Whispers Of An Ancient God

I have a little problem with religion and science - insofar as it is practiced.  They both require that I take the word of an authority figure, no matter how nonsensical their pronouncements are.

What brings this up is the rather amusing way Indonesians meet new people.  There are three main questions posed to someone at introduction: 1) What is your name?, 2) Where are you from?, and 3) What is your religion?  To a Westerner, the last question may evoke anything from mild amusement to outright hostility.  I'm in the amusement category.

My typical answer to the question of my religion is that I don't believe in it.  To most Indonesians, and probably most folk in general, the assumption is that I am an atheist.  Now, atheist means "without a god," which I am most certainly not.

I have come to the conclusion that the Universe is a living entity, and because it encompasses all that is and can be perceived, it therefore qualifies under the definition of 'god.'  The Universe is infinitely moral and just because everything about it that we observe requires balance.  There is never all evil or all good, nor all dark or all light, or all empty or all full.  At some point, everything must balance out.  Seems to me that this fulfills the requirement of a god to embody justice.

The reason I don't need faith is because I have conclusive proof that there is a Supreme Being; however, I distinguish the Supreme Being from Universe and god.  It appears to me that there is, or at least was, some entity with superior abilities who manipulated our collective history, if not the entire Solar System.

The proof is right before our eyes, nearly every night, and has baffled great minds from Newton to Einstein.  It defies all rules and efforts to categorize it.  Encoded in its various measurements are clear signs of intelligent manipulation.  The chances of this proof occuring at random are infinitesimal.  Whoever or whatever put it there did so with intention and forethought, but I can only speculate as to the identity of the source.

I am, of course, talking about our Moon.

First and foremost, no one can figure out how the Moon got where it is.  There are several popular theories - Capture Model, Collision Model - but computer simulations cannot recreate the precise conditions that would put the Moon in a near-circular orbit.

The Capture Model, under any set of circumstances, would leave the Moon in a highly elliptical and probably unstable orbit.  It also fails to explain a number of other problems that we will discuss below.

The Collision Model - that a Mars-sized object hit the Earth 4,5 billion years ago - says that a ring of debris coalesced into the Moon a few million years later.  This too has many problems, not the least of which the amount of time needed for the Moon to coalesce exceeds our current date.  There's also the matter of rocks brought back by the Moon landings that are older than the oldest rocks found on Earth.

Almost nothing about the Moon can be explained by natural forces, despite all that you hear in school and from the various "experts."  The list of anomalous facts about the Moon is quite long and some have postulated that information is coded into the various measurements if we can only find a way to decode it.

Some examples: other than Pluto, the Earth-Moon ratio is the smallest of any of the known planets, meaning the Moon is extraordinarily large in relation to its planet; the Moon is quite large, as well, being nearly the size of the planet Mercury; the barycenter of the Moon's orbit is very close to the Earth's surface, making ours nearly a dual-planet system; the Moon is precisely the right size, distance and inclination to the ecliptic to create total eclipses of the Sun, something that does not happen anywhere else in the Solar System; the composition of the Moon is similar to Earth's crust, but has isotope ratios of certain elements that suggest it formed elsewhere; none of the Moon's craters appear to be deeper than 3km, suggesting a barrier of some kind; the Moon rings like a bell when struck; the Moon's gravity changes based on location, with some areas (mascons) being much higher than others.

Just the fact that the Moon is 1/400th the diameter of the Sun and is located 1/400th of the distance from the Earth to the Sun, making the Moon and Sun appear the same size in the sky defies logic.  The chances of this happening randomly are, well...astronomical.  By any honest reckoning, the Moon should not exist.

The more you learn about the Moon, the more you come to realize that, at least at this time, the Moon must be artificial in some way.  Whether the Moon was built, or placed, or modified in some way makes little difference to the proposition that it is not natural.  Even Newton claimed that his theory of gravitation could explain all the celestial motions, except the Moon.

For these and many more reasons, I have decided that the Moon is one of the strongest proofs of a Supreme Being, or Beings for that matter.  I do not claim that this Supreme Being is god, since one can imagine sufficient technology to achieve the same results.  I can only speculate on the divinity of the Moon Maker.  Despite 400 years of observations and attempts at explanations, though, no one has yet delivered a conclusive model for the Moon being natural, in spite of all claims to the contrary.

One wonders if any of this has something to do with NASA's unwillingness to go back to the Moon, the failure of the Russians to continue their efforts, and the vast media campaign to keep everyone's eyes on Mars to distract from the Moon.  It seems plausible that the "experts" would attempt slight-of-hand to prevent us looking at the true mystery in our backyard, than to be forced to admit that they have no explanation for our nearest celestial neighbor.

While many folks jump up and down about potential ruins on the Moon, or alien bases and the like, for the time being, these are all speculation.  However, the various measurements related to the Earth-Moon-Sun system are not in dispute.  When one studies the problem, one is led to the inexorable conclusion that the Moon, in some part or another, is artificial.  There is no other way to explain it.

Since we are, at this point, incapable of recreating the Moon, we must assume that those who did are superior to us in technology - thus a Supreme Being.  This Being is also likely benign, since the Moon performs a number of services that promote and direct human development.  We must also ask ourselves what happened to this Being and might it return?  Finally, we must formulate a series of tests that would provide more evidence for the idea of artificiality, which begs the question of whether it has already been done and the results hidden for fear of undermining the authority of the "experts."

In the end, and without conclusive proof to the contrary, I conclude that there is a Supreme Being and that it left its signature with the Moon.  This Being is not a god, but may be the basis for much of humanity's obsession with gods.

And no, I am not an atheist.