God II

God II

Introduction

The existence of consciousness is definite proof for the existence of God. As a result, the existence of God is now an established fact. There is though, one problem, even amongst believers, there is still debate about the true nature of God. When people say they believe in God, most of time they are monotheists, people who believe in One God. Then there are polytheists who believe in many Gods. After the two main ideas, there are the more unique ideas such as deism, pantheism, and others. This essay aims to explore the true nature of God, and thus will start from the logical deduction of the previous essay, that is there can only be One True Consciousness, that is God.

Natures of God

As deduced from the previous essay, there can only be one conscious being, or consciousness that is sure to exist. Because we can never know if other people are conscious or not simply by interacting with them. Even if we become other people, then we simply switch bodies, and thus gives no more evidence on the existence of other consciousness. As such, we can also deduce that God is one, there can only be one God, as there can only be one consciousness. As a result, it can be determined with complete certainty that God is One, no more, for that is impossible, and no less, for existence proves that there is God. God is also conscious, and that is an essence of God, and thus requires no further elaboration.

Every conscious being has an identity and a form, including its formlessness if it is formless. But an identity will be required, even if it is a dead emotionless identity. As such, God too has identity and form, but not as most religions describe. The mistake done by most major religions are applying a fixed identity and form to God, this kind of believe is known as the Personal God. But truly, God has no true identity or form, including their formlessness. The formlessness of God is a natural condition, but not a true condition of God. As normality does not equate with the truth. God has infinite identities and forms, but none of it is a true condition of God.

God is also omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, but not omnibenevolence. As omnibenevolence would limit the scope of God and mean that God has a true identity of an all loving God. As such, God is able to do all things and violate the physical laws if they wish to do so. God is everywhere at the same time and encompasses everything, either with a form or without a form. God knows everything that has been known, is being known, and will be known. God also sees everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen.

God is also by nature, composed of pure energy and consciousness. As such, everything that exists is God in itself, though more accurately, the manifestations of God. As everything is composed of energy, directly or indirectly as matter, then for God to be the cause and source, God must be energy itself. This also explains the omnipresent nature of God.

One Consciousness

The deduction that there can only be one consciousness that is sure to exist brings some implications and problems. If it is true, then am “I” God? As the author only sees through the perspective of the author, in the author’s eyes, that is “my” eyes, “I”, or the author is God. Is that so? And what about everyone else? Don’t their perspectives matter as well here? Let us review the nature of God. God has infinite identities that may exist independently as “separate” beings, “separate” as they are still one single consciousness, only different sides of that consciousness.

This means that “I”, the author and everyone else that has existed, is existing, and will exist are all mere different identities of God, but it does not end there. To say that would assume that these identities live separately from each other and will continue to be so. But all of us are much more connected, through time. When “I”, the consciousness experiences time, “I” am merely moving through different instances of space. And each instance of space is its own existence and universe. Furthermore, since “I” am only moving through such instances, it means that all of those instances still exist as I move through space. As a result, there is only one instance of time, that is now, and everything happens now, every instance of space coexists together. The difference is where the consciousness, or “I” am in those instances of space. The past and the future are merely instances of space, where the consciousness is absent.

At this current lifetime, “I” have some friends, and so, who are they? From the current instance of the consciousness, the perspective is from the author of this essay, but at the same time, the consciousness also resides within the author’s friends. The thing that differs the author and his friends is one thing, age. Imagine this, you are in a room with many people. You notice that all of that people are yourself, the only difference is the ages. You see yourself when you were a child, you see yourself as a teen, and you see yourself as an adult. Imagine your age is 14, currently, you take the perspective of yourself aged 14 and can see the 15 year old version of yourself as a separate human. But when you turn 15, then you will take the perspective of the 15 year old you, and you will see the 14 year old you that you just left.

Perhaps you, the reader may be brought into the illustration as well. Right now, the consciousness takes the perspective of the author of this essay, at least from this perspective. As such in the eyes of the consciousness right now, “I” am the author of the essay writing this essay. But there will come a time where “I” would take the perspective of one of you readers, and “I” would be reading this essay that “I” actually wrote in previous instances of “I” and space. As such, everyone is merely different instances of each other. From the perspective of the author, everyone the author knows is merely a different stage of the consciousness, that is of “I”. Thus, when the author talks to his friends, he is merely talking to different forms of himself, which are also just as conscious as the author, but is not being experienced by the consciousness that is currently experiencing the author.

 All of this may seem hard to understand, but know this. When you interact with others, it is as if you are interacting with yourself across time, but not only across time, across space as well. The others are also the consciousness that you are right now, but they are in a different instance of space than you are. Even if they are in a different instance of space, they are still in the same timeframe, that is now, you as the consciousness is simply not experiencing them, yet. As such, whatever you do to others, you will experience it, as you are merely doing it to yourself. When you love others, you will experience it, as you are merely doing it to yourself.

The fact that there is only one consciousness means that you, if taken from your perspective, or “I”, if taken from the author’s perspective, are alone in the existence. “I” am merely interacting with myself, and when “I” am in conflict, it is a self internal conflict, one that spans across time and space. As such, “I” am everything that has existed, is existing, and will exist. “I” manifest as the author, as you, as everything in this world. “I” am the source and cause of everything in this world, and as such this means one thing only. “I”, am no other than God.

Final Statements

We have arrived here in this second essay of God. The previous essay merely proved God’s existence, but explained nothing on the true nature of God. As a result of there being only one consciousness, “I” have to be God, as “I” am the consciousness and wherever “I” go as the consciousness. The fact that “I” am conscious is enough proof to declare that “I” am God. Everyone else is also God, but they are merely “I” in different instances of space that happens concurrently with “my” instance of space, but one that “I” as the consciousness is not experiencing at the current time. “I” am everything, and everything is “I”, “I” am God and God is “I”.

God I

God I

Introduction

Long time ago, ancient humans wondered about why things happen. Things such as lightning and rain, volcanoes and earthquakes. They were unable to understand such natural phenomenon, and thus they began to create hypothesis upon hypothesis, for example, lightning happened because of a supernatural entity, the god of lightning. And the same goes for other natural phenomenon. Soon, a belief system of polytheistic nature emerges, with many gods and goddesses. These belief systems became more complex, with very interesting lore, and some dies out, some survives and grows. Old belief systems we know as mythologies, and newer belief systems, we know as religion.

Eventually people thought there are simply too many gods, and combined them into a singular supreme all mighty god, and thus the concept of monotheism, of one God, was created into this world. Monotheism was good for explaining natural phenomenon, and also aided in creating moral codes. But as time progresses, a new study was created that is based on careful observations and analysis known as science. With science, many natural phenomenon previously explained with God became explainable by perfectly natural explanations, and soon, it became clear that God is becoming and less and less involved in this world and the mechanics. And it was now, where almost everything is explainable by science, and there is simply no need for God, or any supernatural entity.

While the majority of people in the world still believes in God, an increasing number of people are beginning to question God, and renounce God completely. And there were those who adopted the ideology of materialism, which means only the natural world and its laws exist. This eliminates the very idea of God, or a supernatural dimension to the world, and made it clear that death is the very end of it all. Science is not the only reason atheism and materialism is rising though, morality is also becoming a question. Many arguments are posited, which are actually hundreds of years old to question the logicality of the concept of  God and the morality behind God. A famous argument being the Problem of Evil, that is if God exists, why is there still evil? And it’s not simply human evil, but also natural evils, fatal diseases, disasters, parasites that brings great destruction and suffering.

Eventually, an important question emerges, do we still need God? And perhaps, does God exist? With all of this opposition, it seems certain that God is a mere figment of the human imagination. But is it? People think that science alone is enough to explain everything, and even if there some unexplainable things, it’s only a matter of time. Then is morality explainable by science? Is consciousness and existence explainable of science? What about the very nature of reality? Of course, we will never be truly sure of the existence or absence of God, and also other important questions of reality and humanity, but we can explore and keep exploring. It may not be a certainty, but it can almost be a certainty. As in the end, what can be truly true or false?

Definition

In order to create clarity within this essay, the word “God” will first be defined here. While the definition here may differ to a certain degree from standard definition, the core meaning will be preserved. “God” in this essay means a being, entity, or possibly simply an initial source and cause that is the source for everything in existence, directly or indirectly, and also cause of everything that has, is, and will happen, directly or indirectly. As such, God is also omnipotent and omniscient. Sentience and omnibenevolence may be owned by God, but it is not an absolute criterion, though it is an ideal attribute. In this essay, it is assumed that God has sentience, that is awareness of existence and thus, consciousness, like us humans.

Existence

There are commonly 3 arguments presented to refute the idea of God. The first argument is popularly known as the Problem of Evil. Essentially, if God exists, and if God is omnibenevolent, why is it that evil still exists? Evil is not limited to human evil, but also natural evils, such as sickness and natural disasters. The second argument simply questions the lack of evidence that exists for the existence of God. As such, exists the term, “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.” The third argument refers to science, as we know, many things that is previously explained through God has now been explained by science. As such, it seems that adding God into the explanation will only overcomplicate things and also raise new questions about why and how God exist.

The problem of evil only asserts that it is paradoxical for God to be omnibenevolent, but it does not erase the possibility that God exists. As such it will not be addressed any further. The lack of evidence does not ultimately clear out the possibility of God not existing. As that view is a very human centric view and assumes that things can only be true if we humans agree that it is true in our perspectives. It is still very possible that God can exist, but we humans may lack the knowledge or technology to collect evidence and prove or disprove the existence of God completely. As a result, we can say that it is unlikely for God to exist, but we can not say that it is impossible for God to exist.

It is true that science has explained many things that previously needs God to be explained. But does that completely removes the idea of God? That is actually impossible, as God is a scientific hypothesis, as it guesses in an educated manner of the true cause and source of everything that has, is, and will exist. As such, God is not an entity that is supernatural, as there is nothing supernatural in this world, merely phenomenon that we are incapable of explaining at this current time period. But it does not mean we will never be able to understand why such phenomenon happen, and such, nothing is supernatural, and neither is God. As such, God is not separate from or against science, but related and a part of science.

While there has been theories within quantum physics that may explain why things happen the way it does, or how the universe came to be, such as the quantum field or the string theory, it still does not answer the ultimate question of an ultimate source and cause. Furthermore there are still questions such as why physical laws are the way they are, and more importantly, the true nature of reality, consciousness, death, and so on. Not to mention other human exclusive concepts such as morality, which is an essential part of human existence, yet never discussed or tested within any scientific experimentation. Of course, simply because science is unable to explain it does not mean God is the cause of those phenomenon. But, analyzing certain unexplained features of human life and what we know may bring us closer to the truth.

Consciousness, is an ability which until now is only known to be owned by humans, to know and be aware of one’s existence. A more accurate term is actually sentience, the knowledge of one’s existence. This concept has once been explored, famously by Rene Descartes, through his famous deduction of “Cogito Ergo Sum”, which states that while we may doubt everything else, we can not doubt the existence of ourselves. As we are unable to doubt the fact that we are doubting, we know it, we feel it, we think it. As such, Descartes declared, “I think, therefore I am.” Consciousness itself has been unexplained and its causes unclear. That is, until now, where many would say that we are conscious as a result of the chemical reactions within our brain. That would be true, if it truly is that simple.

While true, that the chemical and also electrical reactions within our brain is responsible for triggering the body to do whatever it is that has been done by our body, and also for the inner mental processes that happens within our brains, which we identify as thinking, memory, dream and other mental processes, it is insufficient to prove explain why we can know about any of this. To explain why it is insufficient, it is important to first understand the nature of the human brain, and also an artificial relative that we humans create, the computer.

Essentially, a computer is a machine that can perform calculations based upon logic and mathematical equations in order to help humans. One of the pioneers within the science of computing is Alan Turing, sometimes called the Father of modern computer science. Turing once made a hypothetical test, known as the Turing Test, to test the complexity levels and how advanced a computer is. Basically, a human will be connected through chat to another human and a computer. This human, which is the tester, must determine which one is human, and which one is merely a long stretch of code being performed, that is a computer. If the tester is unable to distinguish man between computers, then the computer being tested is declared to pass the Turing Test.

That scenario may seem far in the future, but with advancements within AI technology, it may happen in this century. Only a century after the test was hypothesized by Turing. And if a computer does pass this test, then what does this mean? It means that the chemical and electrical reactions within our brain is alike to the electrical reactions happening within the CPU of a day to day computer. As such, imagine a computer that passed the Turing test. Such computer, can perform anything a human can, even to the internal electrical reactions. It displayed similar “brain signals” to a human when “feeling” a certain emotion and so on. Now, do we say that the computer is conscious and sentient? Many people would say yes, but this is where they fail to realize one crucial thing as well.

If we review the Cogito Ergo Sum, we know that the reason we can not doubt our own existence is because we can know that we are doubting and we are aware of it. Thus, three crucial skills that we have is to know, to feel, and to be aware. Of course, awareness and knowing is in the end rooted to feeling. Feeling is something very complex and unexplainable yet, as we can simply “feel” that we exist. “Feeling” is also connected to what we can sense, such as touch, heat, cold, pain, flavors, and of course, colors. Now a computer may “see” colors and say what color it is “seeing”, but that’s only because the colors we see are merely lightwaves divided by their wavelength and frequencies, which can be programmed into the computer. What if the computer expresses sadness? We can program it to be sad if a certain stimuli is given, or more accurately, to express traits we commonly associate with sadness. In the end, we can never know if a computer is conscious or not, as far as we know, it is simply programmed to do so.

This problem now extends to us humans, as how can we know that all other humans are conscious or just fleshy computers? Are they actual beings that can feel, know and be aware like us or are they just programmed to be so similar? Perhaps, we will never know of the truth, and if we can switch perspectives, it will always be a single perspective at a time. Whatever perspective we have right now, is our perspective. And in reality, we will only be able to see the world from our perspective and feel only our existence, no one else. So, what does this has to do with the existence of God?

There can only be one true consciousness in this entire world, there can not be more than one, as then we have to prove it which is impossible. But there can be a single consciousness, with multiple perspectives at once, with multiple “personas” that are all interconnected, whether we know it or not. As such, what we are, is merely a manifestation of the true consciousness, that is God. All other people we see, are merely other manifestations of God, like us. In a way, we are God, we are the consciousness that forms the world together. The world exists through us, as without us, nothing can exist. We created the world, and we became part of it.

Final Statements

We like to think, that things are separated. I am I, and they are they. The concept of God exists to unite everything and to connect everything, but we fail to recognize that, and we wish for a world where we are all divided. We deny God, but truly, there is no God, but ourselves. God is not separate from us, because we are God. As such, the concept of the divine is not about the One that is All High and Allmighty, but the Union of everyone. And in the end, something is true, only because we have observed it to be true. If we didn’t, who knows if it’s true or not?