Concerning God...

(From conversations with Pip)

A thing I've rarely to never seen in anyone else's concept of deities, God Almighty or any of the sub-sets of that thought, is a compassionate attempt to perceive the inner motives of such an entity.  If I say God is omnipotent and omniscient then there is nothing outside his realm of ability, or his realm of perception.  What intent could he possibly have that would require "a desired outcome?"  Desired implies there is the possibility of some other outcome, a thing impossible under the premise of omnipotence.  If I say, as do many of the repressive religions, that God desires his creation to worship him in a personally debasing way I am saying he is insecure (countered by omniscience, God knows there's nothing bigger) or that God is cruel (countered by omnipotence, what is there to be found in doing harm to your own effort, an act tantamount to being self destructive when considered on a scale large enough to hold a supreme entity responsible for, and encompassing, all of creation?)… things that hardly fit with either of the opening arguments.  In fact such concepts are actually part of the definition assigned to his inverse, although in a much more direct form. 

If I say God is not omnipotent and omniscient  then I have reduced the most powerful entity I am able to conceive of to simply massively powerful, and the Descartes argument holds… I perceive myself, as a reference, and I perceive the other who is more (or less) powerful than I, there is a line defined between the two points and a progression established, at some point at the utter end of the universe that line must reach an end (and a new beginning) and you are back at square one… a single entity which is the source from which all other entities are derived by reason of the defining comparison.

If I say there is no God, no first and initial point of self aware consciousness (from which to define the initial point of nurture if not nature) then I am in with the contradictions of the physicists, and they have a whopper to deal with.  Consider the fairly well proven definition of matter as given by Einstein… the classic e=mc² so often slammed around.  Expand that equation and you come out with a term in units of time, and time is impossible in any state of perfect symmetry (asserted as the state at the point of the singularity from which came the big bang, or the nexus points of a cyclic universe), because the only possible definition of time is the transition from one state to another state, and perfect symmetry has no transitions, it is perfectly stable!  If there is enough asymmetry to produce time then there is no singularity, and the entire argument collapses.

I therefore assert it is more logical to include an initial and immortal point of consciousness from which the requisite definition of time may be derived in order to remove the contradiction in the argument of the physicists.  This is not to say I understand anything about the perceptions and experiences of such an entity, but I can say such an entity perceives change, that perception is what I assert provides the beginning of time from which came the beginning of matter.  Regardless of what scale we might try and impose there has to be some form of progression in that entities perception… that there be a difference defined between the alpha state and the next state, be it beta or omega or alpha prime.  Immortality and infinity are equally slippery concepts: regardless of the amount of "local time" between discrete states (as perceived by any entity whose existence was enabled by the initial definition of time) the initial entity will traverse an infinite number of transitions… if the universe is steady state and never ending then time is infinite, immortality infinite, the number of moments perceived is also infinite; if the universe is cyclic then the cycle repeats endlessly, the number of moments perceived can be no less than the number of cycles, one perception to start/end each cycle, and again the number of perceptions is infinite.  Any way I slice it I come back to an entity which has, most literally, seen it all.

In compassion for such an entity I ask "how could such an entity maintain enough sanity, enough internal balance, to mark the changes which define the reality I perceive?  How could it avoid the ultimate positive feedback collapse in such aloneness? "  It is from this question I derive the only answer within my (admittedly limited) range of perception:  that entity would have great motive to create other entities which also perceive change, time, to their own unique scale in order there be some point of comparison to break the aloneness, and thereby the possibility of death by sameness.  That would be you and I and the entire silly noble evil and utterly essential human (and who knows how many other mortal) races.  Such entities would, by definition, have to be within the first entities frame of perception, or they serve no useful purpose. 

No, I do not believe (as an abandonment of rational thought) that God exists, and that he has a vital interest in the minor doings of such as you and I for reasons of some psychological imbalance within the greatest entity possible to postulate, I maintain by the logic presented above that entity must exist to explain the reality I perceive, and pursuant to the basics of both psychology and philosophy the only attitude I can imagine such an entity could take towards his creations-of-perception which would maintain sanity would equate to love, the desire to see his creations grow, in order that they prosper and continue.  If that entity, may I call him God now? imposed his will over his creations then he has defeated the very purpose for which they were created, regardless if the mechanism he were to use was fear or orgasmic ecstasy.

To quote that beautiful, fictional man Forest Gump:  "and that's all I have to say about that."