Five Radical Propositions: A New Argument About God

Context

Archie D. Wood, Sr. claims to have been repeatedly visited by highly evolved humans from the future who identified themselves as “God”. The first of these alleged visitations occurred in June of 1979. According to Wood, God commissioned him to write a new book of scripture that would reveal the true nature of God and serve as a restoration of gnosis for all humanity.

In 2007, after twenty one years of writing, Wood completed his book of scripture, which he called The Song of God: Living Gnosis of the Ahgendai. The book was printed for the first time in its entirety the following year (2008).

During this time I was a student of Wood’s and assisted him as a personal secretary. I worked closely with him for many years and oversaw the editing and printing of his book.

Around 2008, Wood began to refer to — and tentatively elaborate upon — a set of statements, a series of “Mysteries”, that he said explained the underlying nature of humankind, God and the universe. Wood eventually began referring to these “Mysteries” as “Propositions”, to finally (and more officially) designate them as the “Five Radical Propositions”.

While initial references to the Propositions didn’t occur until 2008, Wood claimed to have formulated the Propositions decades earlier, just prior to experiencing his first theophany event in 1979, stating that his discovery of the Propositions was one of the reasons why God first appeared to him. Wood also taught that God prepared him to write the Song of God by using the Five Propositions as a tool to instruct him about the existence of God and the mysteries of eternal progression. I cannot verify exactly when Wood discovered or formulated the Propositions, but it wasn’t until 2008 that he began drawing attention to them in their codified, ordered form.

The following is an introduction to Wood’s “Five Radical Propositions”, along with attendant premises, concepts and questions pertinent to their formulation, as taught by Wood himself. This discourse is neither a critique nor an analysis, but primarily a retelling of the Propositions based on what he taught and wrote about them.

Resources I have used to write this piece include: personal notes derived from private conversations with Wood; personal notes taken during public lessons given by Wood; audio and video recordings of Wood discussing the topic; and unpublished material written by Wood himself.

---

Introduction

Wood taught that his construction of the Five Propositions began in 1978, and was the result of an intense, intellectual pursuit to answer the following questions:

• Can the universe exist without a God to create it?
• Does God exist?
• If God exists, what is God’s true nature?

Determined to answers these questions, Wood abandoned his religious ideas about God and life, and began a rigorous investigation of what science was revealing about the evolution and nature of life, the earth and the universe. His inquiry led him to research various fields, including: astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology. He studied the works of several influential scientists including Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Faraday and Hubble.

I am not a scientist, nor do I have any formal education in any of these fields, but to me it seemed as though Wood had an impressive and comprehensive understanding of the aforementioned subjects.

---

Proposition I | Preface

Can the universe exist without a God to create it? Does God exist? If God exists, what is God’s true nature? Wood’s pursuit to answer these questions brought him to the challenge of reconciling the existence of evil, specifically ‘natural evil’ — naturally occurring processes that result in pain and suffering — with the existence of a wise, capable, and loving creator God. Many western theists argue that God must have sufficient reason for sanctioning what we designate as ‘evil’, claiming that such evil must ultimately be for our greater good. Wood came to reject this defense based primarily on two components: ‘Will’ and ‘Moral Responsibility’. He introduced his argument by first presenting a list of premises commonly agreed upon by defenders of western theism^[1]Wood (2013); Five Radical Propositions – Proposition I (unpublished essay):

Christian Conception of God

1. God exists.
2. All things in the natural world exist and act only according to the “Will” of God. [Wood uses the term ‘natural world’ here in reference to naturally occurring objects and processes that do not have a ‘will’ of their own. It excludes the actions of humans.]
3. Nothing in the natural world can exist or act independent of the “Will” of God.
4. How one chooses to express their “will” has a lot to say about their character.
5. The expression of one’s “will” carries with it an attendant responsibility.
6. God is always pleased when the natural world acts in accordance to his “Will”.
7. God is never displeased that the natural world should act according to his “Will”.

Most would agree with premises #4 and #5: that the expression of one’s “will” says a lot about their character, and “carries with it an attendant responsibility”. If a person chooses to be honest and forthright, then that person’s “will” to act in such a fashion reveals their character to be that of an honest and forthright person. If a man doesn’t pay his bills, he would be held responsible for the consequences. If an adult knowingly places a child in a dangerous environment and the child suffers pain or injury, the adult would be held responsible for the consequences. In similar fashion, if a star goes supernova, or if two galaxies collide, and if such events truly reflect the “Will” of God, then God is responsible for these events.

“The ‘will’ which precedes the act bears the responsibility.”^[2]Ibid.

According to common religious thought, nothing can exist nor happen independent of the “Will” of God. Yet, humankind is often afflicted by natural occurrences such as: hurricanes, tsunamis, tornados, floods, famines, droughts, earthquakes, volcanoes, diseases, etc. Many theologians would claim these often disastrous events reflect God’s “Will”. But what does this expression of “Will” say about the character of God — a God who would create a world, a universe, that produces violence on such grand scales?

While observing the natural world as it is, it is difficult to believe that a loving God created it. How can one believe in a God who is wise and compassionate while observing all the harm foisted upon humankind by natural occurring processes? If a God exists, and really did create the natural world, then this God is morally responsible for all the death, pain and suffering experienced as a result of natural calamities.

With these considerations in mind, Wood arrived at two premises and three possible conclusions:

Premise 1: Natural disasters exist and result in large scale human suffering.

Premise 2: If a God created this world and universe foreknowing that such natural events would cause human suffering, then such a God is guilty of depraved indifference, negligence and complicity.

Three possible conclusions:

1. The universe exists, the world exists, we exist, but God does not exist. Therefore any discussion of God is an exercise in rhetorical gibberish.
2. God exists and created the universe and the world we live on, but God is cruel, callous, and malevolent.
3. God exists, but God did not create the universe and the world we live on.*

Considering each of these three conclusions, Wood proceeded to explore implications of that which became the First Proposition*:

Proposition I | Conclusion
God exists, but God did not create the universe and the world we live on.

---

Wood’s research led him to understand that the universe came to exist through natural, evolutionary processes. If there was a creator of the universe, it wasn’t the type of being characterized by Abrahamic religions. In his efforts to determine the nature of God, Wood concluded that if God was truly wise, benevolent, and holy, then God couldn’t be the same ‘thing’ that created this universe. But if God didn’t create the universe, why continue to entertain the existence of a God at all?

Back in 1978, Wood began to speculate the existence of some First Primary Cause, some “universal consciousness” behind creation. But he did not abandon the idea of a God that somehow existed but that didn’t create this universe. According to Wood, the following were his justifications for entertaining the existence of these two separate entities:

Wood’s initial justifications (ca. 1978) for considering the existence of a God (that didn’t create the universe):

• Ritualistic Burials
• God Thought: as represented by the widespread cultural development of supernatural beliefs.
• Moral Phenomenon: (Wood may have been referring to the philosophical ‘argument from morality’.)
• Principle of Similarity: “Kind produces kind, kind cleaves to kind.” (Wood utilized this axiom as a guiding factor throughout his inquiry, which contributed to his distinction between a relevant, relatable God, that was separate from a ‘universal consciousness’ that created the universe.)

Wood’s initial justifications (ca. 1978) for considering the existence of a “universal consciousness” behind creation:

• Evolution / Darwinian Processes: Wood revered Charles Darwin as a scientist and often made reference to implications of his theories. He taught that Darwin succeeded in demonstrating how everything that exists today evolved into its present state over extraordinary amounts of time, from simpler and simpler forms. Anything which can be said to physically exist today, from the microcosm to the macrocosm, must have evolved from simpler forms in its past. Wood applied this theory in formulating his ideas about a ‘universal consciousness’.
• Scientific Observations / Cosmology: 
  – Big Bang Theory
  – Cosmological Constant
  – Cosmological Principle
  – Anthropic Principle
  – Uncertainty Principle
  – Natural Mathematics / ‘Sacred Geometry’

Summary: It became evident to Wood—primarily because of the affliction caused by natural occurrences and catastrophes—that God did not create the universe and the world we live on. He also theorized the existence of a First Primary Cause behind creation that was not God, but rather, a “universal consciousness” that possessed no concept of good or evil, right or wrong, but was merely engaged in a process of creation and destruction.

Questions

• How can a benevolent God be said to exist, but not be the creator of the universe?
• Why didn’t God create this world, this universe?

---

Proposition II | Preface

We know there was a “time” when the universe did not exist. Yet today, we know the universe exists and that its existence is the result of a process. It had a beginning. This beginning marked the starting point where evolution, or process, led to the development of more complex structures. This idea has proved challenging for Christian adherents because of their established views about God, i.e. that God has always existed, that God had no beginning, and has always been as he is today. Wood rejected this conception of God because it does not align with what is known about that which is said to exist and be real.

“The issue before us is a simple one. It deals with the nature and quality of what can be said to exist. When people say that God has no beginning, they are stating, in reality, that God cannot possibly exist. No one can point to anything in the physical universe and say that it has always existed as it is. For anything to be real, for anything to exist in its present state, then that thing must have a beginning. A beginning is imperative to the existence of anything.”

Adapted from Wood’s unpublished essay: Five Radical Propositions – Proposition II; 2013

Wood’s Second Proposition was based upon the following premises:

Premise 1: All things which are said to exist and be real must have a beginning.

Premise 2: In the absence of a beginning, nothing can exist which is said to exist.

Premise 3: In order for God to exist and be real, God must have a beginning.

Premise 4: Since God had a beginning, then there was a time when God did not exist.

Proposition II | Conclusion
God did not create the universe because at the time of its creation, God did not exist.
(God had a beginning. God evolved.)

Questions

• If God had a beginning, where was it?
• From whence did God evolve? On what planet?
• What was God’s original species?

---

Proposition III | Preface

Wood’s Third Proposition explores how a god-like being could have arisen from evolutionary processes.

The existence of the universe is the result of a process; it evolved. Can the same be said regarding God? If so, then what process of evolution brought about the existence of God? Is there any evidence supporting the premise that God evolved and is real in the same way that the universe is real?

Wood (2013); Origins manuscript, ch. 6

If some intelligent being or species evolved to become God, what does that process look like? Does God reflect a civilization so advanced that its scientific and technological advancement can only be measured in millions or billions of years? If this is so, then wouldn’t the idea of God prove relative in nature? Given enough time, is it possible for the human species to become so scientifically and socially advanced that they would seem god-like?

Premise 1: In order for God to have a beginning and evolve, a life-supporting environment would be required, i.e. a sun and world capable of harboring life and promoting the evolution of an intelligent species.

Premise 2: We presently know of only one world in evidence that harbors intelligent life.

Premise 3: We presently know of only one species in evidence that exhibits an advanced intelligence and is engaged in science.

Objection: Out of the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, isn’t it possible that there exists civilizations millions of years more advanced than humans are today? Isn’t it more likely that God would evolve from one of those species instead of our own?

Rebuttal: If such an advanced civilization exists, who are they? What planet do they live on? In what galaxy were they discovered? There is presently no evidence in support of the foregoing objection. While it is certainly possible that a civilization more advanced than humans exists somewhere in the cosmos, there exists no world in evidence, no intelligent species in evidence to support the position that such a species exists.

Proposition III | Conclusion
This world we call Earth is the place where God began. God evolved from the human species.

Questions

• Aside from being human, how is ‘God’ to be defined? What are God’s attributes? Abilities? 
• How long would it take for a member of the human species to evolve into God? A million years? A billion years? A trillion years?
• How could God have evolved from a species that has only been around for a few hundred thousand years?
• How can a human God be said to exist today, when the human species is so young?
• How can the answer to any of these questions make God relevant to us today?

---

Proposition IV | Preface

Premise 1: It would take more than a few hundred thousand years of evolution for God to evolve from humankind.

Premise 2: If time travel is possible, then enough time could pass for God to evolve and return to this time period.

Premise 3: Time travel is theoretically possible, e.g. via an Einstein-Rosen Bridge (wormhole).

Premise 4: God has the ability to travel back in time to our present.

Questions:

• How would this future God come to exist in our present time frame?
• Why would this future God come to exist in our present time frame?

The question of how God would travel back to our present is a matter of theoretical physics. Of greater interest is the question of why? Why would this future God travel back in time to exist in our present time frame? Why come back at all? This question led Wood to the assumption (based on credible concern) that humans somehow destroyed themselves and their world. Wood concluded that, due to the underlying benevolent nature of God and the idea of ‘Moral Responsibility’ (as addressed with the First Proposition), the primary reason for God to travel back in time to this world was to rescue from oblivion those that perished.

“Generally speaking, as a species, we tend to think that if a person has the ability and the opportunity to save someone, and instead, they choose not to, we would question their humanity. Most people would tend to look upon such an individual with scorn. God came back in time to save the earth and everything on it, because they had no other real choice. Their sense of morality would not allow them to do otherwise.”

Wood; unpublished essay: Five Radical Propositions – Proposition IV; 2013

Proposition IV | Conclusion
God traveled back through time, bringing some of their children with them, in an effort to save the world on which God began.

Editor’s Note^[3]Editor’s Note: Wood’s Fourth Proposition hinges on the assumption that this world we are living on — the world from which God first evolved—was destroyed. Is there evidence supporting … Continue reading

Questions

• How would God go about ‘saving’ the world?
• If God evolved from the human species, and if God is said to be immortal, what was the mechanism that allowed God to survive physical death?
• What are the implications of immortality and eternal life?

---

Proposition V | Preface

Premise 1: A life without meaning is meaningless.

Premise 2: It is the fear of death that forces humans to create meaning in their life.

Premise 3: Eternal life is the absence of death.

Premise 4: Therefore, eternal life is meaningless and not worth living.

Premise 5: Since eternal life is said to be one of the defining attributes of God’s nature, then God must live a meaningless life.

Problem: What kind of God does this leave us? How would such a God relate to His/Her/Their creations?

Proposition V | Conclusion
Without death, eternal life is not worth having.

Considerations:

Death is a powerful catalyst; it compels us to search for some kind of meaning and purpose to our lives. Death reveals the value of being alive. Without death, life would become a burden. We tend to take our loved ones for granted. We stop seeing the beauty around us simply because we are around it every day. Seeing our loved ones die compels us to find meaning and purpose in our lives. Death reminds us to cherish life and the ones we love. The sorrow and loss we feel at the death of those we love compels us to stop, look, and evaluate.

In order for God and eternal life to have any real value, then there must be something which challenges its very existence. Without this struggle, without the risk, eternal life would devolve into a mind numbing existence of mediocrity and complacency. Such an existence would not be worth having.

Balance is essential to harmony.
For eternal life to have value, eternal death must be a possibility. A reality.

Questions:

• What would threaten the eternal life of God?
• What power would pose the risk of eternal death?

---

Summary and Closing Remarks

FIVE RADICAL PROPOSITIONS
by Archie D. Wood Sr

I. God exists, but God did not create this universe or the world we live on.

II. God did not create the universe because at the time of its creation, God did not exist. God had a beginning. God evolved.

III. This world we call Earth is the place where God began. God evolved from the human species.

IV. God traveled back through time, bringing some of their children with them, in an effort to save the world on which God began.

V. Without death, eternal life is not worth having.

With the completion of the Song of God in 2007, Wood began to tentatively introduce the Five Propositions in their codified form. According to Wood, he had formulated the Propositions just prior to experiencing his first theophany event in 1979, whereupon he learned that the creation and accuracy of the Propositions was, in part, why God first appeared to him.

Wood claimed that in the years that followed, he was taught by these glorified beings about the nature of God, and came to more deeply understand the implications of the Five Propositions.

Lingering questions inspired by the Propositions were subsequently addressed. For example, Wood came to understand “God” as being represented by a Supreme Collective, wherein one is chosen to speak for the whole. He also came to a greater comprehension of the mysterious origins, nature and intent of the Universal Consciousness that created this universe. He learned about the dawn of God’s beginning, the advent of soul, the destruction of First Man, the pathways of eternal progression, and the means by which God’s existence is preserved from the threat of mediocrity and complacency. All of this and more was allegedly revealed to Wood over a period of decades, giving rise to the new book of scripture, the Song of God – Living Gnosis of the Ahgendai.

Wood maintained that with the “Five Radical Propositions” he had uncovered, through daring and simple reasoning, essential truths necessary to understanding the correct nature of God, Man, and the Cosmos — and the relationship between all three.

What do you think?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Five Radical Propositions?
Do they work? Do they successfully connect the pieces of this Humanity-Universe-God puzzle?

---

[Minor revisions were made on 5/25/22 for grammar, structure, punctuation and clarity.]