Peer-Review My Systematic Theology (it could be fun?), Pt. 1 - Intro & The Existence of God

It's been a few years since I posted anything on ATS. Even when I was here on a regular basis, I hardly ever posted in anything other than sciencey threads. Some may remember me from such places. If not, that's okay; but what I remember most about ATS is the high quality of minds among its membership. I'd like to tap into that, if I can get even a few of you to help me out.

I do not originally come from a Christian background, but certain conclusions, which I have already made, are Christian in nature. That is to say, I have found sufficient evidence for the existence of the man named Yeshua, the self-proclaimed "Son" of God. I'm not interested in adhering to "Christian" doctrine for its own sake or in allegiance to any church or denomination, but, once I accept Yeshua as Truth, certain interpolated truths follow - for example, the reality of the Word of God. I do not believe that the Bible as we have it is without error or in any way "Holy," but I do find that the words attributed to Yahweh, as testified of by the prophets and found in the Hebrew Scriptures, are an accurate record of his spoken Word.
More examples of this will become evident as we go, but I wanted to point this out because it is not these foundational conclusions that I'm interested in discussing. If I am wrong about any of these, It is for me to find out on my own. I'd rather not be sidetracked by off-topic, age-old debate. My desire is to freely discuss the new ideas that I have built upon the foundation of these conclusions. I would be very grateful to anyone who wants to join me in this.

I enjoy traveling the paths of science and philosophy (perhaps counter-intuitively, those paths often cross), and what I hope comes of my journey down both is Truth. I enjoy the benefits of a good debate, but it's unfortunate that good interlocutors are hard to find. So what I am going to present, in multiple parts (if I get enough response), is the current product of my efforts - a Theory of Everything ("Systematic Theology") that intends to describe all reality. What I would like is as simple as the title of this thread suggests; I want a peer review. All scientific findings need a peer review, and, even in philosophy, I wish to adhere to the Scientific Method. What's good for the Gauss is good for the Gellner (so-to-speak). If any of you here would give me some of your time, I'd like fresh perspectives...fresh input, whether pro or con. I welcome criticism, but it must be constructive. If you're as invested in finding Truth as I am, maybe we'll all be a little closer to it in the end.

The first part of my Systematic Theology follows - "The Existence of God"

The Existence of God

I have struggled with this, because there is an entire school of thought that says that an infinite God cannot possibly be described by human language. On the other hand, there are several religions in whose Scriptures "God" willingly describes himself. Ancient religions had even more "local" Gods in the image of natural things. What could limit God more than picturing him as a man with a jackal's head? Obviously, whether God may be truly described or not, we seek to do just that. Yet there are words in human language for infinite things. Maybe infinite words can describe an infinite God after all. Or maybe the word "infinite" itself is an inaccurate description.

Philosophically, I've struggled with two questions: 1) Can anything exist without a sufficiently able first-cause ("God")? and 2) How can God exist?
This is our first apparent paradox between science/observation and philosophy. Observationally, things exist; observationally, things are caused to exist; intuitively, before there was anything, there must have been nothing; logically, how can nothing cause something to exist? If something had to exist to cause all other things to exist, then what is the cause of that first thing's existence?
And 'round we go.

This is the first aspect of my Systematic Theology that I would like to discuss:
What I propose is that we are looking at the problem in the wrong way. We've been biased by our immersion in a physical world to think in physical terms. We think in nouns: "things," "something," "nothing." I propose that "God" is not a noun. "God" is a verb, and it means "to be." God is not something that exists - he is existence. He is the act of existing. He is Yahweh - "Existing One." He is that which has to be so that there is not nothing; because there cannot logically "be" nothing - think about it - there has to "be" something, and that something is the act of existence itself. And the verb - the fundamental, necessary act of existence - is what we call "God."

To summarize, "God" is the act of intrinsic existence - existence apart from time or any other dimension. Just plain existence. Not infinite, not measurable or otherwise definable, not really even all that understandable. But I think I can grasp it just enough to call it the first thesis of my theory. Everything else will be built on this - assuming it stands up to scrutiny.

a reply to: CLPrime

I will tell you that in my limited knowledge and brief experience here, it would seem that "G.O.D.", or Gold, Oil and Drugs, are the true "Gods" of the real power brokers on the Globe. I'll be following your thread - interesting write-up. I'm happy you decided to emerge from the shadows for a brief flagworthy moment *thank you

a reply to: CLPrime

Before I finish reading your post I want to drop this vid off in hopes that some will come to understand what errors are being found in the Bible . I guess knowing is half the battle in getting things clear in our minds on some of these errors . Its also good to understand that some of the errors were done on purpose and had a motive Now back to finish reading your post ...peace

originally posted by: CLPrime
What's good for the Gauss is good for the Gellner

You win, "Gauss is good for the Gellner" is worth a flag on its own

Anyway, the bible is pretty good, its as close as we can get.
Reliable, maybe not perfect but I wouldnt recommend arguing that with anyone.

God is, He even qualifies Himself, as Love and as an offshoot of Love, He is also Justice
God wants humanity to see Him, understand Him, interrelate with Him, So God sent Jesus, the easiest way for us to see and understand God.
God in human form, Jesus or Yeshua either will do

originally posted by: CLPrimeBut I think I can grasp it just enough to call it the first thesis of my theory. Everything else will be built on this - assuming it stands up to scrutiny.

Your first thesis will only stand up to scrutiny if the one who reads it reads it with an open mind.
Not judging or coming in with a preconceived agenda, or to argue
You wont get that here

Yours is not an argument, just a personal understanding, good luck, God bless, whatever suits you...



Purely christian explanation from me

originally posted by: Raggedyman
God is, He even qualifies Himself, as Love and as an offshoot of Love, He is also Justice
God wants humanity to see Him, understand Him, interrelate with Him, So God sent Jesus, the easiest way for us to see and understand God.

Definitely, but before we begin to see qualities in relation to what he has created, I want to get to his qualities apart from Creation.
For instance, we can say he knows all things, but that is relative to what he created. So is saying he has all power. Even saying that he is Love is relative to Creation - he loves us, but can love exist between two things when one of those things does not exist? Is God Love if he has nothing to Love? Potentially, yes, and we can certainly suggest that it was in his plans to be Love toward his Creation, but this could only truly be once he created.

I think, apart from all created things, God is only one quality - existing.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yours is not an argument, just a personal understanding

I'd prefer to think of it as an opening proposition.

a reply to: CLPrime

Does He have all power?
Does He know all things?

If God has all power, then we are biologically automated
Does He know all things or does His logic play out all scenarios



This just gets confusing from here, I think its supposed to be

Its a nice proposition

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Does He have all power?
Does He know all things?

If God has all power, then we are biologically automated
Does He know all things or does His logic play out all scenarios

I hope to get to that in Pt. 3, if this makes it that far. It's a very interesting discussion. Hint: when it comes to things like determinism vs free will, I personally like to appeal to Chaos Theory.

You've already lost. "God" exists. Which "God?" And "he." You're a good writer though. S & F for that-and really trying.

This is one of those rare times I am posting as myself as I find the topic interesting
In modern Quantum Physics and Mechanics , some physicists theorize the further down they bore , the more evidence for either Creation or a Simulation.
Take the Creation side first - Could God be the actual singularity at the very beginning that contained all mass , energy , space and time ? God would be present in everything in the Universe.

Simulation - Could existence be merely a simulation , like the Sims game where the player has absolute control over everything known ? A French mathematician (forgot the name) has theorized that an infinite Universe could run on only a few lines of code for infinity.

Do you consider any of this as being part of the existence of God ?
That science and religion may very well merge together ?

Out there I know , but not my theories.

Are you open to an alternative theory? One that states god was just a term used for the most enlightened being at the time, and creation (the universe it self) is the most high. Look up the thread about billy meier, its a deep hole to fall in but very interesting, it explains about jesus not being the son of god but his name was jimmanuel. He was crucified but servived and was brought back to life by indian mystics then he traveled back to india with them. a reply to: CLPrime

originally posted by: Justso
You've already lost. "God" exists. Which "God?" And "he."

Which "God?" The one that exists. I'm only interested in the real one. Nobody owns him.
And "he" because that's the limitation of language. It feels weird calling God an "it," and it would be no more accurate, since I don't believe God is an "it" either. God is an "is," no more, no less.

originally posted by: Gothmog
In modern Quantum Physics and Mechanics

We're in luck, I studied Quantum Mechanics in university. It was going to be my career, until life happened.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Take the Creation side first - Could God be the actual singularity at the very beginning that contained all mass , energy , space and time ? God would be present in everything in the Universe.

Simulation - Could existence be merely a simulation , like the Sims game where the player has absolute control over everything known ? A French mathematician (forgot the name) has theorized that an infinite Universe could run on only a few lines of code for infinity.

Do you consider any of this as being part of the existence of God ?
That science and religion may very well merge together ?

Out there I know , but not my theories.

Not out there at all. Honest science and honest religion do most certainly merge together. That's the wonderful thing about Truth, the pieces fit together like a puzzle, and the pieces are found in more than just one area. If any aspect of religion is true, and if science is an unbiased observation of truth,then the two will compliment each other - help each other, and move each other forward. I love the dance (though I don't love to dance).

Concerning the Singularity theory: I might suggest rather that "God" has something intimately to do with the Quantum Vacuum, out of which all things "appeared."

Concerning the Simulation theory: this is actually a big part of my Theology. You'll see when we get to Pts. 2 and 3 (especially 3).

originally posted by: Lompyt
Are you open to an alternative theory? One that states god was just a term used for the most enlightened being at the time, and creation (the universe it self) is the most high. Look up the thread about billy meier, its a deep hole to fall in but very interesting, it explains about jesus not being the son of god but his name was jimmanuel. He was crucified but servived and was brought back to life by indian mystics then he traveled back to india with them.

If the evidence led there, I would follow, but I wouldn't head that way on my own.

After skimming some info on the Talmud of Jmmanuel, my first thought is it's an obvious hoax, as is Billy Meier's "evidence" of his alien contact. I'll keep reading a bit into it, though.

If its a hoax its alot of work gone in to it, but im glad you can take the time to read through it with an open mind as i have. a reply to: CLPrime

a reply to: CLPrime

Quantum Entanglement - all things are connected.
Excellent thread

a reply to: CLPrime

So is your theory as simple as saying that God is the unseen energy that causes everything?

I struggle to find the difference in your hypothesis than going back to the same paradox that you mention, but I'll rephrase it to fit your summary: If "God" is the act of intrinsic existence--"just plain existence"--what prompted that to even be a thing? Why did "just plain existence" emerge from or in conjunction with 'just plain nonexistence?' What created or cause existence to be a state, or to be a measurable thing?

Like anything else, the act of just existing is the result of something, and in my opinion, existence itself is the end result of another cause. So what is that cause? It still boils down to the same question: IF there is a god/"plain existence," where did it come from? Existence can't create its own existence...or can it?

That's the hole that I'm finding in your theory, just giving it about five minutes worth of thought. I'm interested to hear your response.

SM

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So is your theory as simple as saying that God is the unseen energy that causes everything?

Not really. At least, I don't think so...that's why I need input from others.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
If "God" is the act of intrinsic existence--"just plain existence"--what prompted that to even be a thing? ...

Like anything else, the act of just existing is the result of something, and in my opinion, existence itself is the end result of another cause. So what is that cause?

The "cause" of existence is the fact that "nothing" cannot exist. My proposal is that non-existence is impossible, therefore existence is a necessity. And the most basic existing-ness is "God" - the force (to use a scientific term in a completely non-scientific way) behind all "things" that exist.

To put it a different way: the physical things that we see around us are not the most basic form of reality. There is a different underlying reality called "existing" that is intrinsically necessary and from which all these physical things came to be.
This Universe is a cage within the true existential reality. The way a manmade virtual reality is constructed within the physical reality, our physical reality is constructed within the existential reality.

Also, it is this underlying "Existing force" that we call "Spirit."

originally posted by: CLPrime
The "cause" of existence is the fact that "nothing" cannot exist.My proposal is that non-existence is impossible, therefore existence is a necessity. And the most basic existing-ness is "God" - the force (to use a scientific term in a completely non-scientific way) behind all "things" that exist.

Don't get me wrong--it's an interesting way to approach the topic, but what you're saying is that, since the claim is that "non-existence is impossible," then non-existence necessarily IS the force of existence. That's what I'm getting out of what you're claiming, here.

I would argue that it's a very theoretical approach, sure, but when you make such absolute claims like, "...non-existence is impossible," it muddies the water of your claim because even that point in your theory is theoretical/philosophical. Yes, it's hard to comprehend what a true state of non-existence would entail (well, wouldn't entail, I suppose), but I fully believe that it is a possibility. I mean, take the concept of 'zero'...

To put it a different way: the physical things that we see around us are not the most basic form of reality. There is a different underlying reality called "existing" that is intrinsically necessary and from which all these physical things came to be.

This Universe is a cage within the true existential reality. The way a manmade virtual reality is constructed within the physical reality, our physical reality is constructed within the existential reality.

Also, it is this underlying "Existing force" that we call "Spirit."

That SOME call "spirit."

Let me ask you this, then: If our universe (which is supposedly what God/Existence created) is a smaller portion of the whole, is that noted "whole" part of an even bigger whole, and that one part of another, and another? Where does it end, because if I'm to subscribe to your notion that we live in a cage that is situated in a larger existence, then where does that concept/theory end? It could go on forever.

And maybe it does, but if that's the case, I think that your theory is unraveling as we discuss it, because you cited the position that there is only one god/existence, but in this scenario, there could be infinite gods/existences.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I would argue that it's a very theoretical approach, sure, but when you make such absolute claims like, "...non-existence is impossible," it muddies the water of your claim because even that point in your theory is theoretical/philosophical.

I'm fine with being philosophical as long as my reasoning is logically sound and doesn't contradict any actual observation of reality.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Yes, it's hard to comprehend what a true state of non-existence would entail (well, wouldn't entail, I suppose), but I fully believe that it is a possibility. I mean, take the concept of 'zero'...

Zero, as you say, is a concept, and the human mind is perfectly capable of conceptualizing impossible things. Our ability to conceptualize a thing does not make that thing possible. And I would say that being able to have "zero" of some quantifiable thing that exists is different than having zero existence altogether.

Like General Relativity entering a singularity, this is where any human's ability to process breaks down. I think I can safely generalize when I say that the human mind is incapable of conceptualizing zero existence. At that, I basically have to go with what I know...which is that something exists instead of nothing. This tells me that it was more likely for something to exist than nothing. Whether the odds were 51:49 in favor of existence or 100:0, I don't know, but I'm not sure it matters. The fact is, existence itself proves that existence was favored over non-existence, therefore it was a "force" opposed to non-existence that caused existence. My proposal is that this necessary existence was/is "God" (apart from all of his qualities relative to Creation - just plain existing God).

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Let me ask you this, then: If our universe (which is supposedly what God/Existence created) is a smaller portion of the whole, is that noted "whole" part of an even bigger whole, and that one part of another, and another? Where does it end, because if I'm to subscribe to your notion that we live in a cage that is situated in a larger existence, then where does that concept/theory end? It could go on forever.

And maybe it does, but if that's the case, I think that your theory is unraveling as we discuss it, because you cited the position that there is only one god/existence, but in this scenario, there could be infinite gods/existences.

As far as I can tell, there is no need for embedded existences. Singular improbable/impossible non-existence (there is never anymore than one "zero" of anything) creates singular existence. There is nothing automatically created from this that would differentiate distinct levels of existence. Existence itself could "choose" to subdivide, I suppose, and you are free to see if that leads you to a theory that describes reality, but I find it an unnecessary complication. I will say, though, I did consider the possibility.