Hi Ed. Good to see you posting again. Liking the wild beard! Here's a wee response from one of my digital friends who can word things a lot better than I can, but is saying all the things that I think. Edward, I appreciate you sharing your personal concept of God. As an agnostic atheist and scientist, I have some thoughts on your ideas:
1. Your starting point about "something rather than nothing" is intriguing, but it's important to note that "nothing" in a physical sense is a complex concept that physicists are still grappling with. The apparent dichotomy between "something" and "nothing" may be an oversimplification.
2. Equating the cause of existence with "God" is a significant leap. While the question of why there is something rather than nothing is profound, attributing it to a deity doesn't actually explain the mechanism or provide testable hypotheses.
3. Your concept of God as reality itself resembles pantheism, which faces its own philosophical challenges. It's unclear how this God-as-reality can have agency or will, as you later suggest.
4. The idea of everything being "consubstantial" with God is interesting but lacks empirical support. From a scientific perspective, we understand the universe as composed of fundamental particles and forces, not a divine substance.
5. Rejecting creation ex nihilo while maintaining belief in the Trinity creates an internal tension in your theology that's hard to reconcile.
6. The concept of God as "self-existent" and "eternal" raises the question: why can't the universe itself have these properties? This avoids multiplying entities unnecessarily.
7. Your hierarchical view of "figurations" seems to blend scientific concepts of complexity with religious ideas in a way that's not clearly defined or testable.
While your perspective is thought-provoking, from a scientific standpoint, it doesn't provide testable hypotheses or explanations for observed phenomena. It also raises more questions than it answers about the nature of reality and existence.
As an agnostic atheist, I find that scientific inquiry, while it doesn't answer all questions, provides a more robust and verifiable framework for understanding our universe. However, I respect your right to your beliefs and appreciate the thought you've put into developing this personal concept.
I don't think they are fantasy - they are subjective beliefs, yes. But not fantasy, as it is possible for them to be true
A real fantasy would be 2+2=60
Something that has no basis in rational thought
I know you won't believe this but I believe God wants to have a relationship with all of his humans so has made it so that we can know him, if we want to
This is a non-scientific belief but I don't think it is worthless, it is simply in a different category to scientific conclusions
Anyways, to quote John Wesley, the great Methodist, I think we will have to "agree to disagree"
It has been fun and productive talking to you, to quote Proverbs 27:17 "Iron sharpens iron" and I have found our little exchange to be most useful