Keith Mayes - Amature Astronomer - Scotland UK - Photographer of background for book cover.

I think I should begin by making it known at the outset that I am not what you may describe as a ‘religious person’. I do not accept that God must exist, but do accept that it is of course impossible to prove that God does not exist. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. I tend to have an open mind on the subject, neither convinced one way or the other.

I first ‘met’ Ron, and I refer to him by his first name because we have become good friends, when he sent me an email in response to a topic on my web site. The topic asked the question ‘Does God exist?’ I argued He didn't. We exchanged many emails over a long period on this subject, and I found the exchange to be most informative. I argued that his belief in God was founded on nothing more than faith, and as a ‘scientific thinking man’ I argued that this was hardly a reason for believing in anything. Ron replied that as a ‘scientific thinking man’ all my accepted facts and theories were also based on nothing more than faith. What nonsense I replied! However, he is right. Every axiom, every ‘given’, every hypothesis, starts with a basic assumption from which to begin, it starts with having faith in something. This came as a great surprise to me for I had argued with Ron that I had no faith at all and only believed in facts. How then could I now scoff at his faith in God when I have only the same faith in science?

While on the subject of faith I have to admit that I had previously always associated the word with ‘blind’. For ‘faith read ‘blind faith’. Since corresponding with Ron I now realise how mistaken this concept is. Faith does not require that you abandon all reason, judgement, logic, common sense and doubt, it allows all of these things, in fact it requires them. To accept a thing because you believe you must, is showing a complete lack of faith, you would have no reason to believe it, so how could you demonstrate faith in it? It is surprising what you can learn sometimes if you only open your mind and actually listen to people. I have now set the scene for giving a critique of Ron’s book ‘Alien Physics’. You now understand that I tend to be a logical thinking person that looks for hard facts. I am not a ‘religious minded person’ and I do not attend any church. So what do I make of the book?

The first thing that should be said is that unlike many books on a religious theme it does not give the usual ‘Sermon from the Mount’. It does not extoll you to be good so that you may go to heaven and avoid the fires of hell. It is a far more surprising book than that. The book makes an extraordinary claim, a claim that at first may appear to be preposterous, either that or the ramblings of a maniac. What this book proposes appears to be in direct conflict with all I had been taught as a child in Sunday School about the existence of God and Heaven.

‘Alien Physics’ is saying that Heaven is not a spiritual, etherial world that can only be experienced after we have died. It says that God is not a semi-mystical being that again we can only meet after death. ‘Alien Physics’ is all about explaining how we are now already living in Heaven, and living in God. God is all around us, that we are indeed part of God, not part of God in some spiritual only sense, but part of God because He is the Universe that we live in, God is space itself! I quote from the book. "Jesus tells us where he came from, where he is going, and where he was at the time he spoke these words to his disciples. He came from the heavens above us and was going to return to that place and that is where he was when he was speaking. Heaven is the one and only domain for both
God and man. There is no other world of any kind."

‘Alien Physics’ also explains the transformation needed by man in order to truly become a part of the cosmos of God. Ron does not pluck his ideas out of the air, these are not his idle thoughts and theories simply dreamed up because he likes them. Ron has taken all the arguments from the bible itself. Every thought expressed, every idea presented, is firmly backed up by giving direct quotes from the bible. I have to admit that I find this version of God and the Universe to be far more acceptable than the version I had been taught as a child. This gives the Universe itself meaning and intelligence - the Universe is God, God is the Universe - as it does our own existence, for we
are all part of the Universe. Indeed this theme is one that I have proposed myself, that we and the Universe are one and the same thing, and that our consciousness is the self-awareness of the Universe. What I had perviously failed to see was the implication that this is precisely what God is.

I do admit to having a problem with fully understanding how man can be ‘transformed’ in the manner described in the book, but this is not due to any vagueness of description in the book, on the contrary everything is clearly explained in great detail, but is due to my way of thinking and always looking for hard concrete proof. The book itself is well written, factual in its biblical references, and clear in its explanations. I have to admit that I am not a great lover of quotes and references from the bible, I tend to find these things tedious, but for students of the bible, for those with a genuine interest in what the bible teaches us, then Ron’s use of biblical text will no doubt be a source of much interest and much debate. No matter what your religious beliefs may be, this is an extremely interesting and thought provoking book for all people.

I thoroughly recommend that you read it.

Keith Mayes