Part I


Rather than a big bang, the universe began as a little blip.

Mark Bernard Anstendig

Copyright Mark B. Anstendig, Oct. 1997


The idea of everything beginning with a big bang assumes there was something there to go bang. Nothing does not go bang. So where did that which went “bang” come from? And if the whole thing was created by a God, where did that God come from? And how? The human mind rebels against pursuing things to their “bottom line”. But the inescapable fact is that somehow, sometime, God, the Universe, or whatever came first had to start from nothing.

So how did that something come out of nothing? And what could it have been? Well, since it came out of nothing, it had to have been some form of the immaterial. Why? Because the immaterial cannot beget the material, and “nothing” certainly is immaterial. Therefore, the only thing that could have possibly come out of nothing is some form of the immaterial. It certainly could not have been “something” in terms of the solid, perceivable, or at least measurable things we tend to think of as “something”. In our world the only thing to meet that criteria is consciousness.

Rather than a big bang, the universe started more like a little blip. A blip of consciousness, and that blip of consciousness was God, the only natural phenomenon in this whole Universe. The rest is nothing more, or less, then a creation of that consciousness. All of it!

A natural arising, a spark, if you will, of consciousness is the only conceivable way anything could have arisen out of nothingness. That is what the evolved religions and metaphysical philosophies of the world have, in one way or another, been trying to tell us. Science also seems more and more to be arriving at insights which can only be explained by our being the immaterial product of a universal consciousness we call God. It is indicative that Albert Einstein was a deeply religious man.

Where science fails dramatically is in answering the crucial question: where and when does that material thing it is observing turn into that immaterial thing called consciousness, and vice verse? Science will never be able to answer that question, because in observing it, it must needs destroy that which it is attempting to observe. To observe the normal functioning of the brain scientists must create abnormal circumstances or even invade the brain itself. In observing a mental happening, such as the experience of music, even the presence of a single electrode or other sensor on the head completely changes the experience that is to be observed. The mental process is that delicate and influenceable.

The truth is that scientists will never find that exact phenomenon during which our material experiences turn into immaterial consciousness of them because the material cannot change into the immaterial. Nor can the immaterial change into the material. Then how can we have this obviously material-immaterial universe in which we live, where the material is in obvious interaction with immaterial consciousness? The answer is that, while the material cannot create the immaterial, immaterial consciousness can imagine (i.e. create the impression of) the material. Further, immaterial consciousness can imagine, i.e., create both a material something and an immaterial something that are seemingly interactive but in reality, are simply existing simultaneously. And it can imagine, i.e., create a limited consciousness that would accept and experience those simultaneously developing, yet separate phenomena not only as interlinked, but as causing each other. In other words, our bodies and our minds are separate phenomena created (i.e., imagined) by God and both are simultaneously developing in time.(1) To put it another way, the body, i.e., the physical, is developing in certain set ways in time, and GOD supplies a consciousness that is coordinated with the body. That is the ultimate meaning of synchronicity and the polarity of causality, Finality.(2)

But that gets into what God is doing and not how God began, which is the subject of this essay.

For that purpose, let us first imagine an old, deserted wild-west ghost town in a desert area. Total stillness. Only a skeletal, barren, empty street corner. Essentially nothingness. Imagine in the stillness, somewhere on the street, a blip of something stirs for an instant and then dies down. Ages, eons, years or some long duration of nothingness go by. Then there is another occurrence of the same phenomenon, only to die down once again. Imagine endless recurrences of this phenomenon until it begins to remember and recognize itself. With memory would follow recognition of itself as awareness and at some point in these recurrences, it would develop the knack of continuing to be aware and, thereby, not dying down. That would be an analogy for the beginning of God. But in reality, the phenomenon occurred in nothingness, rather than on a deserted street.

Another possibility is that the memory did not occur over many recurrences of the phenomenon, but rather that one of the phenomena lasted long enough for memory to develop within the one phenomenon itself. But the original revelation came in the form described in the above paragraph, so remembering itself after numerous occurrences of the same phenomenon would seem to be the way God was imparting the inspiration. I include this second possibility because it seems to be feasible scientifically.

The first thing we must understand was that, if this spark of consciousness ever rested, slept or in any way ceased the activity of being conscious, it would cease to exist until and if the original natural phenomenon reoccurred. And there would be no guarantee that anything of this present phenomenon would be remembered. Somehow, this phenomenon was able to grasp this concept and make a conscious, instantaneous effort to recognize, remember and continue conscious activity. Otherwise it would have again died down, and we would not exist. Nor would it.

The beginning of that consciousness that ultimately conceived us, which we call God, has to have been the only true natural phenomenon in this whole world, Creation, Universe in which we exist. Nothing cannot create something, because it has nothing, with which to create it. The immaterial cannot create the material. It can only imagine it. Therefore, everything in this Universe has to be a mental construct of that consciousness. Why it “created” us and how it was done so that we experience ourselves and our surroundings as material will be the subject of part II.




1) Paul Brunton gives many explanations, examples, and proofs of how our thoughts and our consciousness are controlled by GOD in “The Wisdom of the Overself”, E.P Dutton & Co., Inc, 1943.

2) Hermann Lefeldt gives detailed explanations of Causality and Finality in. “Methodik” volume I, Ludwig Rudolph (Witte-Verlag) Hamburg 13.

Home | Introduction | Contact