Eternal is not equal to forever; it is more like "no time."
Infinite is not equal to never-ending; it is more like "no dimensions."
Time and Space are the concepts we use to process our experience as humans. Like words and language for communication.
"The universe emerges in consciousness," and people like you and me "emerge in consciousness" as well. The body and its senses operate as a localization of consciousness and see its surroundings from a limited perspective (body, mind, psychological patterns).
We identify with the personality and body, an ego, instead of identifying with consciousness, and that is the source of all our problems.
The ancient Rig Veda, whose own origins are unknown and subject to debate which speculations as to its date ranging from 4000 BC to 1200 BC, addresses this paradox.
1) There was neither existing nor non-existing at that time, there was no kingdom of air, nor a heaven beyond it. What was covered, and where? And what provided shelter? Was there water there, unfathomable depths of water?
2) There was no death or immortality, no signs or division between day and night.
That unique, breathless thing breathed by its own nature: apart from it there was nothing at all.
3) There was darkness: in the beginning, hidden in darkness, this All was indiscriminate.
Everything that existed then was empty and formless. Through the great power of heat, that unity was born.
4) From then on, desire arose in the beginning, desire, semen, and the primitive germ of the spirit. The wise ones who have searched with the thoughts of their hearts discovered the kinship that exists in what does not exist.
6) Who knows for certain, and who can declare it here, where this creation was born and where it comes from? The gods came after the creation of this world. Who knows, where they first emerged?
7) [That, whose, this], the first origin of this creation, whether [that, who, this] formed everything or not, Whose eye watches over this world from the highest heavens, [that, who, this] truly knows. Or perhaps [that, who, this] does not know.
(Translation from Wikipedia, but I have replaced in the last verse the word "He" with a more literal and pre-gender translation of the sanskrit word from a Sanskrit dictionary.)
Guru Nanak, the first Sikh Guru, defined “God” as oneness that is continuously unfolding, a force or an energy self-sustaining, creative, and unborn. Something you can only feel and experience but can’t understand. Something that has all the qualities (sargun) and no quality (nirgun) at the same time. He was very accepting of the paradox because it is only way to be whole in one’s being. So in that sense, it is rational to accept the paradoxes that surround the existence of god/universe.
It’s unfortunate how much time it took me, at least, to learn that this sort of reflection is how philosophers and theologians of the past, even the distant past, arrived at the idea of God to begin with (or: discovered the existence or necessity of God, we might say). I feel I spent half my life recovering the starting point for an investigation that had been long underway, clearing the debris of inept representations of the issues just to see that I can now join a conversation nearly as old as the species!
I enjoyed this post a lot. I don’t in fact think it’s possible that these paradoxes and questions reflect limitations our minds have, though; borrowing from David Deutsch, it’s hard to imagine how we’d be capable of the sorts of physics and math we are if we have arbitrary limits of any kind. It seems likelier to me that what is natural we can understand (although we may not yet understand it); what we cannot understand (fundamentally) is supernatural. But I could be wrong!
Hey Kevin, I like your article on God. I just posted a similar article yesterday about reality (https://larryparks.substack.com/p/reality). and I think conversations like these are becoming more necessary than ever. My take on the God hypothesis is that he does exist, who or what else can create something as magnificent as a universe? I do believe that our world exist only as you pointed out, through our observations, but we are too young as a species to have definitive answers about reality and our existential place in the universe. We are like infants trying to explain the mechanics of a Saturn V Rocket. One day we may get there, until then, we must rely on the fact that any intelligent ideal or belief is plausible.
From a Humanist; After the zillions of man-hours spent proving/disproving, the thousands of books written to convince, dissuade, impel; after the millions of homilies, tirades, threats of punishment; after witnessing the breath-taking hypocrisy attendant to the dogma, doctrines and algorithms; after being 'commanded' to love, to obey while visiting horrendous cruelty and punishment upon "them" or the "other" because some spiritual 'leader' says 'god wills it', we are still faced with the unfortunate realization that there is still no substantive evidence for the existence of ....whatever god you seem to need. There is a profound difference between faith and belief....My 'faith' has saved me; there just isn't enough to hang one's hat on, no matter how much dopamine is secreted weekly in the company of others.
Great read. My pursuit of trying to define the undefinable at times has been a fool's errand, but still I will forever defend its pursuit. The ultimate puzzle that "can't" be solved from our level of consciousness. The seductive yearning of just being able to grasp that which is out of reach. Ultimately though, the totality of that which is God is transcendent of dimensional thought and dimensional comprehension. The only way I've found "out" of paradoxical loop of trying to understand is surrender. I suspect it will become much clearer the moment our soul/consciousness is no longer hindered and constrained by this physical form. Only time will tell. Regardless, I thank you so dearly for posting something that nourished my mind and soul. Something that actually invited me to think, ponder and wonder
Great read. My pursuit of trying to define the undefinable at times has been a fool's errand, but still I will forever defend its pursuit. The ultimate puzzle that "can't" be solved from our level of consciousness. The seductive yearning of just being able to grasp that which is out of reach. Ultimately though, the totality of that which is God is transcendent of dimensional thought and dimensional comprehension. The only way I've found "out" of paradoxical loop of trying to understand is surrender. I suspect it will become much clearer the moment our soul/consciousness is no longer hindered and constrained by this physical form. Only time will tell.
I'm listening to 'The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss' by David Bentley Hart. As someone who has been a Christian for many decades, I found this take, a wholly new way to see the essence and being of our Creator. He answers many of the questions you posit here in an open and surprisingly satisfactory way.
Yes, Hart has very sophisicated take which I tend to agree with. But he settles on "existance just exists, without causation" which is an absolute paradox, and incredibly unsatsifying. No matter how you cut it, the origin of our universe makes no logical sense to us.
The question of consciousness that I have long pondered, is where does it come from, if it comes from anything? Is it carried by the egg or the sperm? Or is it the union of the two that activates it?
I often remember my dreams, most usually when I wake at night to visit the bathroom. In my personal case, my dreams do not involve elements of my reality, do not involve scenes from say, my home, people I know, my car(s), my fetishes, books I have read, movies/shows I have seen, etc., which I find strange, as I have read that dreams are the brain organizing experiences and data.
One would think that they should include regular things that I encounter or even desire. But instead, my dreams rarely reference anything I do, have did or people I know or have known. Huh?
What if consciousness does not get created upon birth of an organism through the union of an egg & sperm? What if instead, it is parceled out from an eternal repository residing in the quantum universe from the collection of all the lives that YOU have lived across eternity? This would nicely explain the unfocused dreams that do not seem to have any connection to my current reality, would it not? And would this then be a form of reincarnation?
My theory is that universes are birthed from black holes in the greater multiverse. When the black hole inside the multiverse has sucked up so much matter that it can no longer contain it, a new universe of this compressed matter explodes from the funnel end of the black hole.
This is how each universe comes with a complete complement of physical laws and atomic structures, something that simple explosion would not be able to create on its own.
Now we just have to figure out how to enter the multiverse so we can view this process from the other side.
The author below believes in the multiverse theory and that we might be able to pinpoint the exact point where the rift from the metaverse occurred, potentially allowing us to exit this universe and enter the larger metaverse itself!
Before The Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe and What Lies Beyond
Well, we can use a lot of human logic to argue that human logic is invalid :) A classical Christian approach does not claim God is "self-created", but the Uncreated Being from which all contingent things derive their existence... To say the Ultimate Reality is both "God" and "Not-God" simultaneously violates the fundamental laws of logic. By saying the nature of the universe is settled "once you choose which one to see," we make the human observer the ultimate creator. This effectively makes us God, deciding the nature of reality by our preference.
Weirdly God seems very comfortable with the basic "violation" of logic present in quantum reality, of things being both there and not-there at the same time. If God is okay with it, so am I.
This is how I understand it:
Eternal is not equal to forever; it is more like "no time."
Infinite is not equal to never-ending; it is more like "no dimensions."
Time and Space are the concepts we use to process our experience as humans. Like words and language for communication.
"The universe emerges in consciousness," and people like you and me "emerge in consciousness" as well. The body and its senses operate as a localization of consciousness and see its surroundings from a limited perspective (body, mind, psychological patterns).
We identify with the personality and body, an ego, instead of identifying with consciousness, and that is the source of all our problems.
That's a reasonable way to see it.
I found this interview very interesting: https://youtu.be/phkKF6UuPo8?si=ycH8tIKAeOefa70e
The ancient Rig Veda, whose own origins are unknown and subject to debate which speculations as to its date ranging from 4000 BC to 1200 BC, addresses this paradox.
1) There was neither existing nor non-existing at that time, there was no kingdom of air, nor a heaven beyond it. What was covered, and where? And what provided shelter? Was there water there, unfathomable depths of water?
2) There was no death or immortality, no signs or division between day and night.
That unique, breathless thing breathed by its own nature: apart from it there was nothing at all.
3) There was darkness: in the beginning, hidden in darkness, this All was indiscriminate.
Everything that existed then was empty and formless. Through the great power of heat, that unity was born.
4) From then on, desire arose in the beginning, desire, semen, and the primitive germ of the spirit. The wise ones who have searched with the thoughts of their hearts discovered the kinship that exists in what does not exist.
6) Who knows for certain, and who can declare it here, where this creation was born and where it comes from? The gods came after the creation of this world. Who knows, where they first emerged?
7) [That, whose, this], the first origin of this creation, whether [that, who, this] formed everything or not, Whose eye watches over this world from the highest heavens, [that, who, this] truly knows. Or perhaps [that, who, this] does not know.
(Translation from Wikipedia, but I have replaced in the last verse the word "He" with a more literal and pre-gender translation of the sanskrit word from a Sanskrit dictionary.)
Guru Nanak, the first Sikh Guru, defined “God” as oneness that is continuously unfolding, a force or an energy self-sustaining, creative, and unborn. Something you can only feel and experience but can’t understand. Something that has all the qualities (sargun) and no quality (nirgun) at the same time. He was very accepting of the paradox because it is only way to be whole in one’s being. So in that sense, it is rational to accept the paradoxes that surround the existence of god/universe.
It’s unfortunate how much time it took me, at least, to learn that this sort of reflection is how philosophers and theologians of the past, even the distant past, arrived at the idea of God to begin with (or: discovered the existence or necessity of God, we might say). I feel I spent half my life recovering the starting point for an investigation that had been long underway, clearing the debris of inept representations of the issues just to see that I can now join a conversation nearly as old as the species!
I enjoyed this post a lot. I don’t in fact think it’s possible that these paradoxes and questions reflect limitations our minds have, though; borrowing from David Deutsch, it’s hard to imagine how we’d be capable of the sorts of physics and math we are if we have arbitrary limits of any kind. It seems likelier to me that what is natural we can understand (although we may not yet understand it); what we cannot understand (fundamentally) is supernatural. But I could be wrong!
Thanks for sharing these thoughts!
Hey Kevin, I like your article on God. I just posted a similar article yesterday about reality (https://larryparks.substack.com/p/reality). and I think conversations like these are becoming more necessary than ever. My take on the God hypothesis is that he does exist, who or what else can create something as magnificent as a universe? I do believe that our world exist only as you pointed out, through our observations, but we are too young as a species to have definitive answers about reality and our existential place in the universe. We are like infants trying to explain the mechanics of a Saturn V Rocket. One day we may get there, until then, we must rely on the fact that any intelligent ideal or belief is plausible.
Thanks. Agree our ignorance is vast.
Yes sir, we've got a long way to go.
As has been said, it’s turtles all the way down.
Thanks Kevin
From a Humanist; After the zillions of man-hours spent proving/disproving, the thousands of books written to convince, dissuade, impel; after the millions of homilies, tirades, threats of punishment; after witnessing the breath-taking hypocrisy attendant to the dogma, doctrines and algorithms; after being 'commanded' to love, to obey while visiting horrendous cruelty and punishment upon "them" or the "other" because some spiritual 'leader' says 'god wills it', we are still faced with the unfortunate realization that there is still no substantive evidence for the existence of ....whatever god you seem to need. There is a profound difference between faith and belief....My 'faith' has saved me; there just isn't enough to hang one's hat on, no matter how much dopamine is secreted weekly in the company of others.
I absolutely believe what Ellie [Arroway, the
atheist astronomer in the movie "Contact"]
believes—that there is no direct evidence, so
how could you ask me to believe in God when
there's absolutely no evidence that I can see?
- Jodie Foster, American Actress
Great read. My pursuit of trying to define the undefinable at times has been a fool's errand, but still I will forever defend its pursuit. The ultimate puzzle that "can't" be solved from our level of consciousness. The seductive yearning of just being able to grasp that which is out of reach. Ultimately though, the totality of that which is God is transcendent of dimensional thought and dimensional comprehension. The only way I've found "out" of paradoxical loop of trying to understand is surrender. I suspect it will become much clearer the moment our soul/consciousness is no longer hindered and constrained by this physical form. Only time will tell. Regardless, I thank you so dearly for posting something that nourished my mind and soul. Something that actually invited me to think, ponder and wonder
Great read. My pursuit of trying to define the undefinable at times has been a fool's errand, but still I will forever defend its pursuit. The ultimate puzzle that "can't" be solved from our level of consciousness. The seductive yearning of just being able to grasp that which is out of reach. Ultimately though, the totality of that which is God is transcendent of dimensional thought and dimensional comprehension. The only way I've found "out" of paradoxical loop of trying to understand is surrender. I suspect it will become much clearer the moment our soul/consciousness is no longer hindered and constrained by this physical form. Only time will tell.
I'm listening to 'The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss' by David Bentley Hart. As someone who has been a Christian for many decades, I found this take, a wholly new way to see the essence and being of our Creator. He answers many of the questions you posit here in an open and surprisingly satisfactory way.
Yes, Hart has very sophisicated take which I tend to agree with. But he settles on "existance just exists, without causation" which is an absolute paradox, and incredibly unsatsifying. No matter how you cut it, the origin of our universe makes no logical sense to us.
The question of consciousness that I have long pondered, is where does it come from, if it comes from anything? Is it carried by the egg or the sperm? Or is it the union of the two that activates it?
I often remember my dreams, most usually when I wake at night to visit the bathroom. In my personal case, my dreams do not involve elements of my reality, do not involve scenes from say, my home, people I know, my car(s), my fetishes, books I have read, movies/shows I have seen, etc., which I find strange, as I have read that dreams are the brain organizing experiences and data.
One would think that they should include regular things that I encounter or even desire. But instead, my dreams rarely reference anything I do, have did or people I know or have known. Huh?
What if consciousness does not get created upon birth of an organism through the union of an egg & sperm? What if instead, it is parceled out from an eternal repository residing in the quantum universe from the collection of all the lives that YOU have lived across eternity? This would nicely explain the unfocused dreams that do not seem to have any connection to my current reality, would it not? And would this then be a form of reincarnation?
My theory is that universes are birthed from black holes in the greater multiverse. When the black hole inside the multiverse has sucked up so much matter that it can no longer contain it, a new universe of this compressed matter explodes from the funnel end of the black hole.
This is how each universe comes with a complete complement of physical laws and atomic structures, something that simple explosion would not be able to create on its own.
Now we just have to figure out how to enter the multiverse so we can view this process from the other side.
The author below believes in the multiverse theory and that we might be able to pinpoint the exact point where the rift from the metaverse occurred, potentially allowing us to exit this universe and enter the larger metaverse itself!
Before The Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe and What Lies Beyond
by Laura Mersini-Houghton
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1328557111
Maybe it's all a delicious puzzle for us to figure out.
Well, we can use a lot of human logic to argue that human logic is invalid :) A classical Christian approach does not claim God is "self-created", but the Uncreated Being from which all contingent things derive their existence... To say the Ultimate Reality is both "God" and "Not-God" simultaneously violates the fundamental laws of logic. By saying the nature of the universe is settled "once you choose which one to see," we make the human observer the ultimate creator. This effectively makes us God, deciding the nature of reality by our preference.
Weirdly God seems very comfortable with the basic "violation" of logic present in quantum reality, of things being both there and not-there at the same time. If God is okay with it, so am I.