Fiction-theory and religion philosophy


(For “Fiction-theory and astrophysics” push “Astro-onderzoek”)

(A philosophic / religion essay)

A theory on mankind’s entitlement to existence, (and by consequence its possibility of open up a relationship with a supposed creator)

This theory is founded upon the history of creation, as based on the currently available scientific knowledge in astronomy and physics, and enriched with scientific views as described by Professor E. Schillebeeckx in his book “Jesus; an experiment in Christology”.

When discussing the question of existence, science refers to the “Big Bang” and the evolution theory. In this explanation the universe seems to have been made by a “Big Bang”.

In a way, given the immense size of the universe it is not surprising that in-depth analyses of the
matter from the Big Bang repeatedly reveal relatively enormous amounts of emptiness in e.g.
molecules, atoms etc..

Suppose that infinite analysis of this matter results in no matter being found, or just a positive potential and negative potential, cancelling each other out and resulting in zero, which, given the current scientific findings, is not unrealistic but probably not provable either; so does this then mean that we are living in a true emptiness?

This is not new, already Einstein’s “General Theory of Relativity” concluded, that space, matter, time and energy did came into existence out of nothing.

Also innovative conceptions of the Big Bang indicate an existence out of nothing;
viz. the splitting of zero-energy in positive-energy and negative-energy, (primal force-fields),which would cancel each other until nothing, provided that these forc-field particles were not kept separated by the big bang explosion-speed.
Nevertheless, the primal force-field particles will try to restore the original conditions by pulling together, thereby creating gravity and so mass, which evolved in our existing universe.

Does this mean that life is based on “fiction”?
And if there is no matter, there cannot be any time connected with it! Then we must be living in an eternal today!

Starting from the assumption of fiction, what is then the source or cause of the Big Bang?
Most probably this source, just like the fiction of the Big Bang, is matterfree as well, and so without matter, it also knows no time.
And, what is matter-free, is not created, and consequently knows no beginning and no ending.

Staying in a man unknown and incomprehensible dimension, this source is an eternal, non-material source of power; which despite its lack of matter, but given its creative power, remains a conscious entity.
This is in contrast with the human being, which without matter has no consciousness, and as a consequence, does not exist.

So the question is; why did this self-conscious source of power create this fiction?
Is the big bang a means from the primal source to visualize his matter-free self-consciousness in order to create therein a self-conscious man?

Before it is possible to find an answer, it is important to first understand the place of mankind within that fiction.
It is clear that an evolution process has been taking place within the fiction, in which in a recent phase some animal has evolved into a self-conscious being and in so doing has passed the transition phase.

Man is a self-consciousness being, as the creator of the fiction seems to be.
However, the difference is that man’s consciousness is linked to the matter within the fiction.
Disconnecting from the fiction means the end of man’s consciousness i.e. man’s death (the finite nature of mankind).

Although connected with the matter, man, as a self-consciousness being, is self-determining (autonomous).
Within the fiction man can create but also destroy, for example by taking his own life, or by destroying a part of the fiction through war or by CO.2 emission.

It is therefore also possible for man to want to acquaint himself with the creator of the fiction, or not, and thus to deny or acknowledge the existence of the creator.

Given the independence of man, such a recognition is not forced and therefore cannot be the reason for creating a fiction.
Man’s autonomy also seems to exclude some sort of “play thing” existence.

However, man, as a self-conscious being that can take an independent position, around whom the entire fiction of the universe seems to be constructed, must be of some importance to the creator of the fiction.

There seems to be little point in having a human being disappear from the fiction at the end of his or her life.
Evidently the creator of the fiction offers mankind the possibility of putting its self-consciousness outside the fiction and that undoubtedly must have a goal or point.

A possible goal was formulated through monotheism.
There, the reason for the creation can be found in recognizing the existence of the creator of the fiction, but then founded on a voluntary, autonomous and disinterested basis.
This would lead to an anchoring of the self-consciousness of man in the self-consciousness of the creator of the fiction, resulting in a disconnection from the fiction.

But, why should a recognition of the existence of the creator be the motive to introduce mankind?
The potential stayed in a timeless emptiness, where this potential can be self-sufficient but without any existence-recognition, because of the lack of a confirmation-source.

By creating man the creator ended a solitary stay in a timeless emptiness with no possibility to love and being loved, where the potential-source self-sufficiency did not experience being an ultimately fulfilling existence.

In essence, by creating man, the creator did create himself.

We have now entered the realm of religion, where directly a link can be made with monotheism in which only one creator is recognized, just as described within the fiction-theory.
An assumed existence of multiple entity’s remains, nonetheless, because of human’s fiction connection to that one creating entity, a monotheistic matter.

Multiple entity’s probably don’t exist, because then there would be no need to create mankind to acknowledge one’s existence.
Possible entity’s that don’t strive self-acknowledgment stay unknown to others and therefore do not exist.

The form of monotheism referred to above has its origins in Judaism, which historically explainable, has got a national and overly human character.
A Jewish prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, who was also important for the Islam  religion as well as the Christian religion, was a corrective force as regards religion and stripped it of its human influences and gave it a universal character.

Professor Schillebeeckx, in his book “Jesus, an experiment in Christology”, has tried to place Jesus in his historical context, taking into account the Jewish culture and symbolism in the use of language, properly justifying it linguistically and only relying upon facts and events that can be historically double-checked.

He reconstructs a historical person, who, by virtue of his way of life, his statements and faith, may give a deeper answer to the question of how the anchoring of the self-consciousness of man in the consciousness of the creator of the fiction, or the disconnection from the fiction, can be achieved.

Jesus’ inheritance is concentrated in being human towards others, having positive human feelings towards all that is valuable in mankind, reacting (also through man) to God’s universal love of man.
Professor Schillebeeckx sees this attitude as the connecting factor which makes man’s cause coincide with God’s cause, in a fellowship with God.

From this it can be concluded that connection and anchoring are achieved by a person’s willingness to subject one’s true self to that which is worthy in man (by complete self-identification with the other) and to his Creator, by which both realize a recognition of each other’s full existence.
Professor Schillebeeckx (as a monk) describes this as; “opening up man’s love like a flash at the universal creative love of God the creator”.

Such a presumed ability to connect and anchor with a creating primal potency suggests, that, within the fiction-theory, one can only start to see an evolving animal as human when it has become a potential creator-aware and self-conscious being.

This assumption raises the hypothetical question; why and how an animal, obeying an evolution process, becomes creator-aware ?
Reaching a phase of god-awareness seems not serving the evolution; just as a self-destructive human-being is conflicting the evolution.
Or, is the “human”-animal less influenced by the evolution-process, but more framed by flattering his self-consciousness potential, what consequently will involve man in a creator-awareness!

Does the Creator just leave it as a recognition, based on the anchoring of the self-consciousness of man into the self-consciousness of the Creator, or does He think such a recognition not to be enough fundamental.

Next may be the answer:
A recognition of the creator of the fiction, done by a origin equal consciousness, will achieve the highest achievable recognition-effect between entities of equal potency.

If so, next possibilities are presenting themselves:
A. The original (creator) consciousness-potential is inexhaustibly increasable, through which each becoming human is given the possibility to add a fragment at the original (creator) consciousness-potential.
B. The original (creator) consciousness-potential “is” eternal, consequently not to be created and therefore not increasable.
In this thesis the creator gives each human the possibility to obtain a fragment from his immense original consciousness-potential, which will be realized when joining the divine community of love.

The possible finiteness of the universe (ending like it started) may implicate, that the benefit of human life will cease to exist, through which the proposed possibility B is preferred.
Moreover, possibility B effects a more ultimate recognition effect, whereby the ultimate full-fledged relationship between entities can be obtained.

The fact, that man is part of the visualized immaterial self-consciousness of the creative primal source, indicates, that the creator opened the way to such a relationship.
To this end the creator has provided an environment (universe), in which the creator intended relationship to humans can develop, in the expectation that, at the end of life, the than disappearing man-received, visualized fraction in the primal potential, in intangible form through anchoring in the primal potential, will be continued as a divine community of love.

But why as yet to fulfill a fiction-life?
The answer may be, that by coupling human’s consciousness-potential to an earthy existence an own identity is be given to each individually human consciousness.
This identity, having love as standard, can not be infected by a negative (earthy) autonomy, in which case, in leaving the fiction (deceasing) man may lose both his fiction-matter and self-consciousness.

The didactic bible-story, concerning the fallen angels, teaches: obtaining an identity may lead to a negative autonomous attitude, which aforementioned can be eliminated by way of an earthy (fiction) life.
Does man, because of his negative autonomousness, not make use of the by the creator offered and intended opportunity to the formation of the previously indicated community of love, man, at his death, loses his fiction-matter and his self-consciousness as well, because he has not affected a linking of his consciousness with the eternal primal potential, so he then, like all mortal beings, disappears in a nothingness.

Aforementioned consciousness is, at his birth, coupled to an individual assembly of genes, which determines the body and the brain.
In man’s lifetime the interacting body and brain will create a store of experiences, resulting in the identity of the individual man.

This identity determining individual package, with its possible distortions and abnormalities, does not have any influence on the purity of both the by the creator with man aimed consciousness relationship as the response of the human being thereon, in realizing an anchored consciousness (love) relationship.

A god realization rejection, arguing “the biological manipulable brain” confuses identity with consciousness.

The result is, a by the Creator aimed relationship with mankind, in which He gives a part of himself, expecting from mankind a loving recognition like He recognizes man.
Thus the primal creating potency has transformed the original primal conscious potential for a renewed divine living-community of love.
In the resulting divine living-community of love, one shares each-others love and consequently one’s spiritual experiences of love in and with the creation, and maybe, in the context of a assumed timelessness, even may be able to relive these spiritual experiences of love.

To be incorporated in this divine living-community of love, does not lead to a break with relationships, which are built in unconditional love during one’s earthy live.
One may expect that such a relationship will continue to exist unto generations (e.g. grandchildren), by “being there” for them, on a spiritual level (of love).

The theory will probably never be experimental scientifically justified.
Nonetheless one may conclude, that the thesis may be fundamental as a basis for all religion-theories.
Nevertheless nonetheless, a denial of the existence of a creating God has been made more difficult, whereas free-thinkers have been given some more food for thought.

FICTION-THEORY ( Integrated into a world religion)

A summary confrontation to reason what the influence of an implemented application of the fiction-theory on a world religion can be.

Fiction-theory integrated into the Christian religion.

If one tries to fully integrate the fiction-theory into the Christian religion, then Christian concepts such as “trinity, heaven, hell and purgatory” take on a somewhat different interpretation.

“Trinity” translates into a community of love, in which:
The “Father” = the Creator, representing the original consciousness-potential.
The “Son” = mankind, that is disconnected from the fiction but anchored in the consciousness of the Father.

This relationship, intended by the Creator, is propagated by a Jesus Christ, who is professed in the Christian-bible and who, by virtue of his way of live, his statements, his faith and his performance of beneficial acts in Palestine, has become the personification of the whole mankind within the “Son”.

This view seems to be underpinned in Jesus’ high priestly prayer; ( John 17:24 )  “Father I want those you have given me to be with me where I am”, ( John 14:20 ) “You are  in me and I am in you”, (John 17:23) Ï am in them – so that they may brought to complete unity”.

The “Holy Ghost” = the by love anchored consciousness between the Father and the Son.

Without Father no Son, without Son no recognition as desired by the Father, packed in a relationship of unconditional love (The love which mutually connects the Father with the Son)

In explaining the trinity, the description of the “Son” deviates from the Christian religion.
There are different interpretations within Christianity, the Jewish religion and Islam.
The Jewish religion and the Islam religion call him a prophet, whereas in the Christian religion the “doctrine of man /Son of God” has steadily arisen, until at the Council of Nicea in AD 325 it, under resolution passing pressure, on the basis of then generally practiced Christ piety, was accepted as a dogma.
This dogma assumes that the Son emerged from the Father.
Below the arguments against and in favour of this Christian dogma vision are discussed.

Arguments against the dogma vision:
According to Schillebeeckx, the historical Jesus has never himself acknowledge being divine, which may indicate a careful avoidance of every obstacle to human independence and autonomy.
Jesus lived in a spiritual of nation hopes for an end-time traditionally wonder-performing prophet, which was projected onto Jesus, while followers well-meant tended to increase the at that time miraculous events or even to complete from other sources known miracles.

Schillebeeckx describes Jesus as an extraordinary, historical figure, who, by the way he lived his life, his view of life and by how he experienced God, had managed to forge a special connection with his Creator.
For example, his calling God “Abba” (literally “Daddy”) instead of the then customary Jewish religious names of Yahweh, Father, etc., suggests a very emotional bond.
So it seems therefore possible, that an appeal from the prophet Jesus to his Abba, especially concerning the salvation of his fellowmen, would receive a higher consideration than the average person’s appeals and why he could manifest so noticeably in Palestine back then.

Incidentally, in Jewish culture the (human) title “son of God” had been used for former prophets long before Jesus’ arrival.

His special status in the Christian religion within the bible seems explicable in the absence of time outside our fiction-existence. By the Creator this is experienced as time-less.
Consequently the Creator was been able to foreseen the intensity of the close relationship Jesus should create with his God (his Abba).
To such an extent, Jesus got a pioneer-function in explaining the intended relationship between mankind and his creator.
This might be the reason why Jesus’ coming seems to be prepared in the bible.

Within the fiction-theory a creation of a divine son, born of the Father (Creator) is not explainable.
More divine original consciousness-potentials make the need to create mankind superfluous.

In all probability the titling is of no importance, otherwise this would have been made known in a much forceful way during Jesus’ lifetime.
Apparently, the message that was being told to the world mattered the most.

Amplifying, the book written by Paul Verhoeven is referred.
In his book “Jesus of Nazareth” he describes, founded on his film-producers background and fed by during 20 years attending the by prominent scientists-visited “Jesus Seminar”, a historical human Jesus, who may approximate the forever unknown reality.

In support of the “Son of God” dogma, bible-certain Christians refer to the part of the Bible, where God self gives evidence of his only Son, according to the apostles Mark (9:1-12), Luke (9:28-36), Mathew (17:1-11) on the mount Tabor and Mark (1:9-11), Luke (3:21-22), Mathew (3:13-17) during the baptism of Jesus of Nazareth by John, where in both cases should have been pronounced from heaven: “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased”.
However, the use of the phrases “beloved” and “in whom I am well pleased”, instead of a straight pronouncement, seems superfluous; unless there are also sons in whom He is not pleased.

Last thesis matches the fiction-theory, where every man (like sons) is invited to take part in God’s existence, but what is not accepted by everyone in a by the Creator aimed relationship between man and his Creator.
Otherwise, from those testimonies, by the apostles Mark, Luke and Mathew, may be concluded, that the Creator, staying in a timelessness, has foreseen, that Jesus of Nazareth should fulfill his mission through which, as appears from the above mentioned pronouncements, Jesus became the chosen specimen of mankind.

It is obvious, in an awareness-process on the by the Creator towards man intended relationship, Jesus of Nazareth has experienced God’s power of creation and in this close contact with his “Abba” he steadily became aware of his Messiah acquired special status by performing his (to him unexpected) miracles.

Starting from above assumption, Jesus of Nazareth has reacted to the vacation of his Creator and in being human, he has sought the essence of his mission as aimed by his Creator, in which he is remarkably strengthened by at that time miraculous occurrences and bible-prophecies.

As chosen specimen of mankind, Jesus of Nazareth has refreshed and opened up the possibility of a relationship with the Creator, through which Jesus should have got a mankind privileged position within the “Son”.

In world-religions lots of people have experienced a similar vocation, carrying this out in propagating their assumed essence of their mission, as can be referred to great names as Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius and all great minds, to be found in all religions.

For non-dogma believers it is encouraging to hear the following (translated) adapted “credo” within the (Dutch) Roman Catholic Church:

I believe in love,
source of live
at all times;
for that reason I believe in Jesus Christ,
child of Mary.
I believe in the virtue of the way of living, set by him,
who has been crucified, has died and been buried,
but who is alive in us
carrying his name
and celebrating his memory.
I believe that those,
who believe in love,
shall not die for ever.
I believe in the greatness of Jesus’ being-human:
He is the standard;
he is the touchstone for our way of living.
I believe in people creating a church together,
full of doubts in continuing to believe,
there is a loving God, marching on with them.

In the fiction-theory the incarnation dogma (becoming human) seems a superfluos assumption.
Afterall, through the visualized part of God’s self-conscious potency received by man, man has become a participant in God’s primal potential, whereby also the creator, the primal potency itself,has become part of the love and sorrow of the whole mankind.

Arguments in favour of the dogma vision:
In spite of the arguments put forward against the dogma vision, the fiction-theory can substantiate the dogma vision to a significant degree:
For realization of an ultimate full-fledged relationship between entities, (the primordial potency and the human being) the primal potency can assign himself, by means of his incarnation, as large a fraction from the primal consciousness potential as the fraction of the individual man.
In this way, as God/man, in full awareness of his potency, the creator has aligned himself as an equal entity with man both in his earthy existence as within the divine community of love.
In this context, all arguments against the dogna vision appear to confirm the intention of the primal potential to be fully human with humanity in the entity oj Jesus.

The outlined transformation of the almighty primal potency in the biblical God/man, Jesus of Nazareth, attests to an all embracing unsurpassed love from the Creator to the human being.

The cited modified context with Christianity is, that now we are talking about the primal potential (Creator/God) itself, and not about a Son, which would have emerged from the Father.

Nevertheless, also in the just above described situation, Jesus Christ choses to remain also part of the Son within the Trinity, be it in an outstanding position.

At the end of the christian part of this essay, in an additional conclusion, the Christian dogma position is formulated on the basis of Jesus’ statements (from the fiction-theory point of view).

Interpretation of other conceptions in the Christian religion:

The concept “heaven” is the bond of love between the individual love of man with the universal love of God (Creator), by man’s individual part in the original consciousness-potential of the Creator, connected to the individual love of all mankind, forming a divine living-community of love, in which one shares one’s love and consequently one’s spiritual experiences of love in and with the creation, and maybe even, in an assumed timelessness, the reliving of these experiences of love.The concept “heaven” is reflected in the concept “trinity” as a highest unique realization of personhood.

According to the following quotes; — (John 17:23) “I in them and you in me”, (John 14:20) “I am in my Father, and you are in me and I am in you”, (John 17:21) “Father just as you are in me I am in you. May they  also be in us.” — anchoring in the divine community of love leads to the presence in each other’s deepest being; the ultimate love experience.

“Hell” means the destruction of any human being not by love disconnected from the fiction; who in death loses both matter and consciousness.

“Purgatory” is not an essential concept within the fiction-theory, but may be a phase in which the deceased who, although in love disconnected from the fiction, bitterly regret their forsaking of love, which could have increased their “flash of love “ at the universal creative love of God.

“Devils, satan, fallen angels” have no meaning within the fiction-theory, but these concepts are covered by the human ability to be “negative autonomous”. Which encloses, that an intended anchoring by love, at the same time includes the rejection of a possible practiced negative
The fiction-theory may know deceased non-fiction decoupled, who through interconnections in the self-consciousness of a living being, are not able or willing to leave the fiction.
In Matthew 8:28, Luke 8:26, Mark 5:1 (the possessed of Gerasenes ) is spoken about Legion (“devils/unclean spirits”), that enter a herd of swines, which subsequently rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.(exiting the fiction)
The fiction theory knows no “devils/unclean spirits”, but does offer the possibility of deceased nonfiction decoupled, which, according to the evangelists mentioned afore, through interconnections in the self-consciousness of a living fellow being, are not able or willing to leave the fiction.
Apparently a great torment, which they escape by dying in a swine (exiting the fiction and losing his consciousness).
The evangelists turn out to have the same concept of “hell”.

The concept “angels”, within the fiction-theory, might be in love deceased human beings, who from their position as intercessors with God, try to assist their living beloved.

The “Bible”, within the fiction-theory, is principally important as far as it has contributed at the statements, faith, virtue of way of live, proclaimed by Jesus of Nazareth.
Meaning, the “Bible” is describing the history of monotheism (and been interpreted by Jesus of Nazareth).

The fiction-theory has problems with the Christian “Son of God”-dogma and claims that in the Christian dogma only a part of the original primal consciousness-potential can function in the entity of the Son.
Nevertheless, the fiction-theory fits perfectly within the Christian religion.



The possible Christian point of view according to the fiction-theory:

Before the world began (John 17:5, 17.24); the Father and the Son of man “Jesus Christ” were one (John 10:30, 10:38, 12:45, 14:10), in a matter-free (without beginning and end) self-conscious source of power, which, in the pursuit of an ultimate full existence (for all entities), has created, out of nothing (see the renewed big-bang version) with input of its potential, an environment in which a corroboration source can evolve between equivalent entities, that, in complete self-identification with the other, are capable of knowing/corroborating (John 17:3) each other’s full existence, resulting in the invitation for mankind to become part (John 17:23, 17:24) of the divine community of love, symbolized in the (1) trinity (John 14:20, 17:21, 17.22, 17.23), which has been perfected and reaffirmed by Creator’s incarnation.

On the basis of above mentioned statements of Jesus one can conclude the following:

Before the world began, there was one primal potential, an indivisible “I”, a self-consciousness one, the “Father”, who has created out of nothing a visual universe, in which the “Father” has made available parts of his consciousness potential to give autonomous beings an opportunity to develop into entities. In other words, a transformation from the primal consciousness potential to an indivisible range of entities, of which only Jesus was aware of his origin (the “Fathers entity”) and of his mission given by the origin, (the “Father”).
In Jesus’ death cry, “My God why did you abandon me”, one may explain the moment when Jesus (as a human being) leaves his “the Father entity”, while in “Father in your hands I command (Luke 23:46) my spirit”, Jesus obtains his own (human) entity which he then offers to the “Father”, thus being one but in two entities with the Father.                                                            With Jesus Christ’s life as a guide, all entities are invited  by the Creator– on the basis of the principle of being willing to subject their personal experience of being, in complete self-identification with the other (conformation of existence), to all that is worthy in man —  to continue an earthy existence in a timeless divine living-community of love.


John 17:5. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
John 17:24. (partly) and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

John 10.30. I and the Father are one.
John 10.38.(Partly;) that the Father is me and I in the Father.
John 12:45. The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me.
John 14:7. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. Etc.
John 14.10. Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?
The words I say you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
John 17:11. (partly;) Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they be one as we are one.

John 17:3. Now this is eternal life; that they know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

John 17:23. I in them and you in me – so that they may brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
John 17:24. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am. Etc.

The Father; the indivisible only one, matter-free self-conscious source of power: The Creator.
The Son; Jesus Christ, as indivisible part from the Father, as well as Son of man, equal in entity with man; together with all man who are with him.
The Holy Ghost; the love between the Father and the Son.

John 14:20. On that day you will realize, that I am in my Father, and you are in me and I am in you.
John 17.21.That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
John 17.22. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one.
Luke 23:46. Father into your hands I command my spirit. (transferring power and control)

The concluding end of the above essay ( especially the John’s statements; the glory that I had with you before the world began / before the creation of the world I and the Father are one ) closes a circel with the essay about the origin of the universe.

(integrated in a world religion)

A summary confrontation to reason what the influence of an implemented application of the fiction-theory on the world religions can be.

Fiction-theorie integrated into Islamic religion

To clarify the integration of the fiction-theory (in it’s purest form) into the Islamic religion, the position of the prophet Mohammed within the Koran must be defined first.

In consequence of the pre-decease of his father, the young-decease of his mother, followed up by the decease of his grandfather, then growing up with his frequent travelling uncle, young Mohammed developed his own independent opinion.

During his trade-contacts this attitude was confronted with the Jewish culture through which he developed his monotheist thoughts.

At the age of 40 he received his first revelation and proclaimed this within a hostile polytheistic culture, which in the end forced him to flee from Mecca to Medina.

In his first (Mecca-) verses, one mainly finds theological statements. But, the more his respectability in society was growing the more he was confronted by his followers with problems of sociological and practical nature, whereupon the answers were formulated in his Medina-verses.

These verses came into existence in a special background (doctrine of Asbâb and Noezuel) and ought to be transformed to nowadays backgrounds (knowledge of Nâsikh and Mansackh).

At that time these sociological and social backgrounds were predominated by the Bedouin culture (slaves for instance), where-at the prophet Mohammed has reacted in a tactful and wise way at the needs of that time in his Medina-verses.

The same problematic one meets in the creature story (Adam and Eve), which is adopted from the Jewish religion by the Islam religion as well as by the  Christian religion.

Based on the scientific knowledge at that time the universe should have been created in 6 days. This bible-story is copied by the Koran and quoted in many verses.

According to the present point of science the Big Bang and the evolution theory are accepted to be the origin of the universe. This is not detrimental to the essence of the creation story, namely, that the universe is created by Allah, but during a longer period then 6 days. The Koran-explanation quotes: Days = periods.

With this establishment, the monotheism and the lack of the trinity-dogma, the fiction-theory is not conflicting the Islam religion. Indeed, in the fiction-theory the concepts hell and heaven are more spiritual defined than in the Islam religion, where these concepts are described in a more human (understandable) way.

The concepts angels and djinns are not essential in the fiction-theory, but one can describe these concepts as follows:

“Angels” might be in love deceased human beings, who, from their position as intercessors with God, try to assist their living beloved.

“Djinn’s” might be deceased fiction-decoupled, who can’t or are not willing to leave the fiction right away (transition phase/purgatory?). And possibly “djinn’s” might also be deceased non-fiction decoupled; those who do not wish to let go of the fiction (universe) as a last resort to prevent damnation, (which in the fiction-theory equals destruction) and managed to interconnect in the self consciousness of a living fellow human being.

Conclusion; the fiction-theory may fit in the Islam religion.

For “Fiction-theory and astrophysics” push “Astro-onderzoek” on top first page.