Thanks for the warning! I visited your site, but I couldn't find in it the citing of a shred of objective (empirical) evidence to support the claims of Holophany, nor even a clear statement of just what theory or explanation of creation is offered by Holophany. And so, for the moment at least, I'll stick with the scientific theories of a Big Bang followed by physical, chemical and biological evolution (random events and nonrandom processes in nature - chance and necessity) which are currently favored by the scientific community (and supported by a veritable mountain of diverse empirical evidence which grows exponentially year by year). A supernatural creator God may (or may not) actually exist, but if one does, as far as I can tell He/She/It is either incompetent or else has not paid a lick of attention to what's going on in the cosmos (and particularly among humans here on Earth). The "widening of man's perceptions" requires empirical evidence which can stand up to critical examination; when that is available, post it on your website and then I'll be happy to revisit and reconsider.

Basically, the theory of "Creation" that I bring forth is not stating that there was a Big Bang or that there was no Big Bang. The Big Bang does not explain creation of something from nothing, nor our "perception" without which we could not have asked the question. Empirical data do not answer Heidegger's question, "Why should there be something rather than nothing?" Also, science is unable to explain "consciousness", or free will. As you have remarked, science can only deal with either causal or random processes whereas free will is neither. Does that mean then that free will is a figment of our imagination? If so, you can't punish crime because according to this view, the criminal cannot be held responsible for his deeds: he was either forced to do what he did by causal processes, or was the victim of random events. So obviously, the world of phenomena is much richer than what scientific formulation can measure.

You seem to ascribe objective existence and attributes to phenomena, independent of measurement. I hold that the parameters of the measurement are the parameters that define what this or that phenomenon is; if the same event was measured through different parameters (if it was defined differently), it would appear to be a different event. According to this view, for instance, an electron IS its quantum numbers, or in other words, everything IS its "definition". This is the reason that I do not question the true nature of phenomena, but rather my quest was to discover the lawfulness of how phenomena are perceived irrespective of who or what perceives (measures), or what is being perceived (defined). What I found was an isomorphic logical structure (with universal realizations). This logical structure - the loop logic - implies that existence is a necessity, which answers Heidegger's question. So "God", the Creator must be this logical structure, which also answers why "He/She/It is either incompetent or else has not paid a lick of attention to what's going on in the cosmos (and particularly among humans here on Earth)," as you put it.