Social Question

google's avatar

Would you say that God IS the entire universe?

Asked by google (33 points ) October 8th, 2009

For instance, if God is the entire universe then we are all smaller parts of God and the Earth itself is a smaller part of God. God is omnipresent because God is literally everywhere. God is omniscient because God is literally every mind, thinking and knowing all things that can be known, all simultaneously. God is omnipotent since God is the total sum of all energy in the universe and thus all powerful.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

86 Answers

Les's avatar

But how does God know he’s God?

SpatzieLover's avatar

@Les You are God.

Grisaille's avatar

Thread devolution in 3…

Anyway, that’s a fair argument. It certainly isn’t outside the bounds of reason – though you must clarify which god you are speaking about. If you say the Christian God or Islamic Allah, then no, I don’t believe that in the slightest. If you are talking in hypotheticals (really, everything involving theism is), then I suppose you could consider every working action and reaction in the universe as a god.

But that doesn’t make it God, unless you want to change the definition of what a god is (which is generally considered to be omnipotent and sentient).

CMaz's avatar

Yes, and we are a part of that.

doggywuv's avatar

Maybe… all of nature is a being. This idea is called pantheism.

inkvisitor's avatar

God (capital G) is a man-made phenomenon, so no.

If you are talking in general about the value of omnipotence, then yes.

oratio's avatar

Well, there was a time when the universe didn’t exist. Would that mean that good at one time did not exist? Otherwise, he would have to be more than the universe.

Qingu's avatar

I don’t like defining “God” that way because the position is basically indistinguishable from atheism.

I prefer to think of gods as supernatural beings with personalities that interact with humans and human history.

If you think God is the universe, your God is about as different from the God religious people worship as atheism is.

CMaz's avatar

God is a word to describe the un-describable.

Qingu's avatar

@oratio, ”Well, there was a time when the universe didn’t exist.

Actually, there isn’t. The universe, as defined, contains all of space and all of time. Einstein showed that space and time are part of the same material.

This means that there is no point in time in which the universe does not exist.

Another way to think of it is that saying “before the universe/big bang” is like saying “north of the north pole.” It makes no logical sense; time is relative to the universe, and does not exist apart from the universe.

doggywuv's avatar

@Qingu No, pantheism is a form of theism, not atheism. Atheists believe that there is no God, whether they reject theism (“no, nature is not based on a being called God”) or reject pantheism (“no, nature is not a being”).

Jack_Haas's avatar

Maybe he’s the head developper in a team that has computers much more powerful than ours. He might have created the universe and everything in it, it doesn’t necessarily mean he IS everything himself.

drdoombot's avatar

I believe that there are certain schools in Judaism who would agree with that assessment.

Qingu's avatar

@doggywuv, pantheism is functionally indistinguishable from atheism.

I believe that the Universe exists. There is absolutely no difference in the content of my belief and the content of a pantheist’s belief. The only difference is semantics—the pantheist says “God” where I say “Universe.”

This is why I don’t really like to define God as including the idea of the pantheist god. It just leads to confusion.

whitenoise's avatar

We shouldn’t forget that omnipotence is a self-contradicting term in any case: an omnipotent creature (God) should be able to create something outside Its own control. Once It does that, It is not omnipotent, so It cannot create that, so It is not omnipotent.

Qingu's avatar

@whitenoise, agreed. The three “omni“s are all philosophically problematic.

Harp's avatar

The implication of this is that all that we consider evil is also God.

An act of rape would be God raping God.

Was Hitler actually God, and Hitler’s will God’s will?

RareDenver's avatar

@google there was a short story / thought experiment based on exactly what you have just asked, I know the .pdf can legally be downloaded from t’internet but I can’t recall for the life of me what it was called.

Can anyone else point @google in the right direction? I think they would find it an interesting read.

doggywuv's avatar

@Qingu Both atheists and pantheists believe in the existence of nature (everyone does), but they have different beliefs about nature. Pantheists think that nature is a being, while atheists think that nature is not a being, but rather a world.

An atheist’s understanding of nature is different from a pantheist’s, so the two philosophical beliefs are not the same.

willbrawn's avatar

No. This is what I believe concerning God.

First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like  
one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and  
you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and  
upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and  
very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image  
of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed  
with him as one man talks and communes with another.

Qingu's avatar

@RareDenver, was it an Asimov story? The Last Question.

@doggywuv, I think that’s splitting hairs. I’m an atheist; I have no problem saying nature is a “being.”

Of course, this depends on how you understand the word “being.” But I imagine that this is mostly semantics as well. I imagine that, if you asked an atheist and a pantheist a bunch of specific questions about the universe and nature, they would usually 100% agree.

RareDenver's avatar

@Qingu no that wasn’t it, it was based around a guy who took delivery of a parcel and the conversation that followed between him and the delivery guy (I think)

CMaz's avatar

“First, God himself,”
Himself.? We do not know who or what God is.

“you would see him in the image and very form of a man”
That is man putting a face on God.

“for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God.”
Fashion and image are subjective words.

“He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another.”
Good way to do the best to make sense of it.

RareDenver's avatar

@Qingu found it, it’s called God’s Debris

doggywuv's avatar

@Qingu Well, yes, atheists and pantheists are very similar to each other. Both may not believe in the supernatural world (hypothetical world outside of nature) while a theist believes in the supernatural world.
Hm, so you have no problem believing that the universe is a being? I’m wondering, how would you define being?
I would define “being” as an entity of some sort, not quite a person, but not quite a simple entity like a lump of coal. It’s hard to define and I don’t really have a thorough definition.
@RareDenver Oh, Scott Adams wrote that? I think I’ll read it.

RareDenver's avatar

@doggywuv I’m reading it again

ragingloli's avatar

Then why call it “God”? Why give the physical, natural universe an inaccurate and mystified name based on ancient superstitions about the supernatural when the accurate term universe is sufficient?

RedPowerLady's avatar

I’ve heard of this before. Not always called “God” but I find it interesting and quite possible.
We all do emit energy and all of our energy together could be the form of a higher power and in turn that higher power provides back to us. It’s a nice concept. Sometimes this idea is more acceptable to those who do not believe in religion or “God” as he is more typically known.

inkvisitor's avatar

@ragingloli amen! (or something…)

whitenoise's avatar

@RedPowerLady
What you describe reminds me of the Star Wars movies, where they refer to the concept of The Force.

Qingu's avatar

@doggywuv, defining being as an entity doesn’t help matters much.

Obviously the universe isn’t like a lump of coal. A lump of coal is part of the universe. The universe also contains/is laced with forces and processes, such as gravity entropy and biological evolution, that cause changes and give rise to complexity.

But I agree with @ragingloli—why call it God? The universe is what it is. You don’t need to drag a religious concept into the fray to describe the universe; in fact I’d argue that doing so only causes confusion.

oratio's avatar

@RareDenver Very interesting. Reading the story.

RedPowerLady's avatar

@whitenoise ROFL, but probably accurate if you take the sci-fi out of it.

sandystrachan's avatar

How can something or someone who never existed be anything ?

Parrappa's avatar

Not without proof.

augustlan's avatar

If I believed in a god, that is the way I would imagine it.

@willbrawn Long time, no see! Welcome back. :)

aprilsimnel's avatar

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

doggywuv's avatar

@Qingu You can call nature God if you believe that nature isn’t just a world inhabited by beings, but it is a being itself. It’s like believing that ecosystems aren’t just worlds of biological diversity but are organisms themselves.

irocktheworld's avatar

Yes!:)
I love God! :)
He created all of us and he mainly created the whole entire world!

DarkScribe's avatar

There is no God. If there was a God, he would have to be a pretty useless one – he has done nothing helpful and has allowed untold death and suffering in his name.

Qingu's avatar

@doggywuv, again, I would agree to that. I’m partial to the Gaia hypothesis, and that logic can easily be applied to the universe as well.

But I don’t see what this has to do with the word God. It just seems like an exercise in semantics.

And again, there’s no difference in our beliefs, we just disagree on what to call our beliefs. There is a huge difference, however, between our beliefs and the beliefs of a religious person.

JLeslie's avatar

I agree with @augustlan

Qingu's avatar

@irocktheworld, if you believe God created the world/universe, that would mean he is different than the universe.

So your answer should be “no.” :)

Also, which god are you talking about?

oratio's avatar

@Qingu Not necessarily. If the god made the universe of it’s “body”, this god would have just changed the nature of itself to take the form of the universe.

whitenoise's avatar

@oratio I guess you’re right. Saying that the universe is God does not mean that God is the universe. God could be Universe+.

It doesn’t make any sense to me, but it could.

Could God not be all combined ants, who could if they so choose to, transform into any universe creating entity they’d want?

oratio's avatar

@Qingu I do see your points.

@whitenoise The whole concept of god doesn’t make sense to me. It is something that is reduced to philosophy, and as such I find it interesting but without real allure. What is fascinating to me is how and why people believe in it; in so many different ways that it almost resembles a pantheon.

I didn’t understand your last sentence. =). Would you develop that?

Maybe god is less than the universe.

whitenoise's avatar

@oratio
Well… the whole question that God would be the universe is implying that there is some logic that indicates that such could be the case. I just wanted to illustrate the irrelevance of the original question when it comes to trying to find an answer that is in any sense logical.

If God were the universe and all… then… what?
One could neither proof nor debunk it and it is totally irrelevant without any practical implications. Like the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or any such question.

oratio's avatar

@whitenoise True. God only has the relevance you give it.

prasad's avatar

God is more than that.

Human mind, intellect and all what we have fails when it comes to understand or experience God. He is more than what Universe we think of. He is formless and limitless; however, he can take any form.

If you take this physical universe, it was created when God was in trance of a yogic state. It can be thought as a shadow of God. The physical universe we see is just 25 % of the creation, remaining 75 % that we cannot see with these eyes. Nonetheless, God is more than that.

ragingloli's avatar

@prasad
and you know that how exactly?

oratio's avatar

@prasad Isn’t that hinduism? It seems as if you talking about dark matter.

Grisaille's avatar

sounds a bit new-age to me

DarkScribe's avatar

@ragingloli and you know that how exactly?

You know, I think that he might be right.. That’s what it is, God is STILL in a trance – it explains everything. I wonder how we can wake him up?

They say that sudden prayers make God jump, maybe if everyone prayed at once it would be enough to “jump start” him.

prasad's avatar

I don’t know everything. I tell you what I know in hope it will help you in some way or the other.

If I limited it to Hinduism, I’m sorry.

I have seen such people, and they still are alive. I don’t know where they live, but some come to my house once in a year or anytime.
Once, a man (uumm, I don’t know correct word in English, may be a monk) came; and he gave me a flower in my hand and told it to offer it to God’s statue. I took it and hold it tight in my hand and went to the other room and opened, and to my surprise, there were two Rudrakshas in my hand.

whitenoise's avatar

If you were only catholic, @prasad, then you could go for sanctification if you also perform some good acts.

mattbrowne's avatar

I don’t believe in pantheism. To me God is only indirectly present everywhere in our universe/multiverse. Our physical laws are very reliable. In every corner of the universe. Yesterday. Tomorrow. I prefer a more an abstract principle representing natural law and existence like deism does.

Yes, there was no time when the universe didn’t exist as shown by Einstein. But this observation still doesn’t explain existence.

cbloom8's avatar

God is only in the minds of those who believe in him.

Zuma's avatar

In my view, the only way the idea of God makes sense is if God begins and ends with the Cosmos. To be infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent more or less requires that one be in full grasp of not only the universe, but all possible universes—i.e., the Cosmos. If you think that this somehow belittles the idea of God, then I would submit to you that you simply do not appreciate the majesty and mathematical perfection of the Cosmos.

Or else, you do not see the insulting unreasonableness of prostrating yourself before a “supernatural” being who, by it’s own self-description, is so lacking in omniscience and foresight that it must to constantly scurry about, breaking the laws of the universe in order to perform “miracles,” answer “prayers,” and “smite” his enemies. Any being that would have “enemies” is not big enough to be worthy of the name God. Moreover any being that stoops to gaining followers by awing them with his powers, or coercing and terrorizing them with threats of violence and damnation, or who has to resort to bribes and special favors in order to gain followers is a deeply immoral being that is unworthy of having followers.

A God worthy of belief works within a set of knowable laws and does not favor one sentient life-form over another. He does not intervene in the lives of ordinary mortals because he lives through their collective decisions, which they must make of their own free wills informed by the light of their reason. To do otherwise is to interfere with our biological and cultural evolution, and to encroach upon or self-determination as a species. The morality by which we evolve is already encoded within us; the rest of it is a matter of our collective choices as a species.

ShanEnri's avatar

Didn’t God create the universe? How then could He create Himself? Just what I think!

oratio's avatar

@ShanEnri God moves in mysterious ways. Kind of like Rumba.

Zuma's avatar

The Cosmos is infinite, perfect and eternal. It has no need of a Creator.

willbrawn's avatar

@zuma but how? And why?

oratio's avatar

@willbrawn Symmetry and balance. Everything that is not in this state gets destroyed, transformed. Oversimplify a question, you get oversimplified answers. How the universe is created without a creator, and why, are not real questions. It assumes that there can be 1+infinity creators which could be creating universes on the go. That is not an answer to “why”, not “how”. Only a seemingly acceptable answer to “what”.

Zuma's avatar

@willbrawn Because the Cosmos, which contains all possibilities simultaneously, exists outside of time and is therefore timeless, without beginning or end.

Here is a more technical explanation.

mattbrowne's avatar

@ShanEnri – I’d like to quote Kenneth Miller: “The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it’s a matter of personal belief.” See
http://www.takeonit.com/expert/203.aspx

willbrawn's avatar

I’m not a fan of that explanation. So the universe exists like that. Not really benefitting us. Or the universe was created by a loving God. Who wants more for his children, and yes I am saying there are more than likely more worlds with people on them. To quote the movie contact “if we are the only people that’s an awful lot of wasted space”.

So God created this world for us to come to, learn and grow. To experience death, pain, joy, and all the feeling and phyiscal experienced of having a body. So that we could be a little more like him. Then after we die we return home. Then we gain a reward or are punished based on how we live our life. Because while we were there good and evil existed. And we chose which one we followed.

So either that or it’s all by chance. Good and evil dosent exist and when we die we become part of an earth that sits in a big universe ever expanding for no reason.

ShanEnri's avatar

@mattbrowne I know it’s a matter of belief! Hence the “that’s what I think!” at the end of my answer! I’m not here to be “corrected” or bashed for what I believe! But thank you anyway!

DarkScribe's avatar

@mattbrowne The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question

Do you really believe that anything, be it a god or a pair of roller skates, that defies all laws of nature, physics, time, space etc., is “outside” scientific investigation or examination? Why? If it exists, it can and should be subject to investigation.

Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature.

Science can attempt to answer any question about anything that exists – and God supposedly exists. Doesn’t he?

Grisaille's avatar

@willbrawn That was always my issue with the idea of a god (please note that this is me thinking out loud and not attacking you or your belief system at all).

We always expect an omnipotent force to care about us and other living creatures. Why would such an all-knowing force have any interest in us? Isn’t that quite egocentric? An omnipotent force would – by definition – understand pain, death, joy, anger and all other emotive responses as he created such sensory organs and responses himself. What interest of his is it to observe us squabble about iPhones and Iranian election protests? Wouldn’t an omnipotent force exist outside the limits of time, able to see what will happen to us at the end, what happened in the beginning and whatever we occupy ourselves with now?

We always assume that a god would watch over us and whatever other sentient beings are out there in the universe. But that’s just such an egocentric point of view. A true omnipotent force would not have human characteristics such as curiosity and compassion, as these are emotions – which are completely irrelevant and counteractive to the definition of omnipotence. Instead, he’d know all, everything there was, everything there was to know, everything he was to do and everything he will do. He’s just sit there on his throne of light, a massive complex of information, with nothing to do as he’d know what would happen already. It’s redundant.

oratio's avatar

@willbrawn So either that or it’s all by chance

No, I don’t believe life arise by chance. I find it most likely that life is inevitable. A phenomena that happens in many places in the universe – at different times and sometimes overlapping – where conditions are favorable; oblivious of each other. A phenomena amongst a myriad of phenomenon in this fantastic universe, where we have just begun to scratch the surface of what is existence.

In the universe, everything is tried. Everything that is possible, happens somewhere. What works happens, stay for a while, and happens again with symmetry and balance. Everything else fails, disappears. Everything changes and is tried again without thought, without purpose. It just the nature of everything that is.

I find this whether I read about solar systems, particles or the life on Earth. Life, is just another aspect of how the universe expresses itself. If you want to call that God, it makes no difference, because it is only a name and doesn’t change the nature of existence. It just changes the perception.

mattbrowne's avatar

@DarkScribe – Science can attempt this, but in my opinion it’s an unwise attempt. Science by it’s very definition is limited to applying scientific method. It’s relies on observations and tests and empiric data. The scope it nonetheless huge and I’d love to see Max Tegmark’s hypotheses of the level 1 – 4 multiverse turn into a solid theory. I’m waiting for the day someone can prove the Copenhagen interpretation to be wrong. The playground of science is huge, but there are limitations. Going beyond means entering the realm of philosophy. Why existence?

Zuma's avatar

What is a “being” anyway? There are individual bees which are pretty unintelligent on their own, but which take on a new, more profound intelligence when they function as a hive. Then there are human beings, but strip away their culture, their language, their collective knowledge and intelligence, and they become feral and inarticulate, barely able to feed themselves or protect themselves from the cold. So, if the human “meta-organism” has a life of it’s own, why can there not be cultural currents and sub-currents—zeitgeists, if you will, that come upon us like a “spirit,” or even gods?

Once, when I was on a ship in Funchal Bay a Portuguese warship anchored next to us, eclipsing us in it’s shade. It was carrying soldiers back from the war in Biafra, and as each contingent waited their turn to go ashore for a few hour’s liberty, their comrades still aboard would send up a lusty cheer as they came and went. When their comrades returned the salute, an even deeper, more manly, more martial cheer would boom up from the ship like a volley of cannon. It set one’s very spine to vibrating, until you had to stop whatever you were doing and come above deck and join in the spirit. Every man on deck raised his arm and cheered, which only sent up gales of cheering from the warship. Back and forth, it grew to a hurricane, until we were all swept away in the emotion like a cork upon a stormy ocean.

It was as if a door had opened and we were being pulled through, into the bloodlust of the distant past—the Colosseum of Rome, and to battle fields even more distant and ancient. We were in an immortal Presence, something very old, something very pagan, something awaiting only the right spark to awaken it. It was the voice of Ares as the ancients had described it: the thumos rising in our chests, drawing us unbidden, and almost involuntarily, into communion with something transcendent, collective, and divine. Had we had swords and shields, I have no doubt that we would have all rushed headlong into a holy conflagration until the enemy before us was consumed by the flame that thundered in our chests, until we gradually emerged from the fog of war and became aware of the blood and gore all over us, and there was no stirring on the field except our own.

Oh you arrogant Christians, there are gods much older and mightier than yours. You pale, pursed-lipped book-thumpers, you passionless secular humanists, you soul-denying atheists, how quickly you throw off your sweetness and light, and your compassionate weeping Christ, and your civilized morality when a collective anger overtakes you. It is to Us, the gods of this world, you offer up your Golden Calves when you make war. It is from the forges of Hephaestus that you take up your beautiful weapons, and from Aphrodite that you take the trophies of your victory. And it is the breath of Ares hot upon your neck that gives you the courage to charge into the spears and bayonets of the opposing force.

Consider also the Great God Eros, who courses through the veins of every living thing that ruts and thrusts and lusts for life, the thundering river of blood that traces back from son to father, to grandfather, all the way back to the primordial slime. Eros is the guiding hand of evolution as it expresses itself in the particulars human attraction; it is the primordial lust that all men feel; a lust that impels them to hurl themselves upstream against all of survival’s adversities. Eros is the strength and courage of one’s ancestors coursing through your veins; it is a god to which all men pay secret homage, and in that climactic moment of these rituals, one’s individual self falls away and one communes with the very Lifeforce itself. No wonder your pale and sexless God eschews all things erotic.

Let us not forget the great God Gaia. Is she a living “being” like ourselves? No, as a being she is nothing like us. She is much, much more. We are a part of her living body; our thoughts are her thoughts; and, through her, we partake of her son Eros and the Great Chain of Being. Does Gaia love us? What a stupid question! She is Love; she is Life itself. By what human arrogance do we fail to regard her as a living being? By what intellectual prejudice do we deny she is a god? And by what hubris do we claim dominion over her, the right to poison her?

While we’re at it, let’s also consider the great God Chaos, the deep mathematical order that suffuses all of existence; the fractal structure of the universe and of consciousness itself. The Greeks were on to something when they told of Gaia being the consort of Chaos, and their offspring being Eros. Life is suffused through and through with fractal structure. Next to insights we have gained into elegant and majestic workings of Chaos, your jealous desert gods, with their genocidal pacts and their wrathful demands for slavish obedience, seem nothing more than grubby, disgusting impertinences.

What do we mean by “supernatural”? If you look at Gaia, Chaos, Eros, Ares, etc., you will see that each has a life of it’s own. They can not be immediately explained by natural forces any more than “music” can be explained by the vibration of strings and reeds. They are transcendent forces that live in and through us. In this respect, they are like titanic forces of nature, only they do not act on nature; they act on human societies and culture. In the new biology, you could call them “meta-organisms” or “memeplexes.” You could further describe them as parasites on the human cultural organism, since they do tend to propagate virally, like epidemics.

Such terminological innovations may seem to purge these phenomena of the spooky, mystical baggage we associate with spirits and gods. But, not really. Simply naming or re-naming a thing does not give one power over it. The fact is, our sense of morality is a memeplex too. But putting it in such natural-historical terms does not make it any less compelling, or make our relationship to it any more optional. Our morality and our sense of spirituality are one in the same thing; they are also part and parcel of our evolution as a species. And there is a certain utility in recasting the language of human spirituality in terms of an ecologically responsible morality. There is something sacred about human dignity, about the obligation to act in good faith, and the need to ensure the survival of the planet and all that dwells upon it.

Our morality and our humanity are also transcendent “spiritual” phenomena. They live through us, and to a minor extent are affected by us, but they have an immortal evolving life of their own. The sense of awe we feel before the transcendent and the spiritual is purposeful and functional, insofar as it keeps us appropriately humble, respectful of, and attentive to the larger Spirit(s) that we live within and which lives individually and collectively through us.

mattbrowne's avatar

To me “supernatural” refers to entities or events which are seen as part of nature defying natural (physical) laws. Some argue there’s nothing beyond nature, others argue there is. But this is a matter of belief. The personal God of the abrahamic religions as well as Gaia, Chaos, Eros, Ares, Jupiter, Stonehenge stones, UFO pilots and so forth can be classified as supernatural. They light up a bush and talk to Moses or they abduct people and perform medical tests. Religions evolve, philosophies evolve, our morals evolve, science evolves. Our understanding evolves. We should make sure people are not left behind.

ragingloli's avatar

@mattbrowne
i object to UFO’s defying natural laws. They only seem to do that because we have not yet discovered how they do that.

wildpotato's avatar

No. But Charles Hartshorne would say so.

mattbrowne's avatar

@ragingloli – I was referring to the UFO cult in a spiritual sense. SETI is scientific. And so would be the spaceships of real extraterrestrials.

Zuma's avatar

@mattbrowne In the sense I am using the term, Gaia, Chaos, Eros and Ares all exist within Nature as physically constituted. They can not, through an act of will, violate the laws of the Cosmos because they in fact constitute the lawful order of the Cosmos. But they are “super” with respect to human natures, insofar as Gaia is a whole in which we are one of the constituent parts. We are bound to Gaia’s ecology in such a way that we perceive pollution, or global warming, or the decline in species diversity in such a way that we are motivated to do something about it. These ideas do not come to us sui generis. They well up in us as we become aware that we are part of a larger whole.

Likewise millions of people act on their erotic attractions, and this takes us on an evolutionary track that only Eros “knows.” In other words, we are participating in the unfolding of an evolutionary trajectory that is largely unknown to us and therefore outside of our conscious control. Individually, we act on our attractions, sometimes with rational optimization, but it is only in the aggregate and over long stretches of time that we acquire any inkling as to how we are evolving as a species. Eros, thus, transcends human nature, and thereby acts as a hidden “super” natural process guiding our evolution.

75movies's avatar

Yes, god is the universe. And the universe had heterosexual sexy time with a virgin 2000 years ago. And her husband who had not yet gotten busy with her was real laid back and cool with the affair. And it was awesome!

Smashley's avatar

Even if I had tangible proof of a creator deity and I were the world’s foremost authority on cosmology and universe theory, I would not make this assertion.

BarefootChris's avatar

Contrary to traditional beliefs, I agree with you: I see God not as a single, all-powerful deity, but rather the collective energy that surges through our universe. Sort of as a life-force, you could say. But, in that I think that’s where the beauty of spirituality comes.

An ability to tap into that collective life force, and understand that you’re just as much a part of “God” as the person next to you, really makes you want to reach out and hug someone. Being alive is beautiful.

MaryW's avatar

I would change your “God is omnipotent since God is the total sum of all energy in the universe and thus all powerful.” to:

God is gave the total sum of all the energy present in the universe and thus is all present because sHe is the creator. sHe also gave us a set of physical rules and laws and free will so neither sHe nor we would be bored. But this is theory and we all get to have great fun proving theories.

God is outside of the bounds of exact description because we all use different words to describe the same thing. All descriptions and explainations are reduced to political parties searching. I am sure God finds us interesting. Yes, we are all able to tap into God and to each other. Energy is an amazing force.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther