Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Theory on God and existence

  1. Jul 12, 2006 #1
    About a year and a half ago I came to the decision that I'm no longer christian. Since then I've been studying every source that has anything to do with our beginning. Its through my study of physics and cosmology that I've finally come to my belief in our origins. In the bible it says that god created us in "His" image. What if this does not refer to our physical appearance? To be able to create an entire universe and life inside of it god would not be bound by the phyisical attributes of it. My belief of what was meant by being created in his image is by consciencness. To help explain this, I'll define what I believe god is. I once pictured god as an extremely old man whose wisdom was beyond that of any man. I now think of god as an infinite consciencness. Imagine if you could that energy itself was conscience. All matter and all that drives matter in the universe is energy. If this is so then god would know everything because god is everything. This would lead to another statement and one of my beliefs that god is in fact everything. This infinite consciencness created a conscience image of itself, humans. As for my belief in how he created us, try to imagine in your mind if you could an aquarium. Now in this aquarium let there be three fish that are swimming around, eating, living and dieing. Everything they do they can feel and taste and experience. To the knowledge of these fish they exist. Now imagine you had the conscience capacity to create an entire universe. What if we are nothing more than a conscience creation. If so then take your aquarium in mind again. Everything that these fish do is a creation of your mind however random they may be. In this the fish are part of you. It is in this reasoning that I've come to believe that you and I are part of god and he is part of us. We all talk about how humans are connected. Not just humans, not even limited to just living things, but rather all matter is connected by a single being. It is in this belief that I've overcome my fear of death. I used to believe that after death you went to heaven or hell. I could not fathom that just because I wanted something I could not have that I was going to hell. I now believe that in death we do not stay a single consciencness but return to that greater consciencness that is us. If this is so then I am not only connected to you and everyone and everything but I am part of you and everyone and everything just as you are part of me. Heaven has always been defined as limited to only the good because it is perfect. If you look a little closer at existence itself you will find an uncanny resembalence to heaven. If radiation was even .001% off of what it is then nothing would exist. If gravity was even .001% off of what it is then nothing would exist. If magnetism were .001% off of what it is nothing would exist. If any of the elemental forces or atomic weights even .001% off of what they are then nothing would exist. So you could define existence and therefore life as absolutely perfect. What if this is heaven and we're all to ignorant to realize it. Let me ask you a question. If you could live all enternity in a world where everything was given to you and you had no challenges would you enjoy yourself? I know I wouldn't. Even now here on earth I get bored sometimes and there are lots of challenges. What I'm trying to say is essentially that life is perfect and it will be here for a very long time. I believe that I, maybe not as Kyle, will always exist.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 13, 2006 #2
    Hi ChongFire - Welcome to the bearpit.

    You've kicked off with very brave post. Don't be suprised if it's removed from metaphysics.

    As it happens there are a few people here who'd agree with most of what you've said, and I'm one of them. However, the term 'God' is highly emotive and I'd rather avoid it.

    Did you know that roughly-speaking you're expounding the doctrine of the Hindu Upanishads, and of Buddhists, Taoists, Sufis, Theosophists, Essenes, Rosicrucians, Gnostics, Joachites, Orthodox Christians and the rest? What you may find more astonishing, having given up Christianity, is that if you check out the Nag Hammadi library, in particular the Gospels of Thomas and Mary, the Essene Gospel of Peace and the Gospel of the Holy Twelve I think you'll find you're still a Christian. (It's all online). Alternatively, check out the Philokalia, a collection of writings by Christian contemplatives covering a few centuries, and especially those by Evagrios the Solitary.

    However, the view these texts propose is slightly different from yours and these differences are crucial to its plausibility. For example, you suggest that we return to a fundamental state of being on the death of our bodies and minds. According to the mystics it is certainly within our power as human beings to ensure that this happens, but it does not necessarily happen. It is much more likely that we will yet again miss the opportunity and find ourselves in another life, struggling to make sense of it all.

    Good luck
  4. Jul 13, 2006 #3
    God is the Absolute. The question of the Absolute can be asked in physics, metaphysics, cosmology, philosophy, logic, and religion.

    As for ensuring anything – our desires seem literal to us, but are figurative to the Absolute. The Absolute's will is literal, ours is figurative. It's in the giving up of the illusion that ours is literal, that we allow ourselves (in this body or not) to be where we always are – inside of and a step behind, the will of the Absolute.

    Giving up on Christianity can be a good thing, as long as you don't give up on the Absolute. Giving up on any religion that has a false absolute(s), which they all do – will bring you to the invisible Absolute and the never ending question of trust in it.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2006
  5. Jul 13, 2006 #4

    First when I use the term god its only for lack of a better word. And secondly I can not be and will not be for I refuse to be Christian as I strongly disagree with their teachings. The belief that you must love Christ the son of "god" or you will go to hell is not something I can believe. It is my belief that "god" created us for the sole purpose to enjoy life. This doesn't mean I should go join some hippies and start doing drugs it just means make the best out of it. I don't know if I will ever proclaim to be part of a particular religion because I believe all religions to be flawed, however I will definitely look into as many as I can and take what I feel to be true from each and every one of them. My belief will not be based on what someone teaches me to believe but what I come to believe myself. I greatly appreciate any and all input you have for me because it is only recently that I've become a student of life. Everything you think would be helpful for me to study or read I most definetly will.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2006
  6. Jul 13, 2006 #5
    this helps to me when i contemplate: "be humble enough to realize limitations of your own perceptions". This goes both ways; dont trade one belief for other (even though opposite).

    book that is an invitation to critical thinking: Carl sagan: demon haunted world, Thomas Gilovich : how we konw, what is not so.
  7. Jul 13, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Just to note on the religious discussion guidelines, I see no reason as of now to move this or delete it or close it. The simplified rule I invoke is that rational theology is allowed, revealed theology is not. In other words, so long as you are making an argument that is not an argument from scripture, and are not arguing specifically for scriptural claims, you're fine. When we get into topics on mysticism, they teeter on the border a bit, in the sense that they are damn close to divine revelation, but are nonetheless not exactly handed down from authority, in which case I'll just look at a case by case basis and invoke the spirit of the rule: no fighting. If a discussion looks like it might lead to a fight, it's gone. This certainly does not look that way.
  8. Jul 14, 2006 #7

    I would disagree with you on some details, but another time. I feel that the Absolute you describe is precisely what lies behind most religions, buried under the clutter.

    Yes, but the Christianity of the Roman Church, the state religion of the Empire, which you want nothing to do with (nor me) is not the Christianity taught by Jesus IMHO. That's why I suggested reading some of the Gospels not approved by the western Church.

    Good stuff. Don't believe anything anyone tells you except provisionally. This is the method recommended by seekers of the Grail the world over.

    There's a great little series called 'The Essence of ... ' (Taoism, Sufism, Gnosticism etc. Eagle Editions). These are very good indeed and make it easy to see that there is only one mysticism despite the plethora of religious expressions of it. Thus ones religion becomes a matter of preference, a choice of methodology, aesthetics, culture etc., not a choice between different cosmologies.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2006
  9. Jul 14, 2006 #8

    Your approach seems very fair. However, a weakness of this site IMO is that there is nowhere to discuss mysticism properly. I'm not talking about revealed wisdom. I agree with you about that. Appeals to direct experience carry no weight in discussion and are rather pointless when made by email. However, it is perfectly possible to discuss the mystical cosmology without having to appeal to experience. Do you think it might be possible to open up a new category? It might bring a little clarity if mysticism had a home of its own and did not always have to be mixed up with other topics. Just a thought.
  10. Jul 14, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    You could suggest it. I wouldn't personally mind so long as there were enough people on board that would use that part of the forum. In fact, I find that kind of stuff incredibly fascinating if for nothing other than scholarly reasons, in which case, it would probably belong in Social Sciences, as a subset of Anthropology.

    The only problem I see is that the rest of the staff is likely to see it as no more productive than the old monotheistic religious scripture discussions they banned and not be very open to the idea. You'd have to make a good case, since it's far from the original intent of the board. But hey, they did include a humanities and history section, which is basically pure scholarship, so as long as you convinced them enough people were interested and it wouldn't be used to promote religous views so much as properly understand what they are . . .
  11. Jul 15, 2006 #10
    Yeah, I think you've illustrated the problem. Until there is some proper discussion about it then people will go on assuming that mysticism is theism. They will also go on assuming it's not an empirical discipline just a rigorous as physics. This is precisely the reason I'd like to see a dedicated section. Maybe I'll suggest it and see what happens. Or perhaps I'll ask it as a question and see what everybody else thinks first.

    I note that in a sticky (!) in the PF Lounge mysticism is placed in the same category as UFO experiences, New Age mythology and God-knows what else. This is the sort of idiocy that ought to be impossible on a site like this IMO.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2006
  12. Jul 15, 2006 #11
    If I understand your intent, yes. And it's also buried under the clutter of science and philosophy.

    The clutter is caused in all cases – by the mistaken belief there is an "absolute" on the inside of the Absolute. A God incarnate, a truth, a particle, wave, string etc.
  13. Jul 15, 2006 #12
    If your god can only know every "thing", then your god is limited and not perfect, for the perfect god would know everything and nothing equally--that is, the perfect god would know the no"thing"ness of pure energy. I find a less than perfect concept of god wanting.
  14. Jul 16, 2006 #13
    Yes, I agree with all of that.
  15. Jul 16, 2006 #14

    Sorry for the earlier comment. I see I misread your post. Please ignore what I said about illustrating the problem. It was me illustrating that I had misread what you said. :smile:
  16. Jul 16, 2006 #15
    In my previous statement I did not mean to describe God as energy but rather energy as God. At this I mean energy is created and therefore part of God. This is not everything that God is though. To attempt to conceive what God is, is frankly mind boggling.
  17. Jul 18, 2006 #16
    God is beyond ALL.

    When this is "realized" (believed) – there is one more step.

    "To put trust in" (faith) – "the unconceivable".

    Having a "conversation" with God is a process of what "seems like talking to yourself". It is the figuarative "I" talking with the literal I. Your "one" relating to THE one and vice versa.

    The results of these conversations, are tangible and helpful, given these things – awareness, subtlety, discrimination and patience.

    The results can occur within your "head" and without you. Wait and "see".
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2006
  18. Jul 19, 2006 #17
    At this I will bring up the Aquarium again. In essence you are every part of these fish. You are the fish and their thoughts, desires and fears. You are also what make them up. But you are not only the aquarium. You are more complex then these fish could even imagine for they are limited to the laws which you have bestowed upon them. As you are not limited to the laws of the aquarium neither is god subject to the laws of the universe. To us infinity is inconcievable. Gods conscioucness is infinite.
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2006
  19. Jul 22, 2006 #18
    Infinite – without beginning or end. If something doesn't begin, it can't be said that it actually happens.

    Describing God as infinite is common, but it actually disproves God's existence (attemts to). God actually happens (if there is a God) – it is beyond infinite. So is its consciousness (focus).

    "God" is beyond having no beginning or end. These are attributes that can only be applied to one definition of the universe (infinite). Having a beginning and end, the universe would be finite.
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2006
  20. Jul 23, 2006 #19
    I conceive infinity in a variety of ways, the "limit" of the calculus, the inability to conceive the largest positive integer on the number line, conceived lack of causality to existence (e.g., existence exists).
  21. Jul 23, 2006 #20
    Well, no, I would suggest that you (and I) are limited to the laws (of vertebrate embrology) that the fish have bestowed upon us.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook