Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu

 

 

 

 

 

 

Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com

Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Journal Founding: August 2, 2012

Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year

Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed

Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access

Fees: None (Free)

Volume Numbering: 13

Issue Numbering: 1

Section: D

Theme Type: Idea

Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”

Theme Part: 32

Formal Sub-Theme: None.

Individual Publication Date: December 22, 2024

Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2025

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Word Count: 18,207

Image Credits: Photo by Davide Cantelli on Unsplash.

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885

*Updated December 26, 2024.*

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*

Abstract

The conversation explores definitions and perspectives on God, blending theology, science, and philosophy. Scott Douglas Jacobsen prompts dialogue on God’s definition and role. Rick Rosner critiques traditional omnipotent concepts, suggesting godlike civilizations within the universe’s informational structure. He highlights evolution, rejecting omnipotence while speculating on advanced civilizations’ roles and time perception. Rosner argues logical principles govern existence, leaving little room for traditional deities. He finds comfort in cultural symbols like “office Jesus,” juxtaposing technology and spirituality as modern sources of solace. Donald Wayne Stoner builds a theological framework on primordial logic, equating God to the logical foundation underpinning math, quantum mechanics, and the universe. He blends Christian theology with scientific rationalism, asserting God’s omnipresence as “conscious logic.” Stoner explores humanity’s role as co-creators, emphasizing ethical, logical, and emotional dimensions of divine understanding. He critiques reductionist models, advocating for a nuanced reconciliation of science and faith. Claus Volko sees God as an abstract metaphor for the unknown, contrasting with Stoner’s detailed theological model. Volko suggests dualistic forces of life and death shape existence. Tianxi Yu incorporates Eastern philosophy, linking Taoist concepts of emptiness with the unknowable nature of God. Yu critiques Western rationalism’s limitations, advocating for embracing paradoxes and interweaving scientific insights with spiritual wisdom. The dialogue reveals shared themes: the limits of human understanding, evolving definitions of divinity, and reconciling ancient wisdom with contemporary science. Questions persist about consciousness, morality’s origins, and reconciling diverse philosophical traditions. Ultimately, participants offer diverse but complementary perspectives, enriching the discourse on humanity’s search for meaning and the divine.

Keywords: Evolution and teleology, God and intentionality, Love and trust dynamics, Principles of existence, Scientific and logical perspectives, Stability and order in relationships, Willful creator concept.

Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What seems like the easiest first definition of God to you? This can include a pivot into an inability to define or an ineffability, too. 

Rick Rosner: The first step, therefore, is to posit that God, understood as an omniscient, omnipotent being, might be impossible. I doubt such an entity could exist. The next step is to hypothesize what could exist. We know we exist.

We know the universe exists and is approximately 13.8 billion years old. It is even older in the context of potential multiverses, and there may be no limit to the size or number of possible universes. Within these vast possibilities, beings and civilizations of unimaginable age could arise. They could achieve extraordinary levels of complexity, power, and information processing capacity with enough time.

Thus, one could imagine entities or civilizations that may exist or have existed with a scale and power that would appear god-like to us. Within our universe, human civilization is about 10,000 years old. However, life could have emerged on another planet a billion, two billion, or even five billion years ago. An old civilization would have an immense head start, potentially becoming god-like after everything it has learned over billions of years.

Donald Wayne Stoner:  1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.

Therefore,  by inclusion (the effective minor premise):

God is also:  That which also brought us into existence.

Therefore,  by causal hierarchy (minor premise again):

2) God is also:  That which is responsible for our personal existence.

More figuratively, God is our primordial “parent.”

To focus this definition more precisely,  I must admit that all of my beliefs (about anything) are based on at least one thing which I take on “faith” alone.  To explain what I mean by this,  there is a question which I have frequently asked my professional associates  (usually physicists,  engineers,  and programmers):

           “Do you know how to construct a logical proof for the validity of logic itself?”

Invariably,  they have been surprised that they don’t happen to know how to do that.  Logic seems to be something which normal people just seem to take for granted;  so they never question it.

Is Logic really valid?  How might we test it?  In very general terms,  there are really only two possible ways:

1. A) Logically:  This one would be circular,  hence invalid.

-or-

1. B) Illogically (or alogically):  This simply avoids validity.

So,  Logic cannot be proven to be valid.

Therefore,  we must assume that Logic is either:

1. C) An Illusion  (Any idea is as good as any other idea)

-or-

1. D) Primordial  (It’s The self-existent source for all proofs)

I have chosen to believe that:

3) logic is primordial

Logic happens to be one of those things which,  as I emphasized above, I take on faith alone.  Choosing (D) over (C) seems like an obvious choice to me;  and having now made that choice,  I have committed to the position that Logic must be primordial (3),  and that it is,  therefore,  self existent. 

Having thus accepted “primordial logic” (3),  I can, next, derive:

4) Mathematics

A quite detailed and formal logical proof for the validity of  math, has been provided by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell.  More detail can be found here:

         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

An extremely informal “proof”  (it’s very brief,  illustrative, and also a cheating* short-cut)  is presented here:

Nearly all computers could, in theory, be constructed from logic gates alone.  (In principle, they could be constructed using nothing but combinations of 2-input NAND gates.) So,   anything those computers can do,  could,  in principle, be done with logic alone.  This includes just about anything which is mathematical.

The key takeaway, here, is that “math” is just a derivative of “logic.”  Nothing “new” has really been added  (other than the additional complexity which is incurred with increasingly complex,  but still completely-logical,  procedures).

Given “math” (4),  we now have all we need to construct:

5) Quantum Mechanics

“Real” particles do some very strange things.  In fact, what they do is so weird  (e.g. one single particle existing in two different places at the same time)  that it is frequently claimed that the actual “physical particles” themselves, don’t really need to exist, nor does the “space,” through which those particles move. The math, alone, is all that is really necessary.  Seriously!

For example,  see this source here:

“The only way we can explain this pattern is that each particle is a sum – a superposition – of two paths, one going through the left slit and one through the right. So why not just say that the particle goes both ways? There are two reasons I don’t like this phrase. One is that a superposition of two paths is not something in space. It belongs in an abstract mathematical structure called a Hilbert space. It just has no analogue in physical space. This is why we can’t find good words to describe it. It doesn’t belong in the world we know; it’s something else entirely.”

Warning: The link below (to the above quotation)  may only allow one viewing before it blocks further access.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2328087-can-particles-really-be-in-two-places-at-the-same-time/ 

Back when I was an undergrad physics student,  one of my professors “joked” that the “particles, themselves” probably didn’t really need to exist,  that the strange math alone would be enough to construct our world, exactly like we see it;  but that “pretending” there were actual particles, just made things impossible to imagine.

I didn’t believe him at the time, but,  like my professor, I eventually chose to “believe” that the “irrational appearing theoretical particles” were less “real” than the math,  which correctly predicted the behavior, which I could actually observe in my experiments.

The key takeaway here, is that “this world” is made of nothing more than “quantum mechanical” rules, which, in turn, are constructed from math, alone; which, in turn, is nothing more than “logic.” Nothing “new” has really been added  (other than the additional complexity which is incurred with increased stacking of operations, all of which are still completely-logical,  procedures).

And given that both “logic” and “math” have always been operational,  everywhere in the universe,  ever since the “Big Bang”  we have a solid foundation for Quantum Mechanics.  So,  given “Q.M.” (5),  we should now have everything we need to “construct” (bring into existence):

6) The Physical Universe

Here is where it starts to get fun: Starting with the Universe, and working backwards, down the causality stack, we have:

The physical universe (6) …

Comprising Q,M, (5) …

Comprising Math (4) …

Comprising Primordial Logic (3) …

… taking us all the way back to our starting definition:

1) God is:  That which brought our universe into existence.

From this, it appears that:

7) God (1) assumes the same identity as Primordial Logic (3). 

Here,  both God (1), and Primordial Logic (3),  are defined as the single primordial source which produces the universe.

We could try to avoid this conclusion by asserting that “God produced Logic,” but then we would have to ask whether this was done:  A) Logically -or- B) Illogically. So, we still seem to be at the primordial bottom here.

Alternately,  we could argue that both God and Logic exist side by side,  on the same, primordial, bottom level.  This brings up the need for a “context” in which the two could interact, which, in turn, brings up the need for an additional “logical creator” to create that extra context, ad infinitum.

Evidently, we are stuck with God (1) sharing the exact same identity with Primordial Logic (3).  This causes a problem: Since our normal understanding of the term “God” is so very different from our normal understanding what of “logic” is, this may require a bit of explaining:

In the argument above, we presumed that “logic” had existed, and operated,  everywhere in the universe, during the billions of years preceding the very first sentient creatures.  Although we normally presume this to be the case,  have we tested it?

Can “logic,” itself,  operate in a complete vacuum? … or in the absence of a physical mind (maybe either organic or electronic)? What kind of working mind could possibly have been present to have performed the necessary “math” to cause the Q.M. event responsible for the “Big Bang?”

Although there are several theoretical models for what might cause consciousness to happen, e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_consciousness, the traditional,  most common models,  claim it is emergent from matter  (when sufficient complexity is present). There is a large amount of weird speculation involved in how or why this is supposed to happen; but, so far, no experiment has shown this to be workable.

However,  there is a new, cutting-edge, scientific field of study, involving theoretical Q.M. models,  which challenges this old, and, so far,  non-productive, “consciousness” model:  it’s called “Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR)” in the above link.        

Over the last few decades,  I have been following the work of Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff, who, together, have been developing the science behind this model.

Instead of accepting the theory that awareness emerges from complexity in matter,  their experiments suggest that,  in our real world, “consciousness is a fundamental property, which is part of the logical and mathematical structure of the entire universe.” **

Therefore, our logical conclusion (above):  (That God (1),  and Logic (3),  are both valid descriptions of the “creator”) starts to sound less like an absurdity,  and more like the first connection between otherwise-sterile science,  and the “spiritual existence” which we all know we experience  (made famous by Descartes’ famous realization:  “I think,  therefore,  I am.”)

I, personally, believe that this new theory of consciousness will, eventually, replace the present standard scientific model.  In any case,  for the the present discussion,  I will be using it as my working theory.

It has not escaped my attention that this theory brings “a universe filled with otherwise-sterile logic,”  into close alignment with the more traditional descriptions of God (1 & 2).

Let’s see where this working theory takes us:

Starting with  the above “backwards” causality sequence:

The physical universe (6),

Comprising Q,M, (5).

Comprising Math (4),

Comprising Primordial Logic (3)

  … but working in the normal, forward direction,  we now have:

        In the beginning was primordial,  self existent,  Logic (3).

        This Logic (3)  caused Math (4),  which caused Q.M. (5),

        which created the physical Universe (6)  (caused by 1 & 3, 

        and actually comprising  1 & 3),  and also “us” ourselves

        (who seem to share logical reasoning, and likely also self

        awareness) with That which must also potentially assume

        responsibility for our actions (2).

I find it interesting that:  by critically examining the validity of Logic itself;  and by translating the original Greek Biblical word “λογος” (logos) as “Logic” (the way Plato and Aristotle probably would have used that word — instead of how most modern theologians usually translate it);  and by taking it in combination with the (above) cutting-edge theory, we are now able to verify, logically,  some critical parts of the first three verses of St. John’s Gospel.

For comparison,  here is how Young’s Literal Translation of those three verses would have read, if he had translated ” λογος” as “Logic” instead of as “Word”:

1. In the beginning was the Logic,

               and the Logic was with God,

               and the Logic was God;

2. this one was in the beginning with God;
3. all things through him did happen,

               and without him  happened

               not even one thing that hath happened.

So,  in conclusion,  my working definition for God is:

        (1) That which brought our universe into existence,

              and  by inclusion,  also ourselves into existence;

              and therefore also,  by causal extension:

        (2) That which is responsible for our personal existence.

              (More figuratively, God is our primordial “parent.”)

  or:

        (3) Primordial Logic

One last thought:

        St. John’s Gospel is likely to be worth some further study.

Claus Volko, M.D.: For me the term God is a metaphor for things we don’t understand, and perhaps can’t understand. Anything that can’t be explored by the scientific method can be attributed to God. What exactly God is, remains unknown. We can only speculate about it.

Tianxi Yu: In Western religious perspectives, God is considered omnipotent, and all things are created by God. However, from the viewpoint of Chinese culture, humans evolved naturally, and the concept of God is a figment of the imagination that arose from people in the old world trying to understand unknown phenomena. Personally, I am inclined to believe in the existence of an omnipotent God, but God is not considered supreme. When you describe an object, it acquires certain attributes. If it has certain attributes, there must be corresponding opposite attributes. For example, if you define Audrey as “beautiful,” it implies that you think other women are less so. But if the median level of female attractiveness is closer to Natasha’s, Audrey would not be defined as “beautiful.” Therefore, when you define God as omnipotent, God essentially becomes a slightly more powerful human, indirectly acknowledging that God evolved from humans. Thus, the supreme existence I believe in is the indescribable “emptiness,” which transcends God. It cannot be defined or described. 

Jacobsen: For you, does one seek God, or does God seek them, or both (… or neither)?

Rosner: I see the universe as an information-processing entity. Quantum mechanics suggests that the universe operates on probabilities and incomplete information.

On average, the universe increases in complexity over time, leading to a greater amount of information and order as time progresses. The emergence of beings within the universe might be connected to this increase in order. I am proposing that sufficiently long-lived civilizations may become involved in the universe’s workings.

With that in mind, our civilization may find out if these ideas hold any truth in the future. A future human, transhuman, or posthuman civilization will have to decide whether to attempt to contact other civilizations which might be found closer to the galaxy’s center. At the same time, perhaps contradictorily, I think civilizations generally have more important endeavours than seeking out others. This challenges many alien invasion scenarios that assume aliens would come to Earth because they need something. That is improbable because any civilization powerful enough to reach us would be powerful enough to create whatever they need near their location, even simulating other civilizations if necessary.

Therefore, there is no compelling reason to seek out and conquer other civilizations. The only reason to contact them would be to gain knowledge, assuming they are more advanced than us. More advanced civilizations would tend to be non-malevolent. Admittedly, this is speculative thinking on my part. I am exploring these ideas as they come to mind.

Why would they be interested in us? If they are powerful enough to do whatever they want relative to us, they likely do not care about what we do. That is my guess—that civilizations tend to gravitate towards the galactic center. Or, as we are observing in an early form, much of a civilization’s focus is on information processing. I suspect that if a civilization wants to engage in this on a vast scale, it might be more efficient to do so closer to the center of a galaxy.

If I were to construct a scenario, it would involve a civilization facing decisions about whether to seek out other, more advanced civilizations in the hope of gaining knowledge from them. The counterargument is the risk of being wrong and facing potential destruction if they view us as competition. This answers your question.

Stoner: Following from my understanding of God:  Probably both.

But speaking as a tiny piece of God’s entire universe,

rather than as its omnipresent creator  (“conscious logic itself”)

I doubt my efforts can hold a candle to God’s.

Volko: People seek God. They want to be good people and obey God’s laws, and since God has never come down to earth and told people what his laws are, they have to find out for themselves. 

I don’t think that God seeks people. In my opinion God is so powerful that he can easily observe anybody.

Yu: As I mentioned in response to the first question, the God has evolved from human. From a human perspective, it is humans who seek God. However, as a deity, God would also desire more individuals to evolve into divine beings. Therefore, God communicates the principles of the universe to humanity through natural phenomena. Those who can decipher these divine hints often become gods themselves in the future. Thus, the relationship between God and humans is one of mutual pursuit.

Jacobsen: What seems like the first reasonable realization in sensibly engaging in this search of God?

Rosner: In my view, the initial realization is that one must consider the fundamental principles of existence, which are sufficiently durable and inviolable to exclude the idea of a transcendental God. By “transcendental,” I mean a God that exists beyond the principles and laws of existence itself.

Suppose this were 500 years ago, when we lacked a comprehensive understanding of the universe. In that case, proposing entities made of something greater that transcends earthly limitations might have seemed plausible. However, this is the present day. We now have a deeper understanding of what matter is made of. We have a concept of the universe’s shape and the distribution of matter within it. We also have insights into the universe’s physics and some metaphysical aspects. This does not leave room for beings that transcend the foundational principles of existence.

I mentioned earlier civilizations that could be hundreds of millions of years old. Based on what they learned over such immense periods, they might have developed entirely different modes of existence. For example, we live in linear time, but they may have discovered ways of existence that defy our current understanding of reality.

It is unlikely that civilization could figure out how to exist in two-dimensional time instead of one-dimensional time or something along those lines. However, it is possible. Regardless, no matter how advanced, any civilization would still be bound by the principles of existence, such as non-contradiction. That is the first realization.

In searching for God, one must set up the limiting case, which, in my view, is that an all-powerful or all-knowing God cannot exist. An omnipotent being did not create us. This is easier to read as an initial premise. To add a supplement, we may have been created by a not-all-powerful being.

Some thinkers, perhaps more than one, argue that this reality could be a simulation. If it is a simulation, an entity must be behind it. You then face two choices: this world is naturally emergent and evolved or a simulated one. Even in the case of a simulation, the being who created it is not omnipotent and is subject to the same fundamental limitations that apply to existence.

Stoner: The first step (above): Realizing that we take logic on faith.

The next step: Deriving a definition for God (3 & 2 & 1).

The next step: Understanding that God is omnipresent, sentient logic.

The next step: Presuming that, very likely, God is also seeking us.

This present step: Engaging: This shouldn’t be overly difficult:

We just ask God for whatever help we might need.

The only catch is that it’s unlikely that a seeker would be able to hide any questionable motives they might have.

Volko: (No answer).

Yu: The first reasonable realization in the search for God is that God communicates with humanity through various natural phenomena. For instance, the observation of apples naturally falling led to the discovery of gravity, the shape of mushrooms inspired the invention of umbrellas, and financial market indicators are used to predict economic trends. The advancement of human civilization to its current state is largely due to highly intelligent individuals who have interpreted these divine hints and guided the evolution of our society. Therefore, in our quest to find God, it is crucial to humbly recognize that everything is under divine guidance. We must contemplate these divine signs to draw closer to God.

Jacobsen: Does God, even if distinguishing types or levels of epistemology & ontology, seem knowable in principle or unknowable, as such?

Rosner: Now, for the question of whether God, even when considering different types or levels of epistemology and ontology, seems knowable in principle or unknowable: Science, over the past 500 years, has been remarkably successful at discovering and explaining phenomena in a mathematical and somewhat mechanical way. We understand how things work and can express them mathematically. Still, this understanding often comes at the expense of exploring metaphysics—the “why” behind existence.

We now possess enough information and theoretical knowledge about the universe’s mechanics to address metaphysical questions. The “why” of existence is closely related to the “how,” and I believe the principles of non-contradiction in existence are such that they allow for the possibility of being. Anything not prohibited by the principles of existence can, by definition, potentially exist.

In terms of epistemology—how we acquire knowledge—it is possible to build an understanding based on these foundational ideas. While effectively explaining the “how,” science often stops short of explaining why the universe exists. Concepts such as an unstable null state, potentially loaded with energy that compels it to expand into existence, are considered. However, even in standard Big Bang theory, deeper “whys” remain unanswered. So, yes, we can explore the “whys” behind the “hows.”

Stoner: God can choose to be:  knowable,  unknowable,  or even both simultaneously.  We can observe how this might happen with a  test case: Consider this quotation by Physicist Stephen Hawking:

           “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just

            a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire

            into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?

            The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical

            model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a

            universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go

            to all the bother of existing?”

                        ― Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

        A Brief History of Time Quotes by Stephen Hawking

Is the source of Hawking’s “fire,” an “unknowable” and mysterious enigma?  Or is it blatantly obvious?  This was, obviously, a “choice” which Dr. Hawking had to make while he was studying this evidence.

This same choice is also ours to make whenever we study the same universe Hawking once did.  I, personally, take the same position taken by Paul (the Apostle):  God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”  (Romans 1:20 NIV) 

Volko: I don’t think anybody really knows what exactly God is.

Yu: God is, in principle, knowable because He has evolved from the pinnacle of humankind, representing the culmination of human wisdom. Thus, humanity can understand God through observation and reasoning. The indescribable “emptiness” is an existence that transcends God, one that cannot be described or defined.

Jacobsen: Any overarching questions for the group or hopes for this discussion as we proceed?

Rosner: As for questions for the group or hopes for the discussion, God, as traditionally understood, is under scrutiny due to scientific progress. The more science explains, the less we rely on divine or supernatural explanations. In the U.S., the concept of the traditional Christian God is also challenged by the behaviour of certain groups, such as some Christians aligning with MAGA, who often act in unchristian ways. Younger generations are leaving the church in large numbers.

My question, then, is how does the concept of God survive into the future, and do we even need God for humanity to thrive? The idea of a godless, cold universe without inherent morality—where everything happens by chance—can be a grim prospect. Yet, I believe there is an inherent drive toward order and value within the universe. How can some form of morality persist and be justified in the future without resorting to existential absurdity? The notion that the universe is absurd and that we must impose our values upon it feels bleak to me and not entirely accurate.

Stoner:  I’m looking forward to what I expect to be a fascinating discussion!

Notes: * This “cheating” involves a slight-of-hand switch between the classical, time-dependent, clocked sequences, which are used by a computer,  and the very different time-independent processes used by a human math student:

The computer,  when fed the “command” N=N+1,  mindlessly fetches “N,” from a memory location, increments it by “1,”  and then moves the new value back into the same location from which it was originally fetched. (For simplicity, here I have omitted the middle step, where the computer “compiles” (translates and reorders) “N=N+1” to: “N, get, 1, add, N, put”)

The student sees the “equation” N=N+1,  as a simultaneous, unsolvable, contradiction. (For simplicity, here I did not attempt to track the thoughts which may or may not have happened in the student’s mind.)

In spite of the differences, this computer example illustrates the causal chain, from simple logical components, to complex mathematics.

** Among the participants in this new field,  is author, and Nobel Prize winning physicist, Sir Roger Penrose (who together with Dr. Stephen Hawking, predicted of the existence of Black Holes).

Also among these participants,  is Penrose’s associate Dr. Stuart Hameroff,  (an anesthesiologist, and physicist,  who has made some fascinating discoveries regarding apparent “intelligence” in microscopic and molecular biochemistry).  I’m anticipating that either these researchers,  or possibly those who follow them, will eventually shed more light on this question.

A video of a discussion with Penrose and Hameroff can be found here: 

Stuart Hameroff, MD | Sir Roger Penrose | Qualcomm Institute

Here are a few time markers for some interesting and significant statements:

0:23:55-0:25:07  Penrose says that “non-life can be “conscious.”

0:40:20-41:44 Terms: “Proto consciousness,” objective reduction (OR), and  “Orchestrated OR.

1:16:55  Briefly discusses the six major competing theories of consciousness

1:36:00  Hameroff says that, “Consciousness is actually a fundamental property;  it goes all the way down to the structure of the universe.”

Yu: God x Science, Emptiness x Buddhism.

Jacobsen: A varied style of talking about God and diverse presentation style. But they are in character! So, patterns are emerging. How has your personal view of God changed over time if at all?

Rosner: When I was a little kid, I assumed I believed in God, but as I grew older, I started reading physics books—at least introductory ones like Time-Life Books, The Universe, not advanced physics books but ones aimed at the general public. I was reading these books by around 1968 or so, maybe 1970. That was when the Big Bang theory was becoming widely accepted.

Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. By the late 1960s, the Big Bang theory had largely been established as the leading cosmological model. I took that as my framework for understanding the universe.

Of course, I had questions, the kind a child might have—like what created the thing that the Big Bang originated from? But I wasn’t considering those questions in terms of God.

I attended Sunday school, but I don’t remember ever believing in the traditional depiction of God as an old white man with a beard and flowing robes. That concept didn’t resonate with me. I didn’t start seriously contemplating the metaphysics of God until my early 20s, and even then, only sporadically.

When I considered the structure of the universe, I might occasionally entertain ideas that allowed for the existence of God. However, those thoughts never lasted long before I found inconsistencies or logical flaws. I distinctly remember being in my college cafeteria during these moments. I did a lot of thinking over meals because I ate frequently—about seven meals a day—just trying to bulk up. I worked as a bouncer and wanted to build muscle, so the cafeteria became a place for eating and reflecting.

One time, for about 10 minutes, I considered that mystical phenomena might fit within the rules of existence. But I quickly dismissed the idea while eating red Jell-O, fried chicken, or mulligatawny soup. This dish combines leftovers from previous meals with broth.

Aside from those fleeting moments, I’ve consistently believed that the concept of God doesn’t align with the principles of existence as I understand them. The universe doesn’t require an omnipotent creator in the background.

Simply put, my views on God haven’t changed much in decades.

Donald Wayne Stoner: Like everyone else, I started life at a very young age, with virtually no understanding at all about anything (religious or otherwise). It would be fair to say that everything I now believe is a result of change since that time. Also, back then (several years after WWII), topics like religion and politics were considered to be very much more private than they are today. It was also generally believed that it was not expedient to expose young children to that sort of subject matter. This may have retarded the accumulation of religious opinions in my development.

However, from the beginning, I was a curious child (a real troublemaker, and also an “escape artist” in training). Disassembling the latches on my crib was the first step toward enlarging my world. Protecting me from accidental injury, soon became a full-time job for my mother. Fortunately, she had the required skills: Her previous work experience had been as a cyclotron operator at a military base in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; so keeping me alive until adulthood was within her capabilities.

My father and mother met at a Church in Tennessee, while he was temporarily stationed at that same base. Later, he was transferred to Los Alamos, to help Robert Oppenheimer with his part of the same project. After the transfer, my parents continued their courtship by mail until the end of the war. (They were both the sort of people who might have expected troublemakers for children, and also the sort who might have once caused trouble for their own parents.)

After the war, they married and started a family. Of course we all attended Church. My sisters and I were exposed to what was, at that time, typical for religious instruction: dumbed-down, preschool-level, Sunday school. I learned to sing songs with mysterious phrases like, “Little ‘once’ to him belong,” and “I will make you fishers ‘Amen’,” (while wildly swinging open safety-pins tied to strings taped to dowel sticks, for “fishing poles”).

During this time, I was told that someone called “God” (or maybe “Jesus”) had made me (and everything else). I also remember having the vague impression that “God” was significantly bigger than my parents. None of this bothered me too much. It made sense because, by this time, my mom had showed me how stuff like crayons, scissors, tape, and glue, all worked. I’d also watched my dad make things in the garage. I figured I understood how things were “made” well enough.

When I wasn’t “learning about God” in Church, or disassembling my crib or playpen, I was usually disassembling my toys, my sisters’ toys, or other things around the house, to see how they worked. The gears, levers, shafts, and wheels all made perfect sense. (The occasional negative reaction from my sisters and parents was somewhat harder to understand.)

The very most fascinating thing I ever encountered was well beyond the reach of my exploratory capabilities, and it did not seem to be mechanical at all. I remember, at about the age of two or three, staring out through my own eyes, at nothing in particular, and thinking how very strange it was that I could perceive the world around me, and how strange it was that I was aware of my own existence. In this case, there was something different about the “device” involved; it wasn’t just more complex; it seemed to operate on a completely different principle – one that I still needed to understand.

Of course I didn’t stay three forever. By about the first grade, something had changed: I had tried inviting Jesus into my heart. No one had asked me to do it; in fact, I don’t remember anyone ever suggesting that it was a thing a person could do.  In Sunday school we kids were all in the middle of singing a song called, “Come Into My Heart Lord Jesus;” and for some reason, I just decided it would be cool if I tried really meaning the words while I sang them – so I did – and He Did. I won’t try to explain how I knew.  Any string of words I could possibly chain together would fail to catch the experience.

Shortly after that, I started having questions: First, I happened to notice that the Church and the school disagreed on how long it took God to create the universe. I asked my dad, and he told me that my grandpa (Peter W. Stoner) had written a book that explained how the Bible had originally been written in an ancient language and that it had not been translated perfectly. I said OK and went on with my life, completely missing out on my first possible crisis. (In hindsight, it appears that my grandpa was also a troublemaker, but one who “rocked a larger boat” than anything I had yet attempted.)

That same book is available here online:

On-line book: Science Speaks by Peter Stoner (Peter W. Stoner)

That single question had been answered, but the mystery of my self-awareness was still a problem. The Church called the missing element “soul” or “spirit,” but merely giving it a name didn’t really explain it; so I kept searching.

One day my Dad brought home a microscope, and we grabbed a cup of water from a stagnant pond (which looked like a good source for microscopic organisms). I spent some time watching those tiny transparent critters wiggling around in that little drop of water, hunting for food, and just exploring their world. I announced to my Dad that those critters appeared to be aware they existed! He smiled, and nodded in agreement, but neither of us understood how that was possible. They each had only one cell; and that cell wasn’t a brain cell, or even a nerve cell! I still didn’t know how a “soul” or a “spirit” worked, but I then had the impression that something very much like it was present, even in microscopic critters.

Years later, I remember viewing a microscopic time-lapse movie of a single cell dividing. The resolution was good enough that I could see the double set of chromosomes being pulled away from each other, by their middles, into the two separate sides of the dividing cell. I wondered how the process worked, and how it was able to make sure that each half of the cell got a complete set of the chromosomes. This was another puzzle for which I had no answer. (More recently, I watched a high resolution computer video of the same process, where the viewer could watch the individual microtubules rapidly groping around, each trying to locate the exact chromosome they were seeking; it still looked completely unbelievable.)

(These microscopic observations were, of course, quite similar to those which also caught the attention of Stuart Hameroff M.D. and started him down the path which eventually brought him into contact with Sir Roger Penrose — as I mentioned in the first round of questions.)

By junior high school my Dad’s engineering company had a small desktop computer which I learned to program. This expanded my world in a completely new direction — opening a door to a new world of invisible and complex electronic processes. In addition, my relatives started getting me books on computers and electronics for Christmas and birthday presents. My hobbies all began focusing on computer electronics.

Also about this same time, I complained to God that His Bible was not really the right kind of book: It was simply too long, and it was also way too archaic sounding. I suggested that I could do a better job, and that maybe I should rewrite it for Him. Sometimes God doesn’t bother dealing with my silly complaints, but this time I got an immediate reply. Although it came instantly, in a single “flash,” it will take a few words to spell out the “text” of the general idea here:

God:  “Gee Don, that’s a great idea! Say, maybe you should try reading it first. That way you’ll know what parts need trimming and changing. OK?”

I was now on a mission and ready to start!  Also at about that time, my mom brought home a copy of Kenneth Taylor’s newly published “Living Letters.” (Paul’s Epistles, paraphrased into modern language.) 

https://www.amazon.com/Living-Letters-Kenneth-Nathaniel-Taylor/dp/0842326014

It took reading about two of Paul’s letters before I understood the “practical joke” God had pulled on me. Over the next few years, I followed Taylor’s progress as he translated the whole New Testament, and then the entire Bible. But, by then, many excellent modern translations had become available.

Although I do explain the Biblical content to others in my own words (as I promised I would do) I no longer anticipate that I will ever be replacing the Bible in any sense.

Returning to the non-biblical part of my search and enlightenment: I also became a fan of Martin Gardener’s writings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Gardner

In particular, one of Martin Gardener’s  Scientific American magazine columns, titled “Machines That Learn” caught my attention, because I thought “learning” might have a connection to awareness. I started spending most of my time designing different kinds of “learning” computers, still hoping to figure out how my own awareness worked.

By high school, I knew, in theory, how to build a conventional working computer, one transistor at a time; by college, I had a good start on actually building one; but by that time, I understood the machine well enough to know there was no “ghost” anywhere, in it — nor could there be.  I could see for myself that computers couldn’t possibly “think,” they just blindly “did.”

Since I had done well on a state-wide high school physics competition, I chose physics for my major in college. This was where I was finally introduced to the real “ghost in the machine” which I had been seeking. It turned out to take the form of quantum mechanics. I still don’t have have answers for every question I’d ever asked, but I’m no longer particularly worried about those questions which still remain.

By that time I was a fairly opinionated and outspoken Christian. I was also considering going into the ministry, instead of into science or technology. All that stopped me was that the Church didn’t really seem to want anything to do with my non-traditional ideas; but the gatekeepers of science and technology did want my skills – particularly my computer skills. (At that time, microprocessors were just beginning to hit the markets, and very few schools were turning out graduates who knew how to design with them or to  program them.)

So, I supported myself, and a newly acquired wife (we celebrated our 50th this year), and our growing family, with my scientific and computer skills,  while, every chance I had, I taught, wrote, and lectured, on how the faulty understandings in “Christian” teachings needed to be identified and corrected. If anyone is interested, some my opinions are presented on my web page here:

Don Stoner, Donald Wayne Stoner, High-Energy Theology

That link will take you to my thoughts concerning: the creation (Genesis 1), the rest of the book of Genesis, the first Exodus from Egypt (there was also a second one), the various theories of Evolution (including my own unique thoughts), Jesus’ 70 AD return, and a timeline to fit it all together, as well as to the other sorts of mischief with which I have become involved.

Evolution alone is sufficiently interesting to spend some time on it here, since both Rick Rosner and Tianxi Yu brought up “emergence” and “evolution.”  It is especially significant here, because my views on this subject have, themselves, undergone some “evolution” of their own during the years I have been studying the nature of God and His creation.

There are presently two competing scientific “Theories of Evolution” which are in opposition to each other. An explanation of sorts is presented here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins_vs._Gould

Here’s the problem:  Each position presents evidence which falsifies the claims of the other.

In more detail:  Darwin’s theory does not predict the sudden leaps which are seen in the fossil record. Its theoretical basis – random mutations and survival of the fittest –  predicts that change will occur by very small steps, and that it will occur more rapidly in larger populations than in smaller ones. The leaps which are seen in the fossil record are sufficiently large that some scientists (most notably the late Stephen Gould) have suggested that most evolutionary change must take place quickly and in small populations, where it would not be expected to leave much evidence.

It is easy to show that the relative size of a population is a very important factor in determining whether those populations should evolve rapidly upwards, slowly upwards, or even downwards. If we put two targets, a large one and a small one, right next to each other, and randomly throw unaimed darts at both of them, it is likely that the larger target will receive more hits. The same is true of a population of living individuals. Whatever mutation rates we assume, we can confidently expect that a larger breeding population will receive more of those favorable mutations than a smaller one will. (It will also receive more unfavorable mutations – but those are quickly weeded out and eliminated from the gene pool, because they produce individuals which are less fit for survival.)

We also know that unfavorable mutations are more common than favorable ones; no one deliberately raises their family on an old nuclear test site to take advantage of possible favorable mutations. But even though favorable mutations are rare; they confer a survival advantage to offset this. How much this helps depends on the size of the breeding population which receives the mutation.

If we assume that favorable mutations occur in one individual out of a thousand, and that their survival advantage will cause them to quickly spread to the whole population, a population with only twenty individuals will receive a boost about once in fifty generations. However, if the population size is a hundred individuals, a boost can be expected about every ten generations. This means smaller populations cannot evolve upward as rapidly as large ones.

This is the reason why insects and micro-organisms are able to make adaptations by which they resist man’s attempts to eliminate them; they have extremely large populations (and also short generation times). At the other extreme, the future of endangered species is bleak; their low numbers are a liability, not an asset. Without a large enough population, survival pressure simply means a high probability of extinction.

This means upward evolution can be expected to occur most rapidly in large populations of individuals, but it cannot even keep pace with normal genetic deterioration  in very small populations (from the relatively more common, unfavorable mutations). However, the fossil evidence shows us that observable evolutionary advance do not happen quickly (if at all) in even the largest populations (such as cockroaches, who quickly adapt, but don’t appear to “advance” into anything other than tougher cockroaches) where we might be expected to observe great changes over geological time. It would seem to follow that the evidence is against any naturalistic theory of evolution.

Here is the solution which I am suggesting:

When genetic engineers make changes to DNA molecules, they typically find a “surrogate mother” (usually the closest genetic candidate they can find), inject their modified DNA into a cell (often an egg cell), and let the existing cellular machinery do the work for them. The present hypothesis proposes that God might have used a similar method. As powerful as God might be, He could easily make use of very economical methodology. It is well within His capability to simply modify the DNA in an existing egg cell and then wait, allowing His previous creations to take it from there.

More specifically, God might have taken the DNA in a female creature (female where the distinction applies) of one species and modified it to create male and female members of a new species. He may have caused the necessary atoms to align themselves within the DNA, using the “back door” of access He left for Himself in the design of the universe – the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Modifications could have been minimal. God could have left many DNA segments unmodified.  As mitochondrial DNA demonstrates, He appears to have borrowed heavily from existing creatures. The pattern of mitochondrial DNA in various creatures suggests that God must have simply left it alone – not even bothering to “correct” neutral mutations which had occurred over the years.

We know from the fossil record that God created a sequence of erect-walking ape-like creatures – each step being less like an ape and more like a modern human. Even if God (having foreknowledge) would not need to make gradual “experimental” progress, there is a reason why this sequence might have been necessary anyway.

If God chose to use surrogate mothers to produce the first members of each new species, he would have needed to create an entire chain of closely spaced transitional forms, connecting all species. The spacing would need to be close, because a surrogate mother can’t successfully deliver something too different from herself. Assuming God has chosen this method to create new species, this would not be a limitation of God’s capability, it would be a limitation of the mother’s.

The problem is obvious if we imagine modifying the genes in a mother mouse in such a manner that her offspring were to become a baby elephant. This is an extreme example; but the same general principle applies to even very small steps – such as the problems that humans have when there are incompatible blood Rh factors between a mother and a her developing child. Since even a difference in blood type can make a true mother dangerous to her unborn baby, a “surrogate mother” (in the sense we are now considering) would need to be quite similar to any potential offspring.

If God chose to bridge major kinds using surrogate mothers, there would be an upper limit to the size of the steps which could be taken; this limit would be the point where the differences become fatal to a developing offspring. It is similar to the natural limit for interbreeding between creatures of slightly different kinds, for the same reason. If the kinds are too dissimilar, offspring cannot survive (or cannot reproduce in some cases). This hypothesis predicts that the maximum step size between created “kinds” will be at about the limit of interbreeding.

In many cases, this appears to be the approximate spacing between presently existing species. This is also approximately the spacing we find in the fossil record: we see a chain of “quantum leaps” at approximately the interbreeding limit, connecting life’s kinds. This is different from the gradual continuum predicted by Darwin’s theory, and also different from the complete absence of transitional forms which most creationistic theories predict.

We can see how God might have accomplished this in Luke’s Gospel, starting with how Jesus was to be born of Mary:

Luke 1:35:

“The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.”

Next, just three chapters later, in Luke’s Gospel: 

Luke 3:37:

Adam is also called “The son of God.”

Since the phrase, “The Son of God,” has just been defined for us two chapters earlier, it would seem to appear that Luke is telling us that:  “The Most High also overshadowed Adams ‘mother’.” 

If this is how “evolution” proceeds, the paradox between Dawkins and Gould has been easily resolved, and Luke’s Gospel clears up the conflict between: the mathematical theoretical basis, and the fossil evidence!  For details, see:

Surrogate Mother Hypothesis, by Donald Wayne Stoner, Don Stoner

However, this sort of proffered harmony between evolution and the gospel isn’t likely to take root in the world as we presently know it. If it were to establish a footing, it might require a small, isolated, group of individuals who were less subject to social pressure.

The “Christian Church” is a huge and very splintered “disorganization.” Once upon a time we seemed to have done fairly well at hanging together — at least for about the first thousand years following the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70  (with occasional Church councils to hammer out the squabbles),  but following about AD 1054 (the great schism), we have been rapidly bifurcating: Roman, Greek, Russian, Protestant, Presbyterian, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, Cults … None of the branches have perfectly followed the straight and narrow path specified by God’s Holy Truth. (For example, it took about 400 years for the Roman Church too “pardon” Galileo for telling the truth about astronomy.)

Young people are, indeed, leaving established Churches, although new Churches are also being planted and established all over the world. I, myself, am guilty of leaving half a dozen established churches (for one reason or another) while I presently attend only one Church.  Arguably, that makes me, personally, responsible for a net loss of five, in Church attendance (joke intended). Children do not always accept their parent’s beliefs. Attrition tends to be slow and constant, while “revivals,” and other means of church growth, tend to be episodic and unpredictable.

Change happens in many different ways. From the tiny “twigs” at the ends of the denominational branches come new, but surprisingly seductive and popular teachings, like Ellen G. White’s “24-hour creation days” and “flood geology,” or John Nelson Darby’s teachings on “futurism.” Sometimes these new teachings even lure established denominations away from scientifically sound teachings. Might it be possible for a new way of viewing evolution to take root in a similar manner, but in a way that restores scientific continuity?  

How are churches to avoid becoming irrelevant? They certainly cannot afford to ignore correctly-established scientific understanding. Bertrand Russell’s essay: “Why I an Not a Christian” should be read by anyone who is concerned about the relevancy of the Church; his objections may originally have encouraged the Church to abandon science;  but “science” has moved on;  it is finally in a position to answer all of Russell’s objections in a solid and convincing manner.  Christians ought to be made aware of this.

And what about the scientists? At this point, well established scientists are probably afraid to reconsider evidence which might cast an unfavorable light on their own “sacred cows.” There is so much bad blood between the Church and the scientists that physical evidence no longer appears to be sufficient to modify established theory. But again, there might be a “Galileo” somewhere who is willing take up such a crusade.

Claus Volko, M.D.: For me God has always been an abstract concept.

Tianxi Yu: My perspective on God has evolved through an interesting journey that reflects both Eastern and Western influences. Initially, like many others, I was influenced by the Western religious concept of God as an omnipotent, supreme being. However, as I delved deeper into Chinese traditional culture, especially the Taoist concept of “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao,” I began to realize that any existence that can be defined is not truly ultimate. The key transformation came with the realization that: when we attribute any qualities to God, we are actually limiting God. It’s like my previous example about “beauty” – when we say someone is beautiful, we imply others are relatively less so. Similarly, when we call God omnipotent, we are actually defining God by human standards, which reveals that God evolved from human thinking. Therefore, my current understanding is: the true ultimate existence is the indescribable “emptiness.” It transcends God and all concepts of duality. God is the culmination of human wisdom, a bridge to “emptiness,” but not the endpoint. This understanding has enabled me to better comprehend how divine manifestations occur through natural phenomena, and why the relationship between humans and God is one of mutual seeking. This isn’t a weakening of faith, but a deeper understanding of divinity.

Jacobsen: Based on the formulations given before, what formulations of God, either as reality or concept, make the least sense to you? Those proposed, at least, by some in history, not necessarily here. I am trying work on a strengths-based presentation of the different views. 

Rosner: So, I don’t have a huge problem with God as a manipulating force behind the universe as a simulation. Suppose you want to postulate that all of this is a simulation in somebody else’s world and that it’s just a good simulation. In that case, I’ll accept that for the sake of argument. The argument breaks down if you try to break the simulation because it’s a poor simulation.

And there might be no significant differences in what we experience between a universe that plays out naturally and one that is a well-made simulation. So, that kind of God, I’m okay with considering. That leaves the old-school God—the omnipotent, omniscient, score-keeping creator—pretty absurd.

You’ve got gods like the Greek and Roman gods, which are superheroes in a big soap opera with lots of drama. Those are ridiculous. And I don’t entertain that many versions of God.

I haven’t studied all the deities in Hinduism or the gods in Indian religions in detail.  So, I know there’s someone who is the destroyer, there’s Ganesh, the elephant-headed God, and so on. But all those gods don’t hold up to any scrutiny. The ancient Egyptian gods, with their animal-headed depictions, don’t hold up either.

So, if you want to divide things, you have to eliminate from consideration, under your question, all the gods that people used to believe in but don’t anymore. Then you’re left ranking the ridiculousness or absurdity of the gods that still have some following.

The old Christian and Catholic gods don’t hold water either. I suppose you could include superstitions, like astrology, as having godlike properties. However, to the extent that they determine behaviour, they’re also ridiculous.

So, there you go. That includes the devil under “ridiculous” since he’s essentially the loyal opposition. 

Stoner: Among the most common formulations of God, the one which makes the least sense to me would probably be the one presented by the Hindus. This does not mean that I disagree with everything that Hindus teach.

The Bhagavad Gita, according to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

“… is a synthesis of various strands of Indian religious thought, including the Vedic concept of dharma (duty, rightful action); samkhya-based yoga and jnana (insight, knowledge); and bhakti (devotion).”

These three are roughly parallel to the three ways which Plato and Aristotle believed that arguments could be legitimately made:

 Ethos: similar to dharma (duty, rightful action);

 Logos: similar to jnana (insight, knowledge); and

 Pathos: similar to bhakti (devotion).

I have no problem at all with applying combinations of ethics, logic, and compassion. Also according to the same Wikipedia article:

“The text is generally dated to the second or first century BCE, though some scholars accept dates as early as the 5th century BCE.” 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

This, places western thought (e.g. Plato — born 428-423 BC, and died 348 BC)  roughly contemporary to it (at least according to “some scholars”).

Continuing with the Wikipedia article on the Gita: “The Gita discusses and synthesizes sramana- and yoga-based renunciation, dharma-based householder life, and devotion-based theism, attempting “to forge a harmony” between these three paths. It does this in a framework addressing the question of what constitutes the virtuous path that is necessary for spiritual liberation or release from the cycles of rebirth (moksha), …”.

It has been a few years since I read this story about Prince Arjuna’s discussion with his charioteer Krishna, but my memory was less about accepting any imagined “harmony” about the disaster of the impending battle, than it was focused on the unrealistic time scales given for the involved cycles 

BG 8.17: Chapter 8, Verse 17 – Bhagavad Gita, The Song of God – Swami Mukundananda

(Incidentally the very “precise” numbers for the times of those cycles appear to result from the ancient Sumerian, astronomically-based, numbering system, involving exact factors of 5, 3, and 2. This would make an interesting study in itself.)

The goal of the Hindu religion appears to be: escape from the unrealistic and endless cycles. This is where it appears to make the least sense to me.

On the other hand, in the Gita, Krishna appears to be an avatar of Vishnu. As explained in the Wikipedia articles, Hinduism, like Christianity, is quite fragmented. I hope to be able to hear more thoughts on this.

Volko: Well, I just do not think that God is a creature that looks similar to a person. It would be strange – God should be eternal and therefore need no mouth and intestines to absorb and digest food, for example.

Yu: From my perspective, several theological concepts throughout history are particularly difficult to reconcile with reason. First, those formulations that attribute extreme personified characteristics to God, such as describing the divine as angry, jealous, or vengeful, are clearly projections of human emotions and limitations onto the concept of divinity. As I mentioned before, when we attribute specific personal characteristics to God, we are actually limiting and diminishing the divine essence.

Second, certain religious traditions that simultaneously describe God as completely transcendent while claiming direct divine intervention in mundane human affairs present a contradictory position that’s hard to rationalize. If God is truly transcendent, then divine actions shouldn’t be interpreted through human behavioral patterns. Chinese traditional culture offers a more reasonable explanatory framework through the concept of “unity of heaven and humanity” (天人合一), where divinity is inherent within nature and human nature, rather than an external force arbitrarily intervening.

Third, perspectives claiming that God can only be approached through specific religious organizations or rituals are questionable. In my understanding, divinity manifests itself through natural laws and universal principles, which everyone can understand through observation and contemplation. As Laozi stated, “The Tao follows what is natural” (道法自然). True divinity should be universally accessible rather than monopolized by any particular group.

These limitations in conceptualizing God often stem from trying to confine the infinite within finite human understanding, much like trying to contain the ocean in a cup. The more profound approach, as suggested by Eastern wisdom traditions, is to recognize the inadequacy of our conceptual frameworks while remaining open to the mystery of existence itself.

Jacobsen: What are the strengths of the propositions on God presented so far in this conversation if any? 

Rosner: I take everything back to the principles of existence. Though that can drift into tautology—it’s easy to end up as circular reasoning. Only self-consistent things can exist, but pushing that idea too hard becomes a tautology. The only things that can exist are the things that can exist.

You can put it on a better footing by saying that the principles of existence aren’t so restrictive that nothing can exist. That at least allows you to figure out what can exist.

That includes entities, beings, and conscious things. Those conscious beings, no matter how old or big or how much information they process, are subject to limitations similar to our own.

It’s reasonable to think that everything that exists is subject to the rules of existence, which precludes omnipotence and timelessness—concepts like “has always existed” or “will always exist.”

Those limitations mean we likely share characteristics with beings and civilizations much more vast and older than ourselves and our civilization. These entities are so ancient, vast, and powerful in information processing and manipulating the world around them that they possess godlike powers.

Does that power extend to things like not having to live in linear time or being able to reconfigure space to their liking? I don’t know. But it’s a reasonable proposition.

We don’t currently know of any entities in the world beyond those on Earth, but I assume we will eventually discover some. Even though such entities might appear godlike, they will still have limitations in common with us.

So, those are a couple of propositions that, whatever the fricking question was, address the idea. 

Stoner: Perhaps ironically, I find myself unable to provide a purely “logical” rebuttal to Tianxi Yu’s:

God x Science, Emptiness x Buddhism.

I have (somewhat arbitrarily) accepted “logic” on faith alone (option “D” in my original post) hence embracing science and, consequently, a “logical” God.  However, if I had (arbitrarily) chosen to regard logic as “illusion” (option “C”), then I suppose I might now be, philosophically, staring into an empty void (and probably chiding Descartes for arguing against me).

Volko: I have the impression that most participants agree on the abstractness of God.

Yu: From the dialogues presented, I observe several valuable perspectives. Most notably, each participant attempts to construct a framework for understanding divinity from their professional domain and cultural background. Dr. Stoner’s approach of building a theological system through logic and mathematics, while characteristic of Western rational thinking, provides a concrete foundation for discussion. Mr. Rosner’s understanding of God through the lens of universal information processing is equally illuminating. It’s particularly noteworthy that all participants are attempting to reconcile traditional theology with modern scientific knowledge, an endeavor that is significant in itself.

However, I believe the strongest proposition lies in acknowledging the limitations of our cognition. As Taoism suggests, “The greatest wisdom is like foolishness,” sometimes acknowledging our ignorance is the highest form of wisdom. Dr. Volko’s view of God as a metaphor for the unknown resonates with the Chinese traditional concept of “The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.” This reminds us to maintain an open and humble attitude when exploring questions of divinity.

The integration of Eastern and Western perspectives provides a more complete understanding, just as the concept of Yin and Yang suggests that opposing forces can complement each other. This cross-cultural dialogue demonstrates that the search for understanding God benefits from multiple viewpoints, methodologies, and cultural traditions, creating a richer and more nuanced comprehension of the divine.

Jacobsen: What were the aspects of the responses leaving more questions open about theology and philosophy for you if any? 

Rosner: I touched on it in the previous answer, which is this: Let’s say that any conscious being or linked set of beings or civilizations—even if they are a billion or 10 billion years old—

1. Are there beings like this of arbitrary age? Is there no prohibition under the principles of existence, and is there no upper limit to the size or age of entities? Is that true?
2. If it is true, what limitations would these entities be unable to overcome regardless of their power to manipulate the world?

So, just as a starting point, are there godlike entities by their age and size? And if so, what are their limitations and powers?

One area to consider is that we are verging on extremely powerful quantum computing and advanced regular computing. Computing—especially the kind of computation in our brains—is inherently predictive. Our brains are predictive organs. According to the leading framework in neuroscience right now, brains are designed to predict what will happen next so that we are best prepared to respond to it.

As computation becomes more powerful, can entities see superimposed future world lines with great detail? Everyone knows about Schrödinger’s cat, a thought experiment involving a box containing a cat in two superimposed states: alive and dead. If the predictive capabilities of computation become sufficiently advanced, does that mean entities could live within superimposed world lines?

That is, would they perceive multiple potential futures simultaneously and negotiate among them? Could they see a range of superimposed possibilities for the future and choose the most favourable ones?

We do this anyway, but it doesn’t feel like we choose among superimposed worlds. However, as our ability to simulate the future becomes more powerful, could this fundamentally change how time is experienced? If that ability becomes advanced enough, does it mean such entities wouldn’t experience time as linearly as we do?

I don’t know. 

One possible question, specifically, does an entity of sufficient age and computational power experience time linearly? Events still have to play out in sequence, but if such an entity chooses from possible futures moment by moment—with each possible future laid out in detail—what does that mean for their time experience?

For example, some AI chess programs can calculate far more potential moves than a human chess master. A chess master might be able to anticipate five or six moves ahead based on various possibilities. Still, a chess-playing computer can map out the next ten moves for hundreds of branching possibilities.

Suppose an entity could do that with the entire world itself. Would that result in a fundamentally different time experience? Or am I just overthinking this?

Stoner: I am generally comfortable with my current understanding,  however,  Claus Volko has left me with a few questions: His definition: “God is a metaphor for things we don’t understand and perhaps can’t understand,” …  certainly leaves me questioning how much more there is which I don’t and can’t understand.  Although the scientific method (observation and reason) is certainly useful, I was unable even to take that first step (believing in logic/reason) without taking logic on “faith” alone.

… And,  I don’t think anybody really knows what exactly God is either

“… Who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. … – 1 Timothy 6:16

Volko: (No answer). 

Yu: Looking at the responses, several key questions emerged that deserve deeper exploration.

While each respondent offered unique perspectives, certain gaps remained worthy of further discussion. When Rosner discussed cosmic civilizations and information processing, it reminded me of the Buddhist concept of “other worlds.” If advanced civilizations truly exist, could Buddhist scriptures’ descriptions of other realms be metaphors for different levels of civilization? This question bridges metaphysical and physical understanding.

Stoner’s theological system built on logic and mathematics raises intriguing questions about the relationship between quantitative and qualitative aspects of existence. While ancient Chinese thinkers recognized the connection between numbers and principles, the fundamental question remains: Can logic fully explain the essence of existence?

The deepest question concerns the nature of consciousness. Although quantum mechanics and consciousness were mentioned in the discussion, no one thoroughly explored how consciousness undergoes qualitative changes. In modern physics, we see phenomena like quantum entanglement that might suggest deeper connections between individual and universal consciousness. The real mystery lies in understanding these connections without falling into simplistic reductionism.

These questions reflect the complex interplay between ancient wisdom and modern science, pointing to the need for a more integrated understanding that transcends traditional boundaries between disciplines and cultural frameworks.

Jacobsen: Based on the responses from others, what questions do you have for individual participants or the group as a whole now?

Rosner: I can understand the idea of nothingness being a preferred way of being. I like existing, though. I enjoy the moment-to-moment rewards of existence. But I also understand that if you cease to exist, everything great you’ve experienced is obliterated—which is probably what will happen.

Even if I don’t share that perspective, I can see why nothingness is desirable to some people. I don’t like that view—it gives me the “sads”—but I can acknowledge it.

I’d ask a Christian, particularly a sophisticated Christian, how Christianity fits into the world’s physics and metaphysics and how it interacts with physics and cosmology.

It seems like a generous or efficient God. If such a God had created the world, it would have created it with physical laws that give it immense coherence and solidity. A world where cause and effect operate consistently, where its apparent age of 14 billion years and the process of evolution spanning billions of years are part of that design, and where we humans are one of its products.

I’d want to know how God “pulled it off.” What were His intentions, and how does He continue interacting with the world He created?

Regarding the Bhagavad Gita, apart from associations with Hinduism—like depictions of gods with multiple arms or being blue—is that part of it?

Given the way the world has been going in the 21st century, I used to think, “Nah, I wouldn’t want that.” I wanted to live in a world where physics was in charge. But given all the chaos and problems in the world, I’ve started to reconsider.

My wife and I—well, mostly me—have this obsession. I have a collector’s personality. When I was a kid, I had every single issue of Mad Magazine ever printed. And now, I kind of obsessively collect mosaics and micromosaics.

One of my best mosaics is this huge, high-relief 3D mosaic of Jesus on the cross with Mary and John. It’s definitely Mary—his mother—and John, the disciple, who are all depicted in 3D in this mosaic.

It sits in my office, where I look at it dozens of times a day, and I often find myself wishing for the figure in that mosaic—Jesus—to come back and set shit straight.

I have almost zero belief that this could happen, and I know it would be pretty freaking weird. I believe in physics a million times more than I believe in Jesus. But I still wish that Jesus would come down. Now, I know the Rapture is supposed to take good people up to Heaven, but I want a reverse rapture where the biggest dickheads on Earth are taken off Earth and given a comfortable existence elsewhere. I picture the Europa, the ice moon of Jupiter, that is said to be possibly conducive to life, because it might have an radioactive center that makes it warm enough to support life. 

Anyway, he is Jesus. I want him to rapture the 10,000 biggest assholes on earth to ice caves in Europa, where they can’t fuck everybody up here with their bullshit. Then I want Jesus to take the 10,000 second rank jerks. The next 10,000 jerkiest people and have them live there on probation on the moon. The 10,000 people on Europa, they can’t come back. They have proven they’re dickheads. The 10,000 people on the moon, if they clean up their act and quit being dickheads, then they can either keep being dickheads and get sent to Europa or can come back to Earth. That’s my wish for Jesus, and for him to thoroughly convince people of his existence via holy means and shame the people who are Christians in name only and say, “You’re not doing it right, and have them be convinced of his holiness.” I don’t think any of that is going to happen, but I do often wish it would. I do not believe in Jesus, but appeal to Jesus many times in a day. 

You could ask me. Why don’t you, if you’re Jew and a science guy, appeal to a science guy or somebody under Judaism? I don’t think we have a guy. Jesus is the handiest deity that I can appeal to. 

The God of the Jews is almost too abstract and nebulous. I can imagine Jesus showing up and telling people what’s what. He is–being human–an approachable guy. Does he cut his hair? Does he not look like white man’s Jesus, the really pretty blonde guy? Does he look like more of a Mediterranean dude? Does he take a different human form than the original Jesus? I don’t know. 

Stoner: Rick Rosner brings up several points which I believe are worth some discussion:

1. His idea (or definition) of God being “outside of reality” might be a misunderstanding. 

(Christians often say “outside of time and space”). This common belief is probably founded on a lack of awareness of a basic principle of quantum mechanics: The “Math” of Q.M. is not bound to any particular “time” or “location,” within space-time (at least not in the same way that we humans seem to be trapped). Similarly, “God” is not “locally trapped” either,  but is as free from that constraint, as is “logic itself.” This does not actually put God outside of reality.

1. Rosner mentions the beginning of human civilization about 10,000 years ago. This falls between the development of agriculture (circa 12,000 BP) and the development of writing, and therefore the beginning of history (late fourth millennia BC). 

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/development-agriculture/

This period of time is certainly worth some exploration.

III. Regarding Rosner’s thoughts about the galactic core being more favorable to civilization than the outer arms (where we are):  My research suggest otherwise. The close proximity (to the sorts of things rogue stars frequently do) causes our “coastal view of deep space” to represent considerably safer location, as well as one which is far more interesting astronomically.

1. Rosner’s speculation about “two dimensional time” reminds me of Richard Feynman’s  space-time diagrams. If you plant one of his diagrams right at the “big bang,” and  rotate it around, you might start to suspect that time not only “advances” in two  directions: forward (matter) and reverse (antimatter), but that there might be six  additional directions (3 dimensions of space times 2 directions each) which may be accessible via Feynman’s rotations.
2. I don’t share Rosner’s belief in any real “divorce” between science  and religion. I see this as an artifact of the partial blindness of the practitioners  of both camps. One might, similarly, expect unity between Democrats and  Republicans, if both sides were suddenly to be granted a clear understanding. This might also be worth some discussion.
3. I particularly thought his haunting closing was worth some discussion: 

“The idea of a godless, cold universe without inherent morality—where everything happens by chance—can be a grim prospect. Yet, I believe there is an inherent drive toward order and value within the universe. How can some form of morality persist and be justified in the future without resorting to existential absurdity? The notion that the universe is absurd and that we must impose our values upon it feels bleak to me and not entirely accurate.”

Yu: To be frank, after hearing all the responses, I find most viewpoints too confined within Western thought frameworks.

Mr. Rosner: Your discussion of universal information processing merely scratches the surface. Have you considered why Eastern philosophers proposed much more profound cosmic views thousands of years ago? When you discuss advanced civilizations, have you considered how this thinking itself carries a certain technological supremacist bias?

Dr. Stoner: While your attempt to construct a theological system through logic and mathematics is admirable, it precisely reflects the limitations of Western thinking. Truth often exists within logical paradoxes, just as in Eastern thought, contradictions need not be resolved but embraced.

Dr. Volko: Reducing God to merely “a metaphor for the unknown” seems rather superficial. With a deeper understanding of Eastern philosophy, you would realize that “unknown” itself is a state of being, not merely an absence of knowledge.

From my perspective, true understanding transcends these artificial divisions between East and West, logic and intuition, known and unknown. Until we break free from these mental constraints, our discussion of God will remain disappointingly superficial.

Jacobsen: Life continues to deliver modest amazement at its timing, on a personal note. I am grateful for many, many happenings in life. This is one. Let’s take a more existential orientation, life, death, and love, are realities for everyone. No apparent choice in our coming to life, so pick your parents wisely. In most cases, probably, no definite choice in the time of leaving with some biological limits, so far, placed on upper limits of lifespan. Woody Allen made an astute point. Every century, it’s a flush. We get a new collection of humanity for the most part, since the inception of the human species. What do you make of the relation of life to God? Please feel free to give an individual definition. 

Rosner: So, I mean, as you know, I think that what happens and what exists are things that can exist under the principles of existence—which is a circular way of saying that things that are consistent, self-consistent, and have a possible history can exist within a world that can exist. I mean logically consistent framework.

Existence is pleasant while we’re existing. It’s great that the principles of existence permit things to exist. There isn’t a creator involved in this. I do think there are potent processes—like evolution—that we’re a part of. But those processes don’t have teleology, willful intent, or consciousness.

When we think of God, we think of a conscious being intentionally creating the world. I don’t buy that. Unless we’re part of a simulation—which I don’t think we are—there would be no creator; if we were in a simulation, there’d be a creator behind that simulation, but would there be a creator behind the creator? Not necessarily. Probably not.

So, I have a certain amount of reverence for the possibilities that existence permits. I appreciate that the world can exist because it’s logically and mathematically possible. I don’t like some of the constraints of existence—like the inevitability of death and other grim realities—but I still appreciate existence.

Stoner:I particularly enjoyed your advice: “pick your parents wisely.” God’s design for matching parents to their offspring (DNA supplying the causal link), enables just the sort of generation-linking-“wisdom” which you recommend. Not only

 do each of us tend to get the parents which we “deserve” (for better or worse), it also tends to saddle each of us with just the sort of children that might enable our remaining progenitors to enjoy their well-earned revenge (as gleefully doting grandparents).

 

“Life” gives us all a chance “to act as little gods.” As autonomous rulers of our own lives, God gives each of us a chance to make all of our own decisions. We can choose to be kind or cruel, to be selfish or selfless, to love or to hate. Our choices, more than any accident of birth (e.g. the genetic “hand” we were dealt) determine who we really are.

 

Volko: I actually believe that life and death are two antagonistic divine forces. So you could perhaps speak of the God of Life and the God of Death. I believe that the current state of the world is a consequence of the ongoing fight between these two godly forces. Since neither of them has prevailed yet, people and animals are born and after some time die. If life wins, everything will be alive forever.

Jacobsen: What do you make of the relation of death to God? Please feel free to give an individual definition. 

Rosner: I don’t think there’s a willful or intentional God. I think we’re the product of processes that are allowed to happen under the principles of existence—rules that are loose enough to permit things to exist. The most complicated things that have emerged on this planet are evolved beings.

Evolution incorporates death. Evolved creatures are only good enough to produce the next generation and maybe more. But under that system—which isn’t a system since “system” implies intent—we’re not made to live indefinitely. We die. Evolution doesn’t care. It’s not about us.

Evolution can’t care because it’s not an entity. So, there you go.

Stoner: This is when our life’s performance is finally evaluated. As we have all been taught (by the popular cliche), judgement is never really based on whether we “won” or “lost,” but on “how we played the game.”  (Or, for anyone who would prefer the biblical version of this same concept:  “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?” -Luke 9:25 NIV)

 

At another time: https://in-sightpublishing.com/2021/03/22/stoner/ you asked me:

 

 “What do you make of the mystery and transience of life?”

 

The crux of my answer was:   

 “This life” isn’t “real life.” It’s just “a test.” As we all seem to sense:

 “Real life” must be something which is more real and lasts much longer.

 

So: “Death” is not necessarily the final end. It can be the beginning of “real life.”

Jacobsen: I’ve asked a lot of your community members about love. What do you make of the relation of love to God? Please feel free to give an individual definition. 

Rosner: In an evolutionary sense, and in terms of how we function in the world, love is deeply tied to stability and order for an individual. We love someone who reliably and consistently treats us the way we want to be treated. In return, we try to reciprocate. Love is about trust.

It’s about commitment, consistency, and helping each other fulfill our wants and goals. When we look at the love between us and our pets, it’s also about trust—consistently treating another being the way it wants to be treated. Or, in cases where the being can’t make good decisions for itself, treat it in a way we think is best for it.

Stoner: As I have explained elsewhere, Love is a full “third” of God’s nature.

(Logic and Ethics comprising the other two “thirds”).

Volko: In my private religion love is a demigod related to life.

Jacobsen: Relevant to your prior statements about the structure of reality, definition of God, and thoughts on a Deomorph or a Theomorph, or simply a deity or theity, what brings these arguments together under these banners of the existential realities of life, death, and love?

Rosner: To discuss God, you must consult a being—a creator—who is willful, intentional, and conscious. That’s an entity, not just a process allowed to happen, because it doesn’t violate the principles of existence. It’s hard for me to talk about God about anything because I don’t believe in the kind of God we’re likely discussing.

Stoner: I think that is most concisely summed up in St John’s Gospel, where he is relating a discussion between Jesus and a religious leader named Nicodemus. As Jesus explained:

 

” … God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever

believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” -John 3:16 (NIV)

 

In context:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203&version=NIV

 

But what if we aren’t righteous people?

 

“Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die.  But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” -Romans 5:7,8 (NIV)

 

In Context:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205&version=NIV

 

That’s both you and I; (it’s all of us).

Jacobsen: Now, the floor is Don’s! We can revisit progress and structure once this session is complete.

Stoner: To Tianxi Yu:

I’m duly honored that you have chosen to confer an honorary doctorate upon me; however, I’m primarily autodidactic, and we automaths typically eschew such titles. I’m also honored that you deem my theological system to be a concrete foundation for discussion. I hope that will prove to be true. 

I am mildly surprised at your impression that rational thinking is merely a “Western” characteristic. I would have guessed that “logical truth” was a “qualia” which was sensed similarly, to some degree, by all humans, rather than an arbitrarily “taught” way of processing ideas. If not, then I would have to presume any difference would have to be cultural, rather than inherent (although that would be “difficult” for me).

Recorded history appears to have begun in the Mideast: specifically ancient Sumer (central Iraq): https://www.amazon.com/History-Begins-Sumer-Doubleday-Anchor/dp/B0006AVTRC … and to have spread both eastward and westward from there.

Judaism, and hence Christianity, are both heavily based on this historic foundation, even preserving a few of the ancient Sumerian words in the first few chapters of Genesis, including the ancient Sumerian name “Eden” (the plain between the two rivers), “Adam’s” name (Sumerian for “man”), the “high ranking port authorities,” “ka-rib” (cherub),  whom God placed to guard the garden, and the untranslatable puns on the original name for “Adam’s” wife (originally “Ti,” meaning both “rib” (Genesis 2:23) and “life” (Genesis 3:20) in that ancient tongue).

Evidence also suggests that those same original ancient religious beliefs, as well as their systems of astronomy, dating, and numbering (factors of 2, 3, and 5), spread east and west with the technology of writing, and this first “seed” of history.

Claims have even been made that there is some residual evidence of this same ancient history in the ancient Chinese God, Shang Di, and in the ancient characters themselves:

https://evidencetobelieve.com/2019/01/28/bible_in_ancient_chinese/

Although I’ve watched this video, I, personally, don’t have enough understanding of the Chinese characters to evaluate the argument which it presents.  I would be quite interested in hearing your thoughts on it.

You mention that, in Eastern thought, “Contradictions need not be resolved but embraced.” Starting with the Epimenides/Liars paradox: “This statement is false:” A person who embraces logic can certainly have some fun with that; I, certainly have: 

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, A Critical Examination, Revision 2005/11/17 by Don W. Stoner

However, I think the real fun comes in resolving apparent paradoxes; making logical sense (or even scientific sense) out of things which “appear to be paradoxical.” For example, I used the two “apparently contradicting” theories of evolution (Gould and Dawkins) as the springboard for my own theory of reconciliation. That sort of operation is how life becomes meaningful to me.

Can logic fully explain the essence of existence? You state that any existence which can be defined is not truly ultimate. This would normally be true, unless, of course, that definition ultimately included all of logic and reason and all material things).

That would be the one, single, exception.

You pointed out that, “No one thoroughly explored how consciousness undergoes qualitative changes.” As Penrose and Hameroff may have demonstrated in their experiments, perturbing quantum mechanical effects appears to temporarily disable consciousness. However, if God is “consciousness,” and we (as well as all matter) are “made of the same substance,” (as Col. 1:17 affirms), then your question gets reversed: “How does “consciousness” control “physical matter” (which is also quantum mechanical)?” This reduces the problem to the obvious: They are the same substance, and they are both “thoughts of God.”

Also: “quantum entanglement” turns out to be the single part of Q.M. which makes classical physics appear to govern the “physical” universe.  Entangled “particles,” collectively, “obey” Newton’s laws, while individual “particles” behave under the  direction of individual spirits (ourselves) and of God (all other “decisions” in the universe).

Anthropomorphizing God is certainly a technical error, but sometimes it helps lesser humans (almost all of us) to grasp otherwise difficult concepts. (If “God” “calmly” senses an “error,” more is likely to come of it than could ever come from the most angered and vengeful human imaginable.)

You claimed that the true ultimate existence is the indescribable “emptiness.” I agree that if you meditate long enough on statements like “this statement is false,” or unresolved “scientific contradictions,” (without seeking resolution) you will get exactly “nowhere” (a metaphorical synonym for “emptiness”). My question is, why would that kind of “emptiness” be worth pursuing?

You appear to be (presently) a student in Hubei Provence. You may be hoping to get a good job that provides more than the “emptiness” which you claim you seek. That strikes me as being inconsistent. If my view of this is too simple-minded, then I would appreciate correction.

Otherwise, if at some point in the future, you should choose, instead, to live according to the principles of “primordial logic” (as opposed to “logic” being an illusion) you might find both the temporal and eternal rewards to be preferable.

Incidentally, I have a friend in: Shandong, Linyi, Kunan, Dadian, (276612), who is seeking to produce useful and educational products (see atom-pops “soccerball”) and to help people who are in need. Might you and he be on similar or different paths?

(天道酬勤) “Nature follows Tao,” or maybe, “God rewards hard work?”

–

To Rick Rosner:

When Jacobsen asked (in the second round of questions): “Based on the responses from others, what questions do you have for individual participants or the group as a whole now?”

You answered: “I’d ask a Christian, particularly a sophisticated Christian, how Christianity fits into the world’s physics and metaphysics and how it interacts with physics and cosmology.”

This puzzles me, because, in my answer to Jacobsen’s first question, in the first round of questions, #1 define God), I thought I (being a Christian) had already answered this question when I explained: 

1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.

Therefore, by inclusion (the effective minor premise):

God is also: That which also brought us into existence.

Therefore, by causal hierarchy (minor premise again):

2) God is also: That which is responsible for our personal existence.

3) Logic is primordial

4) Math is Logic 

5) Quantum Mechanics is Math

6) The Physical Universe is Quantum Mechanical

Comprising Q,M, (5) …

Comprising Math (4) …

Comprising Primordial Logic (3) …

… taking us all the way back to our starting definition:

1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.

From this, it appears that:

7) God (1) assumes the same identity as Primordial Logic (3).

Continuing with your answer (above):

… “It seems like a generous or efficient God. If such a God had created the world, it would have created it with physical laws that give it immense coherence and solidity. A world where cause and effect operate consistently, where its apparent age of 14 billion years and the process of evolution spanning billions of years are part of that design, and where we humans are one of its products.

“I’d want to know how God “pulled it off.” What were His intentions, and how does He continue interacting with the world He created?”

I’d have to agree: If I were in your position, I would want to know that too. Did I forget to mention that I am a Christian? (Maybe even a sophisticated one.) Let’s go over Jacobsen’s questions, and my answers, again:

(#2) Jacobsen: For you, does one seek God, or does God seek them, or both (… or neither)?

Stoner: Following from my understanding of God: Probably both. But speaking as a tiny piece of God’s entire universe, rather than as its omnipresent creator (“conscious logic itself”) I doubt my efforts can hold a candle to God’s.

(#3) Jacobsen: What seems like the first reasonable realization in sensibly engaging in this

 search of God?

Stoner: The first step (above): Realizing that we take logic on faith.

The next step: Deriving a definition for God (3 & 2 & 1).

The next step: Understanding that God is omnipresent, sentient logic.

The next step: Presuming that, very likely, God is also seeking us.

This present step: Engaging: This shouldn’t be overly difficult:

We just ask God for whatever help we might need.

The only catch is that it’s unlikely that a seeker would be able to hide any questionable motives they might have.

(#4) Jacobsen: Does God, even if distinguishing types or levels of epistemology & ontology, seem knowable in principle or unknowable, as such?

Stoner: God can choose to be: knowable, unknowable, or even both simultaneously. We can observe how this might happen with a test case: Consider this quotation by Physicist Stephen Hawking:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?

The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

A Brief History of Time Quotes by Stephen Hawking

Is the source of Hawking’s “fire,” an “unknowable” and mysterious enigma? Or is it blatantly obvious? This was, obviously, a “choice” which Dr. Hawking had to make while he was studying this evidence.

This same choice is also ours to make whenever we study the same universe Hawking once did. I, personally, take the same position taken by Paul (the Apostle): God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20 NIV)

In case you missed it, I am a follower and student of Christ. I am also a scientist and a computer engineer, among other things. (And I don’t believe God is an old white man with a beard and flowing robes any more than you do.)

Wrap your head around the Bell Experiment, if you want to understand how God interferes in human affairs. (Like North Dakota, it isn’t the end of the world, but you can probably see it from there.)

Also, I’m guessing your “relationship” with your “mosaic Jesus” might not be as far off as you may have assumed. God sometimes uses both angels and fleas, etc. to do His work. (Maybe He was eavesdropping, and sent you a messenger; one who could answer your questions, face to face, in terms you might be able to accept.)

To Volko:

I’m having trouble extracting a consistent position from your brief comments: e.g.:

 “God is a metaphor for things we don’t understand, and perhaps can’t understand.”

 “God [presumably the idea held by others?] is so powerful that he can easily observe anybody.”

 “We can only speculate about it. (What exactly God is)”

Can you identify any points where you and I specifically and unambiguously disagree?

Do you believe there are elements in my position about which I have been unclear or inconsistent?

Regarding an addition to my questions for the other participants in our discussion on the nature of God:

I have several married daughters; and over Thanksgiving, I got into a disagreement with one of my son’s-in-law over my “definition of God” and my consequential derivation of God’s nature. He lent me a book titled “Does God Have a Nature?” by Alvin Plantinga, which presented a different answer than the one I had proffered; After examining Plantinga’a arguments, I have come to the conclusion that my son-in-law raised some valid points; so, in the spirit of fairness, I must also raise what I regard to be a serious objection against my own definition. So:

Here’s my question for myself (addressing myself in 2nd person): 

–

Don Stoner:

Your answer to Scott Jacobsen’s first question:

1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.

… appears to be an oversimplification.

Although this might appear to provide a framework for: logic, math, science, and the physical universe, it fails to address other questions which are certainly at least as important: For example:

How is this supposed to explain “Love,” “Hate,” “Good,”  or “Evil?”

Further, considering your conclusion: 

7) God (1) assumes the same identity as Primordial Logic (3).

Here, both God (1), and Primordial Logic (3), appear to be defined as the single primordial source which produces the universe.  What it fails to do is provide answers to the remaining questions (which are, almost certainly, even more important).

You also bring up the way Plato and Aristotle would have translated “logos” (as “logic”), but fail to mention that Aristotle also considered “pathos” and “ethos” to be valid forms of argument. For example, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos    (logical appeal)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathos   (emotional appeal)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos     (ethical appeal)

Both your definition of God, and your supporting argument, appear to be missing at least the last two of these important components of reality.

… and, to expedite the process,  here is my answer to my own question:

I appear to be guilty as charged.  The definition which I supplied, is clearly incomplete. Please allow me to attempt to correct this omission (recognizing that I am wading into a very convoluted and controversial theological morass of historical opinions as I attempt to do so.)

My answer was:

1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.

(E.g.: Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1-3)

As an experienced theologian would have immediately volunteered (probably without waiting for an invitation): The nature of God comprises three “persons” (although what the term “person” means, in this context, is subject to some interpretation):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Here I will attempt to sort some references to these three “persons” into Aristotle’s categories:

Pathos:    See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children

                of God! – 1 John 3:1 (N.I.V.)

                Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been

                born of God and knows God.  Anyone who does not love does not know God,

                because God is love. – 1 John 4:7,8 (N.I.V.) 

Logos:    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

               – John 1:1

               Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

               – John 1:3

               The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us [the Son]. We have seen his

               glory, the glory of the one and only one who, came from the Father, full of grace and

               truth. – John 1:14

Ethos:     When he [the Spirit] comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and

               righteousness and judgment: – John 16:8

            (emphasis added)

I should warn the reader that this apparently clean separation is not always this clear and simple.

The exact nature of the relationship between these “persons” (or “properties” of “God”) appears to be more complex. They appear to “blend” together into a single being (one apparently assuming three distinct identities):

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.  – John 14:8-10

“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. – John 15:26

But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: – John 16:7,8 (emphasis added)

In my original answer, I concentrated on “logos/logic” and the physical aspects of the universe, because that is the arena where my formal education has been focused. Although the “pathos” and “ethos” elements are almost certainly, even more important, they are sufficiently outside of my field of expertise, that I am reluctant to attempt to claim understanding of additional detail.

My corrected answer is:

1A) God is: That which is foundational to logic, math, physics. and therefore our universe.

1B) God is also: That which is foundational to emotion and emotional arguments.

and

1C) God is also: That which is foundational to ethics and ethical arguments.

Although I am able to supply the details backing 1A, I lack the expertise and experience, and I therefore, leave it as an exercise for the reader to fill in the “mechanics” supporting 1B and 1C. I don’t suppose this clarifies my answer; but I do hope that it, at least, corrects it.

Rosner: For Don, on the argument for the existence to logic, math, quantum mechanics, and then back to God, I agree with much but not all of it. Anything that exists must conform to the principles of existence. There may be deeper levels of understanding beyond the basic logic of non-contradiction.

For things to exist, they cannot contradict themselves. They must have a consistent history and exist within a framework of space and time free from contradiction. I think this applies to God as well. God cannot supersede or override the principles of existence, including logic and non-contradiction.

One could argue, from a standpoint of faith, that God created these principles and thus has power over them. 

However, I don’t accept that part of the argument. For God to exist, God must conform to the rules of existence. To paraphrase: “God must exist to exist.”

On the position that we take logic on faith, if we take logic on faith, everything we understand is also based on faith. Our understanding of logic comes from our accumulated experience of the world, through which we’ve explicitly and implicitly learned what seems to exist.

In our experience, for something to exist, it must have a degree of solidity, permanence, or duration. It must also conform to explicit and implicit principles we’ve learned about the world. This includes some level of logic. But all of this is ultimately based on our experiences, and believing in our experiences is both an act of faith and necessity, as we have little to rely on. Our lived experience is the foundation of what we know.

To reject this would leave us with nothing to stand on. Stephen Hawking once pointed out that “without some foundation of truth, we have no place to stand.” 

On Hawking’s insights an unknowable mystery, maybe it is something blatantly obvious, this is a choice Hawking had to make as he studied the evidence.

Consider this: when we are children, we often ask ourselves why we are who we are rather than someone else. The answer lies in our lived experience—our sensory input belongs to the person we are. Similarly, the fire within us, like Hawking’s drive or “fire,” is rooted in experiencing our particular selves in this particular world at this particular time. This fire is animated and given meaning through the lens of our conscious experience.

And for something to exist, it must have some consistency. This allows us to believe in the world and trust in its durability. But you can imagine there is an infinity of other possible experienced worlds—or even the same world experienced by other people—that each has that same fire, immediacy, and feeling of authenticity rooted in consciousness.

I’m taking “fire” to mean roughly the same thing as the feeling we get from being conscious in the world—the feeling of extreme authenticity that we are alive in a world that exists. But countless other worlds could potentially exist. However, we don’t experience those other worlds. We experience moments, a string of moments, as ourselves in this particular world.

Why not some other world? 

Because everything we experience pertains to us, informs us, and is experienced as us in this particular world. This world is special because it relates directly to our consciousness of it. But that doesn’t preclude the existence of other worlds that function in similar ways for others.

To repeated statements about being a Christ follower, student, and sophisticated Christian, my take on these sophisticated theological approaches when they incorporate modern scientific concepts.

I don’t mind these approaches—they’re certainly preferable to those of American evangelicals who have, in many cases, moved away from Christ and his principles in service of some truly terrible people. I appreciate the teachings of Christ, even while knowing less about other religions that also value humans and the world. I value all teachings that emphasize preservative order and Golden Rule-based principles, which are common across many religions.

These principles exist beyond religion. You can also find them within physics, though this has been deemphasized over the last 100 years. Modern physics often portrays the universe as cold and random, indifferent to us, which isn’t entirely true. At the very least, Jesus was a person who existed in the world. I believe any person has value—both as someone who experiences it and as a manifestation of the forces for order.

Onhe inherent tragedy of existence, every conscious being is, to some degree, a tragedy because we’re all born to die—unless you believe in religions that promise something beyond this life. For many, the recompense for the loss of oneself is insufficient. Technology, however, may soon offer more means of perpetuating ourselves. Humanity, combined with technology, could evolve into entities and systems that are less mortal than we are now.

Technology is replacing religion. That’s a process I’ve talked about. As technology becomes more powerful, it increasingly takes over functions we once turned to religion for—such as immortality, justice, fairness, and preserving what we value in the world.

I’m writing a book about a smart individual who turns to Jesus for comfort in old age—not as the Messiah, but as a source of solace. Some people turn to the world of Disney for unconditional love. Just two blocks from our house, an auction house specializes in Disney memorabilia. We walked through it today on the way to get sandwiches.

Unconditional love is powerful. It’s comforting and can inspire you to be a better person. It’s the opposite of engaging with violent movies or porn. If you look at porn, you go out into the world and have to correct your perception of people as just sexual objects. Similarly, after watching a violent movie—like a Liam Neeson film or something with an even higher body count—you need to remind yourself that the world isn’t just a place for violent confrontations: having an “office Jesus” is a reminder that there are better ways to be in the world.

On an omnipresent creator as conscious logic, I’m not sure I believe in “conscious logic.” Consciousness exists in sufficiently complicated, self-consistent information-processing systems. But logic—or the principles of existence, like non-contradiction—is not an information-processing system. It’s a set of principles that define what can and cannot exist in the world.

Logic isn’t a reality constructor; it’s a reality allower. It’s not conscious or capable of information processing. Unless proven otherwise, it’s more like an inanimate gatekeeper.

You said, “I don’t believe God is an old white man with a beard and flowing robes any more than you do.” 

It’s interesting. I think it shows some alignment in rejecting certain anthropomorphic depictions of God. However, I also appreciate attempts at theology that use logic and science as a foundation.

We both share common ground in believing that any God or creator must be consistent with the rules of physics. Either the creator has to exist within the framework of those rules, or there has to be some structure in the universe that exempts the creator from them.

Our understanding of physics limits this perspective. Our experience of the world and its physics is incredibly local. Humans have only been aware of and interacting with physics for about 100,000 years—if you include fossil records and our broader observations of the universe. However, we’ve only had what could be considered a fairly complete understanding of the overall structure of the universe for about 100 years.

Given this, there could be a greater scope of physics or metaphysics, where what we know is just a subset. Within such a broader framework, there might be room for a virtually omnipotent creator. But suppose the physics we know turns out to be the physics of all possible worlds and all places within them. In that case, that leaves little room for a God beyond the physical laws we already understand.

Footnotes

None

Citations

American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu. December 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god

American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, December 22). ‘Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. ‘Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.

Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (December 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.

Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu [Internet]. 2024 Dec; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.