It is not something that can be explained in a post since it requires to begin with appreciating the Trinity, Pythagoras Law of Octaves, and the effects of non linear time. So, as you can see, explaining my understandings requires preparation.
But superficially, God as the initial cosmos is “I am that I am” “I” is complete unity while “am” is ultimate diversity. God is a unity “One” and at the same time “three.” “Am” or diversity is an expression of god as three. We can come to understand it since as a microcosmos we have the potential to be: “I am.” But as we are, we can only be "I am this or a that. “I am” does not exist for us simply because we have no inner unity or “I” but exist as diversity in reaction to external influences so we are always a something or other…
God as ultimate “being” only as “I” loses, through the effects within of non linear time , the scope of “am.” The universe is the perpetual motion machine that manifests and sustains through the continual transformation of substances, all that comprises “Am”
Existence “Am” is inside of “I” (isness) I don’t see this as wanting but necessity just as God as “being” is both necessarily One and Three.
If the universe is this enormous perpetual motion machine, what appears to us as chaotic is divine plan carried on through interacting universal laws expressing diversity rather efficiently.
I will accept that there are more powerfull beings out there… not here though and never all powerfull and all knowing… such absolutness is a childs thought.
There can be no absolutness to knowledge and no absolutness to “power”.
These are the kind of things that when you do achive are reason enough to kill yourself over.
Knowing whats around the corner and indeed whats around “every corner” is probably the most painful thing experienceable.
Spinoza thought a similar thing. He thought thought that God and Nature were merely different modes of the the same underlying substance. He was a materialist, and a pantheist.
Spinoza thought something similar. But his conception of God did not have a purpose for the universe. It just was. It just existed.
This is probably a simplistic view of your theory, but it smacks of some sort of pantheism. And honestly, I don’t see how if God is the Universe, how then God (which is Nature) can have a purpose for itself.
It seems to me you’re treating God and Nature as seperate entities when you speak of the “purpose”; but you treat them as the same thing in other places. This kind of doesn’t make sense.
Think of God as the highest level of being and as ultimate consciousness and nature manifesting on earth as an aspect of universal law; a machine in blind mechanical obedience to laws initiated by consciousness from a higher level of being descending cosmologically and manifesting as the mechanics of nature. God is not of the earth which is why this isn’t Pantheistic.
Connections- Depends on the nature of the Future, and of Free Will, I suppose. It’s only logically impossible if the universe is deterministic, as far as I can tell.
Thanks Uccisore. But, all knowing is all knowing. If God is outside of time He can see the bigging and end. There is something known as Open Theology, but I don’t too much about it yet to comment on it. It says something to the effect that God choses not to know things until the person decides to act.
