The Foundation of Religion

A   
ll religions are based upon the theorized existence of a personal God by which is meant one who has some similarities to human beings and not an abstract general philosophical principle.
If such an entity were not postulated the ruminations of man would end with philosophy which is the study of the relationship of a man's mind with himself, others and the physical universe.


When an individual asserts that there is a God and a scientist says that there is no proof for the existence of such an entity, they are talking about two different ways of observing and thinking about the universe.

Observation of the Quality of Sensation

Colors, smells, sounds, etc. divorced from the underlying and congruent physical foundation which, by most peoples' reckoning, supports sensation.

Observation of Quantifiable Objects and Actions

Things to which numbers can be put like mass, velocity, etc.

Both of these are valid operations of the mind. Both of these are based on factual truths by observation. They are, however, quite different.

Qualitive reasoning uses the function justify instead of prove.
The difference is that between an electrical dimmer switch and an on/off switch. The former is "more or less" and the latter "absolute".
A failed idea in the qualitive realm is 'contra-indicated' (probably not true) while a quantitive idea is contradicted (definitely not true).

A qualitive theory is accepted as true by the mechanism of "faith". A quantitive truth is termed "scientific, i.e. proven by appeal to impartial experiment").

A problem occurs when either one of these two ways of dealing with existence are applied to the domain of the other. Qualitive reasoning will not produce quantitive results and quantitve reasoning will not explain the qualitive realm.


With the foregoing in mind, is it possible to devise a non-contradictory scheme wherein such a God could exist given the form of existence I have previously postulated? And can such a God be qualitively justified as a necessary entity?

Perhaps . . . Let us proceed to reason it out.

We have available all that which we can observe and nothing more. By postulate there is nothing else (no other dimensions or universes to put our God in; just here).

Our first question then is where is God ?
As I indicated at the end of "Nature of Man",

God is to Universe . . . as . . . Mind is to Brain

By this I mean that the relationships between pieces of matter in the brain which constitute mind also (outside of the brain) constitute the mind of God. Thus, the actions of matter we outwardly observe are the physical manifestations of God thinking just as the observation of electrical activity in the brain is the physical manifestation of our thinking. In neither case can we say, by examining that activity, what the thoughts of the being are.
As Leibniz observed "~ If one could see the machinery of the brain, it would look like a mill." In other words, the mechanical workings would yield no clue as to their meaning.

The next thing to consider is the necessity of something to contemplate, that is, a context [that which the mind is not yet which interacts with the mind] in which the mind exists.
Clearly, if our mind requires a context to exist in and God is reasonably similar, what is the context for God? If God is the entire universe and nothing else is possible, what could be the context for God?

. . . (This will take some preparation)

The answer must lie in the incompleteness of the universe.
Since the universe is physically and logically a simple integer count with a finite time and finite space separating each new addition, it is never complete relative to us. And if God is to be all the universe which presently exists relative to us, He must be a developing entity, i.e. a finite entity like us (though all but incomprehensibly larger).
And this is exactly what is required of a personal God.

There is another relevant fact about the relationship of the brain to the external universe.
The brain is functionally insulated from the disrupting influences of physical existence. True, it is physically connected to the external universe but the connections are for the purpose of obtaining information. The connections pass mimimal energy to the brain so as to cause no randomization of its contents. What is passed is information, i.e. the qualitive aspect of existence. When we see red light, red light does not enter our brain; information enters our brain in the form of electrical activity which is logically congruent with qualitive sensation, e.g. 'redness'.

Remember my principle of "Logical Congruency"? (Index..."Nature of Existence")
I am saying here that since the electrical activity is congruent with the physical appearance of wavelengths of light (corresponding to red), the universe-logic-God is compelled to produce a consistent "form" to correspond with the conscious sensation of that wavelength.

Now, returning to the context for God, recall from "Nature of Existence" that qualitive information presently traverses the universe at ~ 10^39 c. It means that qualitive information from a volume vastly larger than the observable universe (about 10^39 times larger) bears upon all the observable universe within the Hubble radius. This can serve as the context for God.

So our hypothetical personal God is that contained within the Hubble radius and is the context for our minds which are contained within our brains. And the context for God extends out to a volume far greater than the Hubble radius and . . . the mind of our personal God is physically insulated from that context by the physical restriction that no quantitive effects can proceed at greater than light speed.

God becomes ever greater in size and integration until, after the ellapse of an infinite duration, He becomes an infinite impersonal God who comes around that C-shaped figure and keeps those cold logical functions straight while He (the personal God is developing).

How do we justify our contention that the universe of physical matter is conscious?
Ans. Are you conscious? Are you in the universe? Then . . . the universe is conscious. At least part of it. So why not all?
How do we prove the existence of God?
We don't. You cannot prove (proof = quantitive) a qualitive state. You can only justify it and have faith in its truth.

The Relationship of Man to God

So, why are we here?

We are embedded in God just as we are embedded in the physical universe. We are part of the development of God. The physical universe is determined by what is possible and our mental existence determines its worth. If you are good, the universe is good. If you are worthless, the universe is worthless.
We are essentially the pieces of a self-creating God.

And when you die . . . what?

You are taken back into the body of God and become part of God or . . .
perhaps you are rejected by God as we reject a bad idea. In which case are you simply erased?
I . . . don't . . . know. (But I hear people are dying to find out ; )

Anyway, if the purpose of our qualitive existence is to "test", then it would be at cross purposes if we were able to prove absolutely the existence of God. For then we should have no doubts or anxieties about anything.

Each soul must be tested in the fire.

Next Page