[This piece was promised (in ) earlier.  Please refer to it.]

Why has religion been so dominant in the rise of man?   It was, until the Enlightenment called it into question and the ‘enlightened’ threw it under the bus and put their money on science.

In the first place: is religion valid?  Atheism says ‘no.’ Atheism is the belief that there are no deities to worship, one reason being that they cannot be proven.  However, atheism doesn’t necessarily deny a first cause (a cause is something that is NOT an effect).

There has to be a first cause, and whatever it was, it could not have been impossible (and as a first principle would have to be ethical). The evidence for a first cause by any name is all around us: the Universe–it’s here. That we are here is part of the evidence (the effect) which of course can’t prove (or even describe) its cause, making that a non-starter, God or no.  (You may deny your personal spirituality only because you have it to deny.)  So if the non-atheist can’t prove it (as the atheist claims), is the atheist right?  But where is his evidence?  He can’t prove his case either.  In fact, without assuming god in the first place, he has nothing to dispute!  Just saying ‘no’ is not much of an argument.  Do we have a stalemate?

Not really.  The atheist also is an effect, which by definition can’t define its cause.  Therefore, since the atheist’s emperor has no clothes, causality might be a possibility

…which brings possibility (and therefore, perhaps, quantum theory) into the discussion. And something-from-nothing might beg particle physics and the Higgs field as well.  Can the new physics prove the existence of a higher power?  Is it a possibility?

Both quantum mechanics and particle physics posit that something can come from nothing.  Both something and nothing can be, concurrently (light being at the same time both particle—matter—and wave—not matter).  Only a singularity is required.  The theist defines that singularity (consciousness) as God, summarily denied by the atheist.

Perhaps the difficulty lies in positing God as a human being.  That person, being an effect, could not be a cause, let alone a first cause.  If on the other hand the concept of God means instead a name put to the first cause, which could be self-described as anything it(?) chose to be, (including a personage), the problem can at least be  dealt with.  This would satisfy every definition of God except the physical being, which is not a requirement of consciousness.

Consciousness, being the foundation of reality, is anything it wills (merely by manifesting itself from innumerable possibilities as any form, at any time, in any place).  It could be the form of a person, a plant, a rock, air, a particle, or anything else it wills to be, even…God?

So while God as the first cause may not be an old man on a cloud, or a burning bush, or someone handing out stone tablets, or whatever form may be imagined (an image put to a thought) by a human person, consciousness could manifest in any or whatever form that it wills.

Could this be?  We’re not privy to determining whether it is or isn’t at this point, but remember that everything except the impossible is possible.  We don’t know what’s impossible because we don’t  know all of the possibilities.  The new physics may provide the answer, or not.

Questions? Comments? Concerns?

Be alert—the future lies ahead—still more to come…

Leave a Reply