A Critique of Omega-point theory
December 23, 2014 at 6:52pm Chris Schaefer
The immutability of distinctions and plurality in the context of eternity future.
 Omega point theory states this:
Information Increases infinitely.
 The universe even though it is currently expanding now, due to too many black holes eventually collapses
into an infinitesimally small point (the big Crunch);
Even with the big Crunch, Infinite information can never be truly destroyed (it can be scrambled,
disordered, but it is never annihilated) and so it is then contained in an infinitely small point.
 At that point of the big crunch, time within the time-space continuum reverses (the end is the beginning)—
eternity and infinity are infinitely small.
the Lack of Space then becomes infinitely expansive within the space of nothing because the information
is infinite.
 The omega point is identified with “God”. The omega point is infinitely large in terms of information and
infinitely small in terms of space, and yet the space within the nothing-point is infinite. and it doesn’t matter
because time is reversed: all of time and none of time is contained within the nothing omega point.
 All is one and One is all (and all of the horrifying implications of that: good it evil, evil is good, everything
is nothing, and nothing is everything, etc.).
 Ultimately it (or he) is a STATIC system— any change is only illusion— it is all STATIC, any existence is
only illusion (and delusion, for that matter).
The “traditional view” of Judaism is that YHWH does not change— that He is eternal, AND by default:
STATIC. This would seem to support the Omega point theory, but is it right?
The first and biggest problem with the Omega Point theory, is that it disregards the DISTINCTION between
the Creator and that which was created. Now it could be argued that creation is destroyed in the
theoretical “big crunch”, but if that is so, then it could also equally be argued that the Creator is also
destroyed in the “Big Crunch” since the creator in omega point theory has the same fate as everything
else— the point of nothingness.
This puts us in the same quandary of the atheistic origins of everything:
0 * 0 * 0 = 1 + 1 + 1 which means:
nobody acting upon nothing during no time made everybody and everything in all of time.
(which simplified could be 0=3 which could then be reduced to 0=1). It is nonsense.
At a school I used to work at, there was a math teacher who happened to be a Sikh. One day were were
having a conversation in the copy room. Sikhism as he explained it to me (his understanding of it), has
belief in a Supreme being, and the adherents of Sikhism ascend to “God-hood”/The One as they realize
that they in fact are “God/Divine” We also discussed his notion of how the universe came to be. Strangely
enough, he had a very secular viewpoint about the origin of everything— namely that nobody acting upon
nothing during no time made everybody and everything in all of time. And I asked him, “but doesn’t that
ultimately mean that 0=1 and 1=0?” And he replied that that is how nirvana works (he also had a fondness
for Buddhism) I asked, “ But as a math teacher, how can you reconcile 0=1 and 1=0?” He shrugged his
shoulders and answered, “I know it does not seem to make sense, but that is what I know to be ultimately
true.” I followed up with: “Doesn’t that mean that The One who you consider to be Divine is nothing? He
smiled and did not have an answer. You see, he just annihilated distinction in order to fit his theology, and it
collapsed his belief into nothing. Omega point theory does the same, because it relegates the Creator to
the same fate as creation. and collapses it into nothing. Why? because DISTINCTIONS are very
important. When distinctions disappear, everything collapses.
So we acknowledge a Supreme Being, but is the Supreme Being Static, or Dynamic?
Does the Biblical text support the notion of a static Supreme Being?
Before we answer that, we must first ask another question: can a static Being CREATE? After all the act
of creating is an ACTION that has a before, during and after: The condition of something not existing (the
before), the action of something being created by somebody (the during), and then finally the something
that is finished being created by somebody (the after). Furthermore the act of CREATING must have a
Creator and something created (that IS NOT the Creator).
Beresheeth 1:1 In the Beginning Elohim CREATED the Heavens and the earth.
The Before: in eternity past, there was a time when the earth was not.
The During: We read about the “during” of creation in the whole first chapter of Beresheeth/Genesis.
The After:The rest of Scripture and the times in which we and others have lived and died, and will live and
die, and eventually be resurrected.
What essential ingredient is there for creativity to take place? The One thing that nobody wants to admit
the Most High has: Curiosity. A static Being has ZERO curiosity because there is nothing for a static being
to be curious about. But Without Curiosity, there is no possibility of creation, because there is nothing to
do.
Is there any evidence of Divine Curiosity?
Beresheeth/Genesis 1:26 “LET us MAKE mankind in our image, in our likeness"
So right there are implied are the three distinctions of before, during and after. So Elohim said “LET us
Make” — it could even be contracted “Let’s make”. It would be nonsensical to say “Let’s make humankind”
if humankind was already made. Had humans been made before this? The text seems to indicate that no
they hadn’t— otherwise the creation of humans wouldn’t have been so noteworthy. The fact that Elohim is
about to do something that hadn’t been done before illustrates a DYNAMIC action rather than stasis.
Furthermore, because there is a DISCUSSION, it seems to be that Elohim is expressing some kind of
curiosity, operating within some kind of chronology (even if that chronology is outside of our notion of time).
There is no foregone conclusion, because Elohim is DISCUSSING what to do. A foregone conclusion
NEEDS NO DISCUSSION. Yet right here in Beresheeth 1:26 is a discussion.
A way to visualize Creator chronology would be when an editing team is editing a video. The editing
director and editor, and assistant editor of the video have random access to any point of the video that is
being edited, and yet the editor/editors operate and interact within their own chronology, and accomplish
the process of editing. The video itself has it’s own chronological sequence within it apart from the editing
team, so that when played it is analogous to our time on earth— YHWH Elohim sees all the time on earth:
past, present, and future, and monitors and even intervenes what is happening with the present.
Yet for us, time plays out where the past is unretrievable and the future only exists as potential.
Nazorean Acts Book 1 LXIX
Yaqub speaking:
“unless a man be immersed in water, in the name of Yahusha, as Yahusha taught,
he can neither receive remission of sins nor enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; and
he [Yaqub] declared that this is the prescription of the unbegotten Elohim. To which
he added this also: ‘Do NOT think that we speak of two unbegotten Elohim,
or that one is divided into two, or that the same is made male and female.
But we speak of the only-begotten Son of YHWH, not sprung from another
source, but born from YHWH’s bosom; and in like manner we speak of The
Ruach.
Yaqub highlights some important distinctions here:
A distinction between the UNBEGOTTEN Elohim (YHWH) and the BEGOTTEN Son of Elohim.
A distinction between unbegotten vs. begotten. A Solitary YACHID Being canNOT be both UNbegotten
and begotten at the same time of the same Being— anything otherwise would violate the law of noncontradiciton.
A distinction between male and female. One Kadosh Being (singular tense) canNOT be BOTH male &
female at the same time— maybe the hermaphroditic baphomet can, but that’s not Who we worship. A lot
of Messianics try to say that “YHWH has both male and female characteristics” and yet Yaqub’s words
seem to contradict such a notion.
Yaqub’s closing sentence can be taken two ways (“In like manner we speak of The Ruach”).First possibility:
That Ruach HaQadosh (NOT unbegotten) came forth from YHWH’s bosom. There is support for this:
Mishlei 8:22-23
22 YHWH possessed Me in the beginning [raysheeth] of His way,
before His works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,
before the earth was.
Possessed = kawnaw which means created by extension—or in other words, derived; similar to
the bawnaw used to describe Chawa’s derivation from Ahdahm.
Set up = nawsak which means poured out like a libation.— poured out— BY WHOM?
Mishlei 8:24-30 (The Ruach of Chocmah speaking)
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when
there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was
I brought forth:
26 While as yet He had not made the earth, or the fields,
or the highest part of the dust of the earth.
27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there: when
He set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 When He established the clouds above: when He
strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 When He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters
should not pass His commandment: when He appointed
the foundations of the earth:
30 Then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I
was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him;
“Brought forth” is khool which means to dance by twisting and whirling in a circular or spiral manner.
If there is doubt about this referring to the Ruach, we can go to this:
Yeshayahu 48:16 (HRV)
Come you near unto Me, hear you this: From the beginning [roshe] I have not spoken in secret [say-ther];
from the time that She* was, there am I; and now the Master YHWH has sent me and his Ruach.
*“She”-- even though some translations have “it,” the literal Hebrew is equivalent to “She.”
Now some might conclude that the “she” may be referring to the earth. And that could make sense, since
cities are also referred to as “she.” The only problem is the earth is not one of the objects mentioned in the
sentence. The next candidates could be: “from the beginning”, and “secret.” Roshe (from the beginning) is
a masculine word, so it is unlikely that “She” is referring to that. While say-ther (secret) can be masculine
or feminine, it does not make any grammatical sense for “She” to be referring to say-ther /secret, since the
speaker is NOT speaking in secret. So the only feminine word left is Ruach!
The second way that Yaqub’s closing sentence can be taken is that the only begotten Son of YHWH also
came forth from Ruach HaQadosh (who as we demonstrated above was derived from the Father and so
she cannot share the title “UNbegotten”, since Her Source is also The Father) — there is also support for
this:
"My Mother, the Ruach HaQadosh took me just now by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great
mount Tabor,"
“’And it came to pass when the Master was come up out of the water, the whole Fount of the Ruach
HaQodesh descended and rested UPON him, and said to him, ‘My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting
for You that You should come, and I might rest in You.
For You are my rest, You are My firstborn Son, that reigns forever.’”
If that were not enough, it seems that the the distinction of the male-female duality is essential for our
theological understanding.
So, it seems to be that Distinctions are Essential for us to have a coherent theology. ( Strangely enough, a
static being also has ZERO free will because he is then a PRISONER of himself and a LIMIT to himself that
cannot be surpassed.)
So what can we do with things like the double slit experiment? (where a photon can behave both like a
wave and a particle and yet the act of observing changes it’s behavior). Things like this Where seemingly
contradictory conditions seem to be simultaneously true? How can we understand these without also
collapsing our understanding of the Creator(S) being distinct from creation.
There have been things which humans have made— which are fictional paradoxes where opposing ideas
merge into one
this tuning fork thingy where the background merges with the object.
http://cs.brown.edu/~deus/courses/optical/devilsPitchfork.jpg
This staircase where up and down merge into one.
http://www.greynotgrey.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/escher.jpg
but both are fictional and are merely illusions and cannot be made into something real. These could be
thought of as analogies for the ways in which we trick ourselves into thinking that distinctions don’t matter.
(and yet somebody distinct from these illusions made these illusions for someone who is also distinct from
these illusions to look at these illusions)
And also there are real things which are enigmas.
The mobius strip which has only one side, only one edge, yet it is three dimensional and takes up space.
the back is the front.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Möbius_strip.jpg
The Klien bottle which only has one side, no edges, yet has a practical inside and outside, yet goes through
itself having neither an inside nor outside, because that which is in and out of the Klien bottle is a
continuum.
http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-WGyarrXkxzI/UZ1ckMXYQ4I/AAAAAAACGdM/7RAQw7BQrXk/s900/k20.jpg
The Klien Bottle and MoBius strip are reminiscent of the double slit experiment revealing an enigma that
the Creator Himself designed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
But Who made the mobius strip? People. Who made the Klien bottle? People. The people are not the
Klien bottle, the Mobius strip is not the person who made it. The Creator and His Creation are not the way
that the electrons behave at quantum levels
But just because the mobius strip and Klien bottle are enigmas which collapse seemingly opposing ideas
into “THE ONE idea”, does not mean that those objects can be used to formulate an all-encompassing
ONE-NESS of everything, everybody and the Creator. Why? because somebody outside of those objects,
made those objects. So if we should come away with anything from those objects, it should be that the
distinctions between Creator and creation are essential and eternal. Yes there are things which seem to
converge and perhaps do converge, but their convergence is within a paramater/limit and does not
automatically transfer to everything and everybody else. There is no law that says that the enigmas must
serve as the paradigm to understand everything else. And even so, there is a distinction between
enigmatic phenomenon and that which is not enigmatic.
In closing let’s re-examine Beresheeth 1:26-27
Beresheeth/Genesis 1:26 says:
Then Elohim said, "Let US make mankind
in bə·ṣal·mê·nū,
in kiḏ·mū·ṯê·nū…""
“bə·ṣal·mê·nū” is a MASCULINE PLURALword which means OUR IMAGES
“kiḏ·mū·ṯê·nū” is a FEMININE PLURAL word which means OUR LIKENESSES.
(at this point it should be noted that bə·ṣal·mê·nū and kiḏ·mū·ṯê·nū ONLY occur in this one verse, and
since there are no other verses to compare these words to, it makes for a convenient way for translators to
hide the plural and gender-specific nature of these words)
So the CORRECT rendering of Beresheeth 1:26-27 is like this:
Then Elohim (Mighty OneS) said,
"Let US make mankind
in OUR [masculine] IMAGES,
in OUR [feminine] LIKENESSES,
so that THEY may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild
animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
So Elohim created mankind in his own image, in the image of Elohim he created THEM; MALE AND
FEMALE he created THEM.
Kohelet/Ecclesiastes 12:1
1 Remember your CreatorS *** in the day of your youth.
***(Hebrew: Et Borecha is“your CreatorS” not just “Creator”).
‫בוראיך‬
So with the principal of first appearances, it would seem that plurality and distinction (the sacred distinction
between male and female) are Divinely immutable. How much more so the distinction between the
Creator/s and creation.
Omega point theory has neither, and therefore fails.