given that human intelligence has not varied in any significant degree over the last ten thousand years, one has to reject the possibility that the reason for the failure is due to lack of analytical ability. This means that the failure may be attributable to other factors as it can be seen in the analysis which follows below:

a)Our distant ancestors lacked the means and scientific knowledge to understand in detail the environment and functioning of nature in general. If they couldn’t understand the creation, the chances of identifying the Creator were extremely remote. They offered theories, they invented deities to suit their own perceptions but they couldn’t provide any sort of factual evidence to support their beliefs. With the passing of time, every single one of all these theories and perceptions collapsed under the weight of serious contradictions between what was claimed by the theories and emerging scientific evidence or knowledge.

b) Closer to present times, referring to the Middle or better known as Dark Ages, humankind experienced the strangulation of basic human rights including the right to freedom of expression. Any opinion, even slightly different from the one maintained by the ruling political or religious authority, was persecuted and ridiculed. Religious zealots and political authoritarians enslaved the human spirit not only by dishing out physical punishment, but also by applying immense mental and psychological pressure on any one daring to openly disagree with their interpretation of religious or political doctrines. Glaring examples of people subjected to inhuman treatment because their ideas differed from the religious interpretation of the physical world are great scientists like Nicolas Copernicus at first and Galileo Galilei later. They suffered persecution, mental and physical anguish simply because they proposed the theory that our planetary system is heliocentric and effectively the earth is not the center of the Universe. They were persecuted, ridiculed and isolated because their findings contradicted established religious interests and commonly, at the time, held beliefs. Consider also the much more recent, just two hundred years ago, ordeal of Charles Darwin another pioneer of science, who proposed the theory of Evolution of living organisms. The theory and its proponent met the wrath of organized religion because it contradicted basic doctrines contained in the scriptures and referring to the creation of the World. The religious authorities made sure that Darwin was isolated and ostracized from civil as well as scientific societies. Given these conditions of oppression, what would have been the probability of anyone maintaining to have factual proof about the nature of God, especially if this proof was pointing to a serious disagreement with the prevailing religious doctrines? In all probability, the chances of the initiator or proponent of such theory, to reach a peaceful and dignified end to his or her life, would have been severely curtailed; indeed it would not have been a surprise to any student of history if the proponent suddenly met with an unexpected end!

c) Throughout history humans have shown an uncanny ability to find ways to manipulate and control their fellow man. Religion and politics were used as main tools. Through the invention of fearsome and vindictive Gods who demand obedience to a regime of laws and rules which human nature is unable to uphold, the originators of such schemes applied continuous psychological pressure on the rest of the society. The result was, or still is today, that people live their lives in guilt and always in fear of judgment by the self-appointed representatives of such Gods; or fear that at some undisclosed point in the future will find themselves face to face with these Gods who will pronounce a sentence which will be effective for eternity. In parallel political systems were structured and these systems are operating on the same principles of compliance or punishment. Even today, at a time when human rights are legally protected, at least in democratic countries, and people enjoy higher levels of political freedom accompanied by exponential increase of scientific and technological knowhow there are many places where discussing or commenting about God or expressing political views it is certain to land one in hot water or even worse. Therefore, people are still reluctant to get involved in open and unbiased debates or voice their views especially on sensitive issues that may cause discomfort and even annoyance to the followers of certain faiths.

The dilemma of course arises when one is sure that can contribute to the resolution of an important issue but at the same time one knows that certain people may feel offended or that religious sentiments and beliefs will be challenged. Taking all these issues under consideration does one keep quiet avoiding conflict or does one stand up and present one’s findings in the knowledge and hope that other people may expand on these issues even further with the possibility of providing answers to many other equally important questions? The probability is that keeping quiet is chosen as the preferred way to proceed, for obvious reasons of self- preservation.

Mainly for the reasons mentioned above, I felt apprehensive and unsure if I should proceed to make the findings and conclusions of my research public. I recall turning and tossing in bed for many uneasy nights trying to decide if I should take the plunge into the world of book writing or continue on the safe and quiet road of retirement. Similarly to many people, who in the past must have reached the same conclusions as mine but decided to keep quiet, I was leaning towards the same option. I was indeed in no mood to enter into conflict with people who had a different view or different beliefs nor was I willing to participate in debates comparing my findings and conclusions against axiomatic declarations which had no evidential support. The purpose of the investigation is to give an honest answer to an ages old question and not to discredit or ridicule any contemporary religion. Yet it was obvious to me that in parallel to the benefits of resolving this critical issue, publishing the results and findings of the investigation would or could possibly cause distress and discomfort to some if not all of the followers of certain contemporary faiths.

In order to resolve this disturbing esoteric debate with myself, I summoned the help of some friends and acquaintances whose opinion I value and respect. I explained the method, process and outcome of the research and analyzed the reasons for hesitating to publish the overall conclusions. I was taken aback by their reaction which was, contrary to my secret wishes, overwhelmingly supporting of the option to be made public. My unofficial consultants claimed that the value of the findings was high enough to make the option of publication a no brainer. They also claimed that the investigation was based on sound reasoning, it was factual and as such I had the obligation to present the conclusions to the countless millions of people who have an interest on the subject and allow them to make up their mind. In support of their urgings, one of my friends referred me to the well-known fable regarding the Emperor’s wardrobe. Specifically my friend said: You are apprehensive, because what you want to say may conflict with the religious beliefs of many people and it is not your intention to cause doubts or emotional distress to them. Would you rather not inform them about what you know to be evidently true? If ever the fable of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ becomes a real life scenario would you choose to be a citizen cheering the king’s new garment made of invisible material, or would you elect to be the one pointing out that the king is in fact naked? This kind of solid logic was not to my liking for obvious reasons! I decided it was time to play the last card hidden up my sleeve. I said Guys and girls, thank you very much for your vote of confidence in my research and the logic of your arguments in supporting its publication. However a couple of you have been my friends for many years and they will vouch to the truth of what I am about to say. My writing skills extend only to writing …office memos and therefore are totally inadequate to tackle such an important issue with the necessary clarity and articulation. The situation resembles an attempt by a person, unfamiliar with mountain climbing, to try scaling the top of mountain Everest. It is a near impossibility! I kept looking at them trying to gauge their reaction and I could imagine their brains in overdrive trying to find alternative ways to overcome this very real obstacle. I sensed that I was very near to victory and relief. Alas, a beautiful back-hand swing dished out by my very own better half turned my humble admission of near illiteracy into a useless and baseless excuse. She said: No one, except me, knows that you are capable of writing beautiful romantic letters and even poetry. I still remember the wonderful love letters which you wrote to me when I was studying in Athens and you were serving in the Cypriot army. I was and still am extremely impressed by your ability to express romance and feelings in such a masterful way. I listened to her words and my blood temperature was hovering around its freezing point. Yes, I do remember the letters I was sending nearly on a daily basis to my then girlfriend but at that time I could have never foreseen that a simple copying of paragraphs from Catherine Cookson’s romantic novels would come forty years later to extract revenge in such an improbable manner. Obviously I couldn’t admit in front of my friends that indeed I had copied the letters from popular novels, because firstly they would tease me to eternity and secondly my wife would stop being proud of my romantic prowess. Misunderstanding my confused silence as a deep contemplation of what she was saying, she took a final stab at my defenses by saying: A beautiful woman will still look beautiful even if dressed in rags. The same applies to the message you want to communicate to other people. It will not lose its value because you do not use fancy words or because you may be grammatically challenged. The last statement more or less settled the issue for me. I had no other option but to make a serious attempt to write this book!

I intend to guide your steps while retracing, in every minute detail, the methodology and the path of reasoning which led me to a finite conclusion regarding the existence and nature of God. This way, I do not dictate outcomes to you and I do not try to convince you about the validity of my arguments. Instead we reach mutually agreed conclusions using the same pieces of evidence and just common rules of reasoning. The value of this method is that it encourages active participation and willful agreement from the reader for every significant part of the research. Effectively this means that if the evidence, or the logic behind the analysis of the evidence, is not disputed by the reader, there will be no possible reason for the reader to dispute the eventual final conclusions. This is of course the ultimate aim and purpose of anyone who finds it necessary to convey a message or to propose a new theory, especially a theory which deals with the concept of God.

Before we get in earnest into the investigation, let us have a short over-view of the motivation behind the desire to unveil the truth concerning the existence or not, of God; an entity responsible for the Creation and control of everything which ever existed, exists or shall exist within the domain we call Universe.

Growing up on a small Mediterranean island with strong links to a major religion and timeless traditions and customs, it was natural that the subject of God would often feature prominent in my thoughts. I wouldn’t place myself among the ranks of serious ecclesiastic devotees nevertheless I conformed to the basic dictates of my faith without many objections and to an acceptable degree. The questions pertaining to God focused mainly on areas which were not covered in the scriptures or on areas which appeared to be fuzzy or contradictory to modern widely available scientific knowledge. For example, I often wondered why some people would believe in one God, some others in many Gods and a significant number of people would reject outright the existence of any such entity! Who is right and who is wrong? Is there a possibility that at least one of the contemporary religions got it right and the rest are wrong? What is the possibility that they are all wrong, or right, or even partially wrong and partially right? But the biggest question-mark was reserved for the concern relating to the fact that if indeed God is real then why is such God not obvious, readily recognizable and unequivocally universally acceptable?

Similar or just the same questions have, at some point in time, crossed the mind of nearly all or at least the greatest number of humans who ever walked on this planet. Therein lays the value and undoubtedly the huge human interest in a definitive, honest and realistic answer.

Judging from my personal experience I know that by the time one is old enough to start querying serious religious issues one’s mind is already entangled in a web of arbitrary principles or dictates and the answers are not subject to logical debate but depend entirely on these arbitrary doctrines. As a result, one’s valid concerns regarding inconsistencies or conflicts between the contents of the doctrines and the real world remain mostly unresolved or unexplained. When for example one notices severe conflict between events in the world and the perception one has of God, one’s concerns are pushed aside with the patronizing declaration which maintains that One’s mind is not developed enough and therefore not in a position to comprehend and appreciate God’s plan and intentions or with the authoritarian inducement One should believe without questioning!

Personally I find the suggestion of mental inadequacy or blind faith unacceptable because it belittles the greatest asset humans are blessed with, namely the ability to think, analyze and decide. This is perhaps the main reason why in the first place I decided to devote as much time and effort as I could, in order to try and if possible find the truth about the Creator of this world.

This book consists of two parts with the first part comprising of the Introduction and the first six Chapters and the second part, of the balance of Chapters seven to twelve and the Epilogue.

The first part deals exclusively with the structuring of the investigation, the evaluation of evidence, the methodical analysis of available data, the proposal of conclusions and finally sealing the results with the support of a strict cross-examination. At the conclusion of Part 1 the objective of the book is completed and the reader, who followed the flow of analysis in