[Article] My view on God and how it developed

By Timo Schmitz

In many articles, I spoke about God and I probably gave plenty of definitions for God from time to time. Therefore, I started to wonder what image of God do I have exactly and which views did I hold up during the time? So what exactly is God in my understanding? To find a reply, I analysed my previous articles starting from 2017 and looked after similarities and differences, and whether my view is contradictory in some aspects. This article tries to give a more global view on the issue and tries to point out conflicts and challenges in finding the right view on God. The views from my 2018 book Buddha öffne dich will not be taken into account, because I wrote most of it before 2017 and therefore during a period when I was an atheist, giving a God-negating view. In 2017, however, I underwent a re-appraisal process which finally led to becoming a theist. Therefore, the structures of this transition and the thoughts during this transition phase are worth to be analyzed.

A first approximation to define God was regarding God to be “the placeholder for the very first element that served as creator”.[1] This approach sounded very logical to me, because it is a critical view to get closer to the topic. Because what do we refer to God when we talk about him? We talk of creation, so God is connected to the beginning and as we do not really know the beginning, that which is the beginning must be God. This first assumption is built on reason, and thus, a philosophical approach. The question whether God exists is a question which is in the sphere of interest for philosophy. I added, however, that “We do not know God, we never saw him and we have no first hand testimony of God himself.” [2] Therefore, I came to the conclusion that “It makes no difference how the one and only God is called and in which ways it is manifested. Even the monotheists agree, that there are many names for God, but all these names are just different facettes of the One.” [3] Here, I made clear that I chose a monotheist approach which is evidently, because if God is the beginning or more precisely a placeholder for the beginning and there is only one beginning, then there can only be one God. At the same time, I try to take a harmonical approach, as many monotheists shun polytheists and this leads to a lot of trouble in the world, because in fact, most polytheists give their gods the same qualities than monotheists give to the One, so the many facettes must be united in One. In the same way, people used to fight for their interpretation of God and here I make clear that there is just the one universal God and we cannot differentiate between different gods. This is clear, because there is only one beginning, so this beginning must be universal. There is just the one God, but religions are created by humans, so they are man-made and though people know that religion is man-made, but God is not, there is still a lot of dispute among religions. I thought that “Humans quarrel that their God is the true one, because they mainly just know their own religious community. However, we can find a lot of similarities in all religions.” [4] This in turn means that there cannot be the one true religion. Now, one might ask about the nature of God. If God was the beginning then what happened at the beginning and what do we call God? What is behind this placeholder. A common thought in most religions is that God is a force. “However, if God is not a force, then why are human beings not allowed to paint images of God? Are they afraid that everyone has an own image of God? Indeed, God is the sum of all individual thoughts about God.” [5] Though there is the one beginning, everyone imagines God in a different way. And some people give God even attributes and different qualities. Others give God another quality and have another thought of Him. So is there actually the one God? Here, I argued that it is rather the sum of all individual thoughts and therefore, everything which is attributed to God by someone is part of God. Of course, this leads to the problem that we can attribute anything to God and we can make a good being or even a monster out of Him. We can have a transcendental or immanent idea of Him and we even could say that the wind we feel on the skin when we go outside is actually only God’s breath. This again shows the placeholder quality, but makes God nonsensical, as God can be everything and nothing under these circumstances. Traditionally, God is understood in opposition to man and as such “The human nature is the opposite of God: we are not almighty, all knowing and in everywhere!” [6] So God is what man is not. We attribute things to God what we would never attribute to man. I kept up the idea that God could be a force, or to be precisely, at least God is a force, i.e. the force of the beginning, but maybe God is even more. I left it open at that time but wanted to show “that there is no use to take God away from people as one can call the forces that created the world God, and therefore we can try to explain things we cannot explain with God, however, God is no excuse for dogmatism.”[7] Indeed, the possibility that God could be more than just force, but must at least be force is a turning point in my whole philosophical journey. And “Even if we cannot see God, we imply the possible existence of God by giving God a name, so that we can refer to him.” [8]

Now that I identified God as the beginning in whatever way, but at least as force, I asked what He installed universally, i.e. something which is acceptable to all people, no matter in which religion one beliefs (as long as one believes in anything). I came to the conclusion that “if God created the world, he installed natural law, but he did not make it visible to us, and whenever he thinks that something in the world has to be changed, he uses his force and intervenes. And if God does not exist, then physical force formed the earth and natural law existed out of itself, and the natural forces intervene.” [9] Indeed, at that point, I was at crossroads between the existence and non-existence of God.

Therefore, I came to the conclusion that we have to differentiate between God and religion. If God is universal and there is one God, but there are many different religions then religion is not universal. As religion is not universal, it cannot claim the one truth and therefore “religion in general becomes obsolete, but this doesn’t mean that God becomes obsolete, too. Religious believers kill in the name of God, denounce people in the name of God, and in the end they ridicule God. We can find God everywhere, but not in the churches.” [10] As God stands for the unknown beginning and receives attributes by the individual which make God a collective of thoughts, I saw the possibility that “In the end, God exists in our mind. We created God the way we want Him to be and we either call the creational force as God or the societal conscience as such.”[11] Later in 2019, I realized that even religion is not the problem, but the possibility to abuse religions. [12] As one can see, I still took the two possibilities and did not decide for one yet, as God “is either created in the people’s mind by being a creation in people’s mind or He is a creation in people’s mind by naming something real as ‘God’ which cannot be described otherwise”. [13] Nonetheless, I saw an important problem back then which necessarily appears if God is created in our mind: “However, if God is in us, He cannot be a creator out there. We cannot create Him and attribute a billions of years old creation to Him, if only we created Him now. As such, it makes only sense if we transmit God from us to our next people from generation to generation. In this way, God never dies as He is always in all of us. On the other hand, could there be a God if there were no humans? God would mean nothing without our conscience about Him, thus He would be a no-one without us. Therefore, we have to attribute it to humans and search God in humans, since humans are aware of the creation and God would lose its function through dedication without us. God exists through us!” [14] In other words, God is not created in mind by us, but He is created in mind through us. So there must be a God out there, but our idea about God is probably not identical to God. God exists because we call him God and we say He exists. Of course, He exists independently from us, but our view of Him is not independent as it is always passed on from generation to generation and thus, we are taught who God is. “In the 2015 version of the New Constructivist Communism, I adopted the Juche outlook to define human-beings, who according to Juche philosophy, are master of themselves and shape their destiny themselves. The problem here however is that it bans all kind of religion, since there is no space for God, since not God is the highest form of creation for Jucheists, but ‘man’ (in the sense of human-beings) […], and therefore man can decide over everything and shape his destiny and everything depends on him. One cannot flee back to God and make God responsible for everything as, remember Sartre, man exists before God, thus God is created by man. This atheistic presumption has the advantage that all men are equal, since gender roles, skin colours and religious backgrounds play no more role, as none of them is God-given and therefore people can shape and reshape their own world. The clear disadvantage is its radical atheism which leaves no space for God’s creation and kills the faith in a world which is protect-worthy since humans are just God’s trustees. Without God, the world’s humanity gets human-less.” [15] So at this point, I realized that no matter which nature God actually has, He is a guarantee for moral behavior, because as everyone has a certain view about God, the belief in Him creates a responsibility. If the world becomes atheist, then there is no reason anymore to act just, because there is no higher authority anymore. At this point, it was clear to me that we have to defend God, because there is no future for this planet without Him. On the other hand, I still left out which nature God has and it was clear as well that we cannot defend the God as described by religions, because we found out that no religion proclaims the ultimate truth. So a religious God cannot bring peace, but without God there cannot be peace as well.

After this was clarified, I finally had to address the nature of God, but at the same time I had to admit that “no matter whether I read the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Pali-Canon, or the Daodejing, He is there with me and created me, whether knowingly with His Almightiness, or unknowingly through joining and mixing energies and no matter what form God might take or how He will reveal Himself, whether through the δυνάμεις between the Ideal World and the Perceptional World, or through a conscious action – how shall we ever reach εὐδαιμονία when not to shifting what really matters in life.” [16] So here I defended that we have to accept that we cannot know God’s nature and that knowing of His existence is good enough. At the same time, I focused more on the interconnectedness to which I led the ground before. I postulated that it does not matter which view about God is right, because we are one big family and everyone is connected to one another, most obviously through sex. Through accepting that we cannot know God’s nature, I came to the conclusion that “I don’t need to know whether God is almighty or not, whether He just was created through an accident of forces or through a big bang into a universe that is that well ordered that it cannot be an accident. Instead, I shall use wisely the creation of whomever it is, and make the best out of the creation with you.” [17] At the same time, I showed that I am not too satisfied with the image of an unknowing God who acts like a machine. As a proof, I took up the argument from design which indeed contests the coincidental view. So at first I made clear that God must necessarily be the highest, since we cannot think of something Higher (Anselm of Canterburry!). This is an attribution which we cannot doubt, though it is only a linguistic attribution. In linguistics, God – no matter which nature He has – is the Highest and there is nothing over God. “However, He could not just create everything that perfectly if He had no plan. God must have a mind. And since God is perfect, and humans, animals and everything else [are] not, only His creation in His mind is perfect, while the rest is just good – so to say satisfying enough for God.” [18] At this point, I undoubtedly outed myself as adherent of a Platonical worldview, at least to a certain degree. As one can see above, this change was not sudden. Already in the end of 2017, I had doubts that God can create so perfectly, but at the same time shall be without intellect? Platonical ideas entered my philosophical journey already much earlier, so it shall be no wonder that I continued my thoughts in this way. However, they differentiate a lot from Plato as well, as one can see easily. “So in 2018, I postulated that there is a direct God, a God who knows what He is doing – at least to a certain degree. The reason for this seems evident. The creation is just too perfect to be an accident. Human-beings only have what they need and so do trees and stones and everything else. Our eyes work so complex and it cannot be a coincidence that they perceive something in colour though colour is just a quality which has to do with light. Then the eyes turn the image around, it is sequenced in chemical process and in our brain it makes a complete image again. And all this by accident? This seems to be a quite naïve thought to me.” [19] So here at this point, we have two views of God actually. One is the God who is created in mind through us and who serves as social consciousness, and the other is the God who really exists out there and who created everything. As there can only be one God, both are either the same or one of them is wrong. Of course, the image we create in mind is wrong, it exists only in our mind, but it shares part of the truth. We have an access to God, though we can never fully grasp him. However, this view would be further developed later, mainly in 2019. In early 2018, I was still at the pre-stage to understand this. Furthermore, I wrote: “It is clear that even though God’s creation might be perfect, the creation in His mind must be even more perfect, since God would not create any evil, since every evil might contest the all-goodness of God. […] God might be the cause but God does not need to renew every part of his creation as this is done in itself. But God does not get the idea of creation out of nothing. It means the idea must have been there. […] When God saw all these ideas – and only God can perceive the ideas in its purest forms […] – He had a plan in mind how to create things out of these ideas. And He started creating the universe by taking a material and causing a big-bang or another kind of thing which was the beginning and He created the universe.” [20] Here, I finalized my transition from an Atheist Buddhist to a Theist Buddhist, and I was ready to dedicate myself to the Abrahamic religions as well. It was clear here that there is no way back and that it is unreasonable to deny God. At the same time, I set a ground for my Ontology which is oriented after Plato and his teaching of Ideas.

As I was already attracted to the Platonical two-world system since late 2014, using the Platonical basis as ground is only a continuancy of previous thoughts. At the same time, I gave up the Juche-based worldview in 2017 and replaced it with the basic worldview of Hannah Arendt, concerning human-beings. The Abrahamic component in my thoughts, however, was new and came into consideration in late 2017 and early 2018. Here, I made the remark that “To feel the spirit of God, one shall not think of a visible ghost who scares people off or an abstract being which is dependent on our thoughts as primarily means but rather a ‘breath’ or ‘wind’ known as ruh in Arabic and ruah in Hebrew – and equals in some kind the soul, as life giving essence.” [21] Therefore, I made clear that God is not exactly a super-human and the personification of God in an anthropomorphic way has to be rejected. So concerning the nature of God, I assumed that he is an intellectual Being which uses the ideas, a kind of higher existence of everything, to build it the way as he built it: like a child in kindergarten that builds houses with the toys, though the toys were already there when he started building. God must inherit some force to create everything and still, force plays an essential role. It is probably a more abstract force as I assumed before. Nonetheless, I still held up the basic approximation that “it does not matter whether one is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Daoist or any other believer, the names and ways might vary, but God is everywhere the same, and all these religions offer us to find God. Even an atheist might find God, but in the moment he unites with God he loses his atheism and says ‘I believe’. We find so many different ways and approaches because we talk of something above reason.” [22] So here, God loses its placeholder function which was defined before due to His intellectual qualities and at the same time, religion was connoted positively. So my view on religion changed and my basic view on God, which is still a word naming the beginning, but more abstract than a simple placeholder. However, the placeholder idea did not go away, since God still stands for something abstract of which we have no direct knowledge, but we found possible attributions. These attributions include that it is possible that He has an intellect, since intellect does not arise out of dead matter, He is universal and religions only grasp a part of Him, He stands for the first cause which puts matter together and gives its form and inherits force. But if God is good as we learn from Plato, then how can evil exist in this world? “Schmitz argues that good can only exist because evil exists, because if evil did not exist we would not know what the good is (see Timo Schmitz: Was das Dao leert – Eine Einführung in den Daoismus, Berlin: epubli, 2017). So good and evil exist indeed, but whether it is in the will of God or not is still an issue of debate.” Next, I criticized the evolutionary theorists, but also rejected the religious fundamentalists, by stating that indeed there must be a creation at first, but with the creation of living-being, evolution started then. Therefore, God still stands for the beginning, but God does not form every single human-being. I especially citicised evolutionists because they “rather destroyed the world than making a progress, because if there is no need for God anymore, then we do not care about anyone anymore” [24]. The reasons for this assumption were already explained before, since there is no necessary morality without God and therefore God is an important element of peacekeeping. “Daniel Matt who translated the Zohar Pritzker even argues that according to the Zohar, it was actually God who was kicked out of the Garden of Eden by Adam, and not vice versa (Gnosis – Secrets of the Kabbalah. 2013 (?).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppT8JK1loSg, retrieved on 9 June 2018.). This would imply that we still live in the paradise. However, by abandoning God man lost the contact to Him but in times of trouble like these we try to find the way back to God. Thanks to the lack of God and the missing contact to Him, people do the most terrible and crucial things with His creation. We destroy God’s biggest treasure – we exploit it and tear it apart, which means that we are responsible for destroying the paradise! However, those tribes who are still pious and try to live righteous have a stronger connection to the creator’s force. In Bantu Ontology, force is the main drive, the vital energy. Furthermore, every Being has the vital force, thus, BEING means FORCE (Placide Tempels: Bantu Philosophy. Paris: Présence Afrcaine, 1959, p. 31.). And Nietzsche also sees that God becomes nature, therefore NATURE IS GOD (Friedrich Nietzsche : Zur Genealogie der Moral. Leipzig: C.G. Naumann, 1887.).” [25]

So until June 2018, I already had a quite clear idea about God. At about a month later, I laid the foundation for my Judeo-Buddhism, which would also take up the ideas that I developed until that time. Especially the idea that God’s creation is good and that evil is not wanted by God was strengthened here and thus “Dieu créait tout « en bien » (ki tov) et donc son création est « parfait » (ki tov) aussi” [26] However, actually, I defined ki-tov as that-which-is-good-for-itself or in-itself and thus, it is not perfect, but also not evil. This view that there is an absolute good, but that the good just reveals itself partly in this world, but that evil is not a result of the absolute good is the link which combines my religious views with my philosophical views. However, as I made clear, God is a philosophical issue and therefore, I chose a philosophical approach. Nonetheless, one has to take a look at how religions deal with the question of God’s nature and His key role, especially how to encounter God. “Pour les juifs et les musulmans, l’unification avec Dieu est comme une extase – une trance dans laquelle on peut goûter Dieu. C’est que le mot dauq veut dire : « goûter ».  Alors, il y existe une expérience d’imitation de Dieu (c’est le but de Ibn Tufayl – l’imitatio dei (Sarah Pessin: Islamic and Jewish Neoplatonisms. In: Pauliina Remes & Svetla Slaveva-Griffin (éds.): The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism, London/ New York: Routledge, 2014, p. 551.)), mais l’imitation – est-ce que ça veut dire qu’on devient exactement comme Dieu ? Je ne pense pas que c’est possible, parce qu’on toujours participe sur l’image de Dieu, mais on n’est jamais Dieu lui-même. Seulement Dieu peut s’appeler Dieu. […] Comprendre l’unité c’est comprendre l’Un. Chaque chose et chaque personne participe à l’Un. C’est la source originaire de tout. On veut s’unifier avec l’Un – si c’est possible je ne sais pas encore – mais on peut s’unifier avec l’idée de l’Un. On peut comprendre l’idée – la manifestation de Dieu – dans ce monde, et donc, on peut réaliser la nature de Dieu lui-même par implication. Avec l’illumination bouddhique on devient le bouddha lui-même, mais ce n’est pas égaux à Dieu – c’est une unification de l’homme avec tous les essences de la lumière divine dans ce monde.” [27] This means that though there is the Absolute One called God and though one seeks perfection to be like God, humans can never become God themselves even when they experience the oneness of God in ecstasy. So God is an experience, a perfect state, the first cause and inherits force. He has an intellectual quality and has a good nature, though the latter two points are still question of dispute at this point. But why shall God have any evil, if He is perfect? And how can He make a plan without intellect? So intellect and goodness must be there.

Therefore, “Le but, c’est la réalisation de la nature de l’être au lieu de la nature de Dieu. On ne peut pas devenir dieu parce que l’homme n’est pas éternel et seulement une copie d’un plus grand plan – donc il est seulement une copie. (Pierre Grimes: Wisdom Literature in the Platonic Tradition. Lecture 62: Plato’s Republic (Part 2). Opening Mind Academy, 1997.)” [28] Our relation to nature has indeed a creational quality in daily life, because “When we say that everything exists because of something, we are not anymore in an evolutionary approach which talks about accidents, but we presume already a plan, and thus a creator who made that plan. If everything that exists has a reason for its existence, then it has a cause, so the cause comes first. And if everything which has a cause has a creator, then God necessarily exists. God in this case is a placeholder for something higher that we cannot grasp.” [29] This means that the Good and its manifestation is not some hypothetical imaginary concept out of nothing, but it is a clear-minded approach, as we say everyday that something has a cause of existence. When a child asks us why a plant has a deep root, we say that it needs this deep root to reach the water in the ground. In fact, here we reveal that there is a plan. We do not say that all flowers around did not survive, because in evolution, their roots were not deep enough. With everything we explain, we want to find a cause, and as such God cannot be denied anymore. So a God who serves as first cause in the beginning. But we still do not know the exact nature of God, so the image of God still is man-made and exists in our mind as a placeholder. Nonetheless, God – in some way – exists out there if we define God as the first cause. Independently from that, we still gave God a social importance, but this view has nothing to do with the first view. In other words, the God whom we attribute the moral instance has nothing to do at this point with the God who is the first cause. But since we create God in mind and this God in mind is not identical with the actual God, there is still the one universal God. We just did not find all His attributes yet. Furthermore, there are some universal rules and seemingly basic ethics were created by God, so the idea with the moral instance inherits some truth. “However, to commit the plan every cause must have an activity. (Pierre Grimes: Wisdom Literature in the Platonic Tradition. Lecture 20: Grades of Reality. Opening Mind Academy, 1995.) This means, that there are certain forces, known as δυνάμεις.” [30] So we have cause and activity and without the forces, there cannot be activity. So now we also proved what we assumed before: the first cause (God) must inherit force to be able to create.

“If God has something in his mind, then he has an idea. Idea does not only depict a mental concept, but a form or nature (εἶδος). He has a plan about nature and a plan about all forms. But since God does not live in time, the ideas seemingly were always there and always will be there, since otherwise, every thing would be conditioned on this earth, in the moment when the original idea disappeared […]. So God has a plan of what he wants to create and this plan is perfect and without flaws. Therefore, every idea mirrors an ideal. Through this idea, everything can be modeled as an archetype and thus a first creation which is the creation of God of what is in the mind of God. (Pierre Grimes: Wisdom Literature in the Platonic Tradition. Lecture 42: The Religion of No Religion. Opening Mind Academy, 1996.) In a Lurianic tradition it is passed on that the very One (אין סוף) put his primordial light in vessels and sent it down to the earth, but the vessels were too fragile and broke down and thus the sparks rained down on the earth and if the vessels arrived perfectly, it would have been a perfect creation, but in this way, the creation remained imperfect and all resources were spread unequally on the face of the earth. (Benjamin Adler: Introduction to Kabbalah: The Creation Myth. Sefaria Source Sheet, 2016.https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/32246, retrieved on 29 July 2018.) Why was the earth already there? Before anything was on our planet, the planet was made as a hot ball which cooled down and which left a kind of chaotic dark ball (as of Gen 1:2 – tohuwabohu). When God started creating, it does not mean that he had to create all material, but the basic elements were already existent, so he could transform them with his force.“ [31]

So God must reside in the realm of ideas which makes a two world system possible, though of course, this is just a new assumption after we proved the existence of a creator and His necessity of force. So of course we want to know where god resides, and the two world thought is just a weak point, but of course it is consequently when thought in Platonical worldview. Therefore, it is clear that“While God’s plan is ideal, his manifestation on the earth is not, because at first, it is only a mental concept which then is modeled, this model is copied and every copy loses originality to the model. We know this phenomena ourselves: We have a great idea in mind, for example to build a chair. When we built our first chair it is not as good as we imagined, so it is imperfect. Then when we reproduce the chair, our try to do the exact same thing than we already did is again different than what we did before, as they are never exactly identical. As such, the reproduced chair is imperfect towards the first chair. So all ideas from the ideal world were manifested in our world, but they are just an imperfect copy. […]However, just because the world is an imperfect copy, it does not mean that the world is bad: actually, the whole world is כי-טוב, because God Himself is good as well and He is so good that He can be only responsible for what is good.(Plato, Politeia, 382c-383a) […] [E]ven though everything which comes from the divine is good, the sparks nourishes evil according to Luria (Adler, 2016, point 3), but according to Plato, the bad does not exist and bad things only appear as wrong perception of the good and thus are actually ‘lies’. (Pierre Grimes: Wisdom Literature in the Platonic Tradition. Lecture 62: Plato’s Republic (Part 2).Opening Mind Academy, 1997.)” [32]

So to recall everything until this point: At first, we found out that everyone imagines God in a different way, but God exists objectively. God is what man is not and consists of force. Of course, there is the possibility that God is more than force, but at least He is force as otherwise there is no possibility that matter receives form and therefore no way that any potential becomes actual. So in early 2017, I identified God as the beginning in whatever way, but at least as force. So there is an actual God out there and God is not only a mind-creation, though our view about God in mind is not identical to the actual God. Therefore, He exists independently from us, but our view of Him is not independent. Furthermore, humans are in charge to protect God’s creation and God is a guarantee for moral behavior. If people lose faith in God, then the planet has no future. In early 2018, I showed that I am not really convinced that God can be unknowing, and therefore assumed that He already has an intellect. Therefore, God cannot act like a machine. And as God seemingly has an intellect, we also have an access to God, through the soul. And as God is a fact (as He has at least forces and most likely also an intellect), it is unreasonable to deny His existence.

As God is the beginning, He is the first cause putting form to matter and therefore is responsible for all kind of actuality. But He must reside beside our realm, as He has attributes which are of higher quality, such as being infinite and beyond space and time as we know it in the perceptional world. People do bad things when they lose touch with God, because God is the good and therefore, all goodness comes from God. As less people realize the Good, and thus God, as more gruesome things they might do, due to the disconnection (even if those people pray and think they believe in God – but their bad behavior reveals that they in fact have not realized god’s nature). Therefore, God is an important element for peacekeeping. We live in God’s paradise (which is the reason why the rivers mentioned in the Bible to be in the paradise could be attributed to actual rivers on the earth), so we are in charge to guard the paradise and take God back. On the other hand, God as a whole must of course stay in the ideal world, as only from there, He can manifest things in a finite world, but we have to stop manipulating His creation by destroying what He created for us. So taking God back means letting God’s forces work and focusing on His creation, proposing peace and harmony. Only through focusing on His creation, we can stop the terrible wars and the evil, as these places lack the presence of the good, and thus God (or God is only limited recognizable there, because His presence is mostly veiled there). In other words: unreasoned action cannot be attribute back to God as “Human-beings are interconnected with God through the reasoned part which is in the soul. It is a direct link between humans and God and a place of direct profound knowledge. (Cp. the anamnesis-argumentation in Plato’s Phaedo.) A relation however always presumes reciprocity – this means that it’s a two which becomes one and a one which becomes many. That a two makes a one is a product of reflection (Laibl Wolf: The Art of Loving. Session 5: Reflected Love, How Long Does It Last?. Melbourne: Spiritgrow Josef Kryss Centre, 2012).” [33] Nonetheless, we are responsible for our actions and God gave us space to act freely. So we cannot hide behind god’s creation and argue that something bad would be God’s will. Therefore, I emphasized that “Je pense qu’on peut agiter dans l’espace que Dieu créait pour nous. Et dans l’espace non-determiné, nous pouvons agrandir ou réduire les limites, et donc la liberté. […] Enfin, la croyance en Dieu est indépendant de l’existence de Dieu – Dieu existe même si tout le monde lui refus, la croyance en lui n’a pas d’effet à Dieu. Mais Dieu contient la conscience du monde, la croyance nous donne une raison pour faire les actes justes, mais si la croyance en Dieu n’existe plus, il n’y a pas de l’espoir que ceux qui ne sont pas punis dans ce monde sera puni au-delà de ce monde et donc on n’a plus de raison d’être juste. La croyance nous donne la possibilité de changer pour meilleur. Chaque homme fait des fautes – on n’est pas parfait. Mais si on ne croit pas en Dieu, pour qui est-ce qu’on doit se changer ? Ceux qui nous avons blessé ? On ne peut pas retourner au point avant que nous faisons les fautes. Mais on peut se changer pour l’avenir – donc la purification se tourne toujours à l’avenir.  On doit laisser le passé pour commencer l’avenir. La purification, donc, est une récréation, on essaie de recréer lui-même et on participe activement à l’idée du « Bien ». Le Bien est totalement bien et nous voulons partager « ce qui est bien » et donc nous devenons une partie de cela – nous devenons une unité avec le Bien, mais nous ne devenons pas le Bien nous-mêmes car le Bien c’est Dieu et l’homme est opposé à Dieu (Dieu est éternel, l’homme n’est pas éternel ; Dieu est parfait, l’homme n’est pas parfait, etc.). Car le Bien est ce qui donne la raison, nous réalisons la raison avec notre âme – on peut sentir l’existence du Bien avec l’âme, mais on ne peut pas le toucher. […] Chaque forme de la religion a besoin d’une croyance et d’une force. On sait qu’il y existe une force et on voit que la force peut faire les choses et donc on croit que cette force peut faire plus que ça. Les anciens savaient que l’eau est forcive – créative et destructive. Mais ils ne savaient rien sur les orages, alors, ils croyaient que les orages fonctionnent dans la même manière – à cause d’une force Divin. Et la croyance en deux mondes est nécessaire aussi dans les trois modèles – on sait qu’il y existe plus qu’ici, alors, il est quelque chose au-delà. Mais les deux mondes peuvent s’unir, les frontières peuvent cesser pour créer une unité. Pourquoi est-ce qu’on trouve deux mondes donc ? S’il y est seulement le monde comme nous le voyons, on peut voir Dieu aussi. Mais on ne voit pas Dieu et il doit résider à travers de l’univers. […] Tout se remarque dans l’Un et tout est observé par l’Un – Dieu est une conscience universelle. Donc, tout est religion et religion est tout parce qu’on peut croire ce qu’on veut, mais on ne sait rien sûrement. Qui sait si la vie est une illusion ? Qui me dit que je sens les choses comme ils les sont ? Enfin, je suis le créateur de mes rêves – et comme cela, il y a un créateur qui m’a créé. Même si je suis seulement un cerveau dans une cuve, il y est nécessairement un créateur du cerveau et un créateur de la cuve, donc je lui appelle Dieu, parce que je ne sais pas d’autre nom pour lui. Donc, il n’y a pas de moyen pour éviter l’existence de Dieu.” [34] So God’s existence cannot be further doubted and Atheism has to be viewed as a radical religion which wants to destroy the people’s faith and their right to belief. He is the world’s conscience, creative and destructive (the latter in the sense of creating something better through destructing something old) and of course, we try to overcome the frontiers of the two worlds to reach God, but is this really possible? As God is reason, it can only be mentally possible, but not physical. So we have to reflect to use our reason and thus get into touch with the Divine. Therefore, I proposed meditation as a means to communicate with God. Therefore, “la raison et la conscience viennent de Dieu – ils sont la connexion entre Dieu et l’homme.” [35] In addition, I also kept up the placeholder function in my French articles in 2018 in which God is a placeholder for the beginning as I stated: “Ce qui existe en avance est appelé Dieu. Si on pense que tout est choisi et fixé en avance (vorbestimmt), on déjà croit en Dieu (ou une transcendance qui peut être appelé « Dieu »).” [36] As such, though it is a placeholder for the beginning, we know already a lot about God’s nature, especially that God inherits reason and force and we have a share of it, as everything has a share of the ideal. And as “l’âme est un cadeau de Dieu pour donner la vie à l’homme ” [37], we must necessarily be in a connection with God. Of course, we are in connection with God through reason, as God is reason. So here, I undoubtedly advocate that God is an intellectual being, which is the first cause and which has force as an activity. Furthermore, “L’âme est immortel et vient du Dieu et c’est l’âme qui contient la raison même que la connaissance divine et donc, tout ce que nous pouvons savoir – tous les phénomènes – sont compris « en nous ».” [38] This is evidently, because if the soul has a reasoned part and God is reason and God is infinite, then reason cannot die and thus, the soul must be immortal and must return to its source, God, after death. Despite reason, God is also the source of knowledge, as knowledge is grasped through reason. And to know something, one must have an intellect. So we can clearly see the connection here.

I have pointed out already that we are God’s trustees and that we have to protect His creation, which is ki-tov. And as it is ki-tov and only inherits goodness in itself, all the suffering is made by us. Human-beings hurt each other, so the pain which arises out of it is human-made (“Nous sommes les gardiens du monde que Dieu a créé et donc, si le monde souffre, c’est parce que nous – Dieu veut le bien seulement, il est « le Bien » – alors les fractures se trouvent parce que nous nous blessons, et nous blessons les autres […]” [39]) Of course, this does not explain natural catastrophies, but as human-beings, we are too small to understand why God allowed them. What we know for sure, however, is that it is the fault of human-beings that the climate changes and storms and hurricanes appear more often. Maybe, God only allows natural tragedies as side effect, as the earth is moving, and though the earth is good, this goodness has to be kept up through the way in which the world works – it is a physical entity, and as such, of course it does not only have positive effects. But did God create the Earth for worse? Seemingly no, so His goodness cannot be contested. So we have found out that “Tout est une manifestation de l’Un (donc, de Dieu) et notre existence vient de son idée. Alors, on est en relation avec Dieu. Beaucoup d’hommes pensent que tout existe indépendant, mais c’est faux. Nous sommes nécessairement soumis à la providence, mais ça ne veut pas dire que l’homme n’est pas libre. La liberté est un espace donné par Dieu dans laquelle nous pouvons transformer. Donc, nous avons une idée mentale et cette idée est connecté[e] à la raison – la raison vient de Dieu et donc l’idée est partagé avec Dieu. La raison est en connexion entre l’âme et Dieu. Dans notre relation avec Dieu, nous transformons cette idée. Dieu nous donnait sa création et nous sommes les gardiens – ce que nous faisons avec sa création est une réaction, donc nous travaillons avec son idée dans une dialogue.” [40]

As I have pointed out that God equals the Good, I also must answer the question how we can realize the Good ourselves. Concerning this, I stated that “Dans le Judaïsme, l’imitation de Dieu est une bonne solution parce que l’homme est créé en image de Dieu, et donc, l’imitation de Dieu cause des actes bien : Dieu est juste, si l’homme imite Dieu, il essaie d’être juste aussi.” [41] This is not only limited to Judaism, but also Plato, Al Ghazali and Ibn Tufail observed that imitation is a common concept of education and that people become the way they do because they imitate. So we might imitate the Good to become good ourselves. But that is not all, as we can get in touch with the Good through reason. In meditation, we can reflect things and thus as we use our reason, “la réflexion permettre le contact avec Dieu” [42], so that we can say that “la méditation, c’est un dialogue avec Dieu” [43]. Through this reflection, we use our reason and gain knowledge. Knowledge and understanding is a matter of our soul and therefore, there is no knowledge without God, once emphasizing His intellectual quality again. Therefore, “Through understanding the One, one gains enlightenment as one understands that we are too small to become God ourselves and we have limits of knowledge, but we have God inside of us through reason, given to us by God, and therefore, through this reason we stay in touch with God. We cannot look in the mind of God, but we are in a constant dialogue with Him. Even further, God creates us in His image (צלם) which means that as [H]e created ma[le] and female, He Himself must be androgynous.” [44] As we are in connection with God, we cannot be independent beings. I already emphasized the interrelatedness of everything. In the same way, I emphasized that the problems of this world are mainly the result of a disconnection with God. So the relation is not only limited to God, but as everything is in relation, God must necessary be the cause, thus the source. That it must furthermore be the first cause and thus the source of everything was proven already before, same as the fact that He inherits force. Therefore, though God is a placeholder for something we can not grasp directly, we have an access to [H]im through our clear mind. God is an experience, an absolute Goodness. When we experience enlightenment, we reach a unification with the divine light in this world and as God reveals Himself through the light, we can “taste” Him, as many religions reveal. However, does this form of experience contradict God through reason, as experience and reason are not identical? The difference here is that experience itself is not of divine quality and might even cause defilements, however, when God is grasped through reason and thus, if one realizes God and His Goodness, then this experience is transmitted through the soul and not through the corrupted image about the world. We have to be active to practice compassion and to gain knowledge. Thus, it is an activity.

The Goodness in this world can be found in the nature (in the real nature of course, not in the nature which we perceive in defiled ways), and therefore “if we carefully observe the universe and imitate the nature, we will step by step get enlightened and we reflect on everything and clean our mind to reach this enlightenment, the oneness with God (or better: with a part of God, probably [H]is forces, since we cannot fully grasp the whole of Him) and we get a share of Him in imitating God. As God creates humans in His likeness, we can imitate that likeness.” [45] As such, activity is striving for good, something which I would precise later in 2019. I think it is senseless to repeat that “Le commencement était nommé comme Dieu. Dieu avait un plan de sa création, et donc il faisait un modèle en utilisant une idée. L’idée c’est la nature propre – ce qui la chose est en idéal. Toutes les chaises viennent de l’idée de la chaise, tous les rouges d’un seul rouge et donc chaque chose participe à l’idée. La première création de la création mentale est le modèle, le point d’interaction entre Dieu et l’homme.” [46] So mentioning this just shows that I kept up my view about God in late 2018 without major changes. In the same way, it is also already clear that “[…] Dieu est un fait, c’est sûr, parce qu’il y a un créateur de moi, comme moi je suis le créateur de mes rêves. Donc, même si je n’existe pas et tout est seulement une illusion, il doit se trouver un créateur de cette illusion.” [47] So in any way, there must be a creator: either of the real-me or of my dream, if I exist only in a dream.

But of course “on a besoin du temps pour trouver les vérités, on ne voit rien en premier moment (parce que on doit se connecter avec le modèle). Pour cela, la connaissance est une question de la conscience. Et Dieu comme l’être universelle donc est la conscience collective. […] Dieu est parfait, mais l’homme n’est pas parfait. L’homme a les défauts comme l’incapabilité d’une cognition objective, les normes non-universelles parce que l’éducation instruit ce qui est vrai ou faux (les normes universelles existent, mais on doit les chercher) et les pensées sont limité à l’usage d’une langue.”[48] So though, I kept up the image of an actual God as first cause, He does not lose His social function as collective conscience. But if God is the source of everything which is good and our conscience is good then of course, He must be the source of all consciousness.

The Good exists in many different qualities and not just the good itself, thus everything which is good is part of the good, and for instance beauty is also good so as “nous savons que la beauté est une expression de Dieu, et le laid objective est une absence de lui, nous réalisions que nous ne sommes pas parfaits” [49] So God includes completeness and a perfect state, something we do not have as humans, though of course we are in-that-which-is-good (ki-tov), so to say, good enough. And it goes without saying that beauty does not refer to aesthetic beauty here, since ugliness is only a wrong perception and does not exist. So everything that God creates inherits a natural beauty which is an expression of Him. So God also is Beauty Itself. God is the first cause, inherits force, brings forth the good which also inherits a natural beauty and is a perfect Being. As He has an intellect and is grasped through reason, He must reside in the world of ideas, while in our perceptional world, “il n’y existe que sa manifestation” [50]. So everything is a manifestation of god if it is true, while wrong perceptions and mental defilements lead to the creation of lies and also to evil. So until December 2018, I already suggested the nature of God based on a Platonical discourse, but in my own way and own views.

Going back to the question, in which way God stands for the beginning, I have suggested that God does not create ex nihilo. “Le commencement, c’est Dieu. Le Tanach commence avec « bereshit bara elohim » qui est traduit « au commencement Dieu créait », mais ce n’est pas le commencement de toute l’existence, c’est le moment où le point illimité continue sa motion et commence à utiliser son pouvoir pour créer sa création avec les idées qui était toujours là. Tous les rouges viennent d’un seul rouge, une idée, parce qu’on ne peut pas décrire le rouge, mais on doit faire connaissance avec lui pour savoir ce qui est rouge et donc chaque chose participe à l’idée. La première création, la création mentale, est le modèle, le point d’interaction entre Dieu et l’homme. Chaque chose qui nous créons vient de la connaissance, la connaissance vient de l’âme, donc, chaque chose existe déjà comme modèle à l’extérieur. En contraste, les yeux sont subjective – chaque œil voie le rouge différent qu’une autre personne, donc, il n’y a pas de rouge objectif dans ce monde, parce que ce qui est rouge existe comme cela seulement dans notre esprit. Une création donc existe seulement dans notre intellect qui est perçu avec l’âme et qui est en connexion avec Dieu – Dieu est égal à la raison (le logos) et en même temps « le mot ». Tout commence avec le mot : on définit les choses avec les mots. Je dis : « Cela s’appelle un crayon, parce que… » et donc notre monde est une question définitoire et comme cela c’est la réalité. Il y existe une réalité objective de la divinité et une réalité subjective qui se trouve en nous.” [51] So finally I connected the problem that we have a subjective perfection with the fact that there is an ultimate truth which is objective. So God is necessary for that humans can make experiences, but experiences are not divine, not godly, but highly subjective. However, through experiences, we can recognize things, and through speech – more precisely through definition – we can get to the nature of something. That the definition is not enough, but that God must be there as well shows the problem of defining a color. The color does not exist for itself, as it needs to exist on something as an accident, but still we recognize the color as color, so there must be something higher. Speech is not enough here to grasp the nature of the thing.

Despite that, I connected God to beauty and compassion, and we know that there must be something to recognize beauty as beauty which is good, but we do not only recognize it, but we love it, we strive for it, so what is the relation between God and Love? This became a major issue for me in the beginning of 2019. First, “Dieu se trouve dans l’amour pur. Car moi, je suis une image de Dieu et mon partenaire est une image de Dieu, mon image qui se reflète dans mon partenaire est divin aussi, alors quand nous trouvons notre vrai amour, nous trouvons nous-mêmes comme réflexion et font une seule image.” [52] Second, “Dans toutes les grandes religions du monde, l’amour est associé à Dieu : Dieu aime l’amour, pour trouver Dieu on doit comprendre l’amour. Si l’amour est une partie du Beau, il est divin parce que le Beau vient du Divin, mais si Dieu est l’amour, l’amour est aussi la raison, parce que Dieu est la raison.” [53] So one cannot find God without love. This also emphasizes His goodness, as hate, anger or jealousy cannot be of divine quality, as this is opposed to love and if God is love, then nothing which is not love can be made by God. So here I showed arguments for the goodness of God.

So to review our previous arguments again, we can say that we do not have a direct access to reality, so our reality is mostly constructed, but in any way, there must be someone who constructed us, whom we call God. God is not only the first cause but also has intellectual qualities, force, and reason, and through reason we communicate with Him. Therefore, reflection and meditation are means to get in touch with the Divine. Nonetheless, as humans, we stay subjective beings with defilements and we can never claim to have found ultimate truth as we can never become God. So God is reason as a whole, while humans share only a part of it. In the same way, we have identified God with the good and thus reason is good (and He is the universal consciousness), but defilements and the bad appears as result of the disconnection with Him. Furthermore, we can try to find God in nature, because He is the creator of nature and so, the universe and nature, this all is a manifestation of Him. Next, as God is good, positive attributions, such as beauty and love which are good as well, must be from His source: “Dieu est la raison et Dieu est l’amour, et pour cela, si on veut travailler vers l’idéal, on doit comprendre la nature de l’amour qui se révèle dans notre image complété : « Fais-moi entendre dès le matin ta bonté, car en toi j’ai mis ma confiance; fais-moi connaitre le chemin ou j’ai à marcher, car c’est à toi que j’élève mon âme. » (Psaume 143 :8, traduction Darby). »” [54]  Furthermore, His androgynous quality was already pointed out, but what does it mean ?  It means, that sexuality is either a kind of force, consisting of male and female, which is why biological sex is mere fiction, or God is anthropomorphic. Of course, I support the first argument. (“Comme j’ai décrit dans mon dernier article, Dieu est androgyne, parce que chacun – homme et femme – est créé b’tzelem elohim, dans l’image de Dieu. Alors, l’existence de ces deux sexes est seulement possible, parce que Dieu contient ces deux qualités.”) [55] In other words : sexuality is a quality – and it also implies that God is a sexual Being, though he does not need sex, but He is its source. And as God is good and sex comes from Him, it also means that sex is good and that it cannot be sin: “Tous ce que Dieu créait a un τέλος, alors Dieu n’a pas créé des choses qui sont inutiles.” [56] So everything which is made by God is useful in some way and it has a purpose. Only God Himself has no purpose, as there is no reason why God exists, we only have defined reasons why He must exist as certain things would be impossible without Him, but this does not explain why God Himself exists. Furthermore, “Nous ne pouvons pas établir Dieu dans une manière épistémologique, car les idées sur Dieu sont trop différentes. Et cela veut dire : Il n’a pas de cognition objective du Dieu de qui on peut parler » [57]. We already had this problem earlier : there are many different views about God as everyone has his own view. But we also learnt that our reality is highly subjective and so is our view about God, though God exists independently from our views. And since everybody has an own view about God, it does not make sense to try to recognize God. Of course, we know that God must exist, but we cannot imagine exactly what He looks like, or whether He looks like something at all. As such, it is also evident that God does not fully determine us in advance, as we can choose our life as we want to live it and we cannot blame God for our life and our choices, so it is our task what we do with His creation (“Dieu n’est pas de tyranneau qui détermine tout en avance comme il veut pour nous mettre dans un état de souffrir – Dieu nous avons donné le choix de quelle vie nous voulons vivre. Et avec notre choix de vie, c’est à nous de faire le mieux avec la création de Dieu.” [58]). On the other hand, I personified God when I gave Him judgmental qualities in February 2019, something which was not intended in the discourses before, at least not as a willingly judge. The idea of taking a judgmental afterlife view came out of my readings of Plato’s Myth of Er. Indeed, I was well aware that the myth is rather an image, but I was not sure here, whether God can actively rule over others or not, so I did not leave out that option, when I said: “Dieu est le juge, mais il est miséricordieux. On doit faire les fautes pour comprendre la vérité, alors, une âme qui n’a jamais souffert ne peut pas comprendre le Bien si bien qu’une âme qui a souffert et qui était dans un corps qui faisait des fautes (pour apprendre la vérité). Pour cela, la source du bien au monde est le procès d’apprentissage, et la source du mal est l’impéritie. Ceux qui « font » (dans une manière d’une action) peuvent faire les fautes, mais ils peuvent se développer ; ceux qui ne font rien, ne peuvent pas faire les fautes, mais ils restent ignorants et sans philosophie – la philosophie est une expérience.” [59] In this description, one can see, however, that even the judging God in my text can be seen as an image, an image of hope. We all do mistakes, and we even have to do them, so God must be merciful, if he Has a judgmental quality to be a good God. On the other hand, if God is not the judge then who punishes the people who did so many bad things and were never punished during their lifetime? God becomes a moral hope here to put things back into harmony.

Despite that, God is associated with light, and of course course, “Dieu est la lumière divine, la radiation brillante et le pouvoir de Dieu” [60] and therefore “quand Dieu utilise la force, il crée l’essence – il mélange la vitalité et l’intellect” [61]. So one of God’s qualities is light. Everywhere where we expect God, we expect at least light, as without light, nothing can be alive. No flower can grow in the dark or in the shadow of a tree. Of course, there are flowers who adopted to have less light and there are deep-sea animals who live near the heat of volcanos. But light is essentially associated with life. Light also has a positive connotation in another sense, when we talk of enlightenment and illumination of the mind. Despite emphasizing in different ways that God is the creator, I made clear now that creation is a mixture. Things are mixed together and attached to each other and everything is in interrelation. I also made clear earlier (to be precisely, in November 2017) that humans are only God’s trustees and that, as such, we have a special function and a special responsibility: “Dieu créait le monde pour que l’homme protège la création, mais si l’homme détruit la création, on ne doit pas espérer que Dieu va créer un deuxième monde pour nous. Et si on est athée, c’est plus désespéré, parce que qui va créer le deuxième monde où l’homme peut survivre après qu’il a détruit le premier monde ?”[62] This question is essential in another way, because in the way we deal with our ressources recently, we cannot hope to survive for many generations anymore, and if there was no God, we would have no chance to be rescued in any way, not even in a salvation of the righteous. So once again, the moral need of God is stressed beside the factual existence of God as creator who mixes things together with His force and makes it intelligible for us through the intellect – though the reality outside of us remains subjective as pointed out before. Next, I pointed out two new important arguments on my image of God which were not already stated in some way before. At first, I expressed my doubts on an anthropomorphic view on God, as “I think, just because God acts in a similar way than human-beings, as they have the power to ‘create’ (though God has a super power to ‘create’), there is no need at all that God is built like a human. Though from early times, people imagined God to be anthropomorphic, there is no gain for us, if we knew whether he is in essence the same than we are. So this does not contradict that God gave us a minor version of his power and adjusted us in a way that we can use this power.” [63] Second, “There is no obligation that God creates the planet and humans beyond any time. So while we are finite, this does not speak against God’s infiniteness. Because what is time? Time is a moving image of eternity. (Pierre Grimes: Wisdom Literature in the Platonic Tradition: The Lankavatara Sutra – a treatise of self-realization of noble wisdom. Opening Mind Academy, 1998.) Why shall time be dependent on something? If we create time only through regarding dependencies, then time would be a fictional mind-construction that has no empirical existence at all. So God is independent from time and temporal existence.” [64] This shows why a two world conception must be necessary existent, a world of ideas and a perceptional world, as the perceptional world is chained to time and space, God, however, lives besides this, which was pointed out before; but the new thing is that God is free of any obligation. This means, we cannot talk of how God ought to create something, but only how He created it and this keeps my question on the philosophical path as otherwise, we would become theological. I do not need to explain God’s substance or the way what God looks or acts like, what I showed is that He acts and that He has means to act and assumed that with a high certainty that He must be of intellect as intellect does not arise out of pure matter. What did we gain with this argument? We gained the insight that we cannot talk of the image of God as this is besides us and therefore, we cannot assume what God will do or has to do. This is important, because often when we talk about God, people have expectations to Him, whether it is an almightiness or all-knowingness, people expect that God exists in a predictable way, and this is ruled out now. “Humans think that God is a superman, but no one can say so for sure. The reason for this again is too obvious: because God resides in the ideal world, so we cannot reach Him. So maybe we create a God in our mind, and thus, the God we create in mind is not God, but that does not mean that God cannot exist in any other way, since God is a question of definition. […] God is the beginning, the unknown, the creator (whether knowingly or unknowingly), but with this definition, no one can reasonably reject God, since there was a beginning: the first cause. And this first cause caused everything and made, connected and provided through force. In this broad sense, God must exist necessarily. Something we cannot prove, but which seems obvious is the intelligent design, since the complex ‘becoming’ of everything can hardly be simplified in an easy sense, such as the evolutionary theory tries to teach us. Things are way more complex and they also match too well to each other (even if the world is not hundred percent perfect, but no one said that God necessarily has to be all-powerful). So we can see, we cannot get rid of religion without getting into a vacuum.” [65]

And since He cannot be easily gasped straightforward, people at first project their kind of being in a higher position, in other words: if a cat imagined God, He would have the form of a cat. And tough this “is the easiest way to make Him graspable, […] yet this seems to be the most unlikely case. On the other hand, it is not totally unlike as such as man is created in His image” [66] if we believe in the Bible. However, “[w]hile religious believers take this as a literal fact and do not further question it, the philosopher asks ‘What does this actually tell us? […]’.  We do not take things for granted but seek for pros and cons and we do everything according to our reason. We do not say ‘This is so!’. We ask ‘Why is this so? Is it really so?’ Some people neglect their reason saying: ‘God said so, so even if it seems differently, I trust more in my scripture’ The philosopher acts exactly in the opposite way. He can affirm or negate God, but all of this only on a reasonable ground.” [67] As such, of course, the Biblical stories do not really reveal the nature of God literally, but can be seen as myths, which try to give this abstract Being a voice. Nonetheless, “[a]s mentioned before, language is arbitrarily, therefore God is defined through how we define God. However, as an intelligible, God’s existence is a priori, but that we name Him ‘God’ in our language is humanly made. In the same way, the value that we give Him is humanly made. God is not likeable or hateable in nature.” [68] This is an important new point that I made here. People who hate talking about God might have an aversion to the issue, but this does not make God a bad Being or a taboo. It is the human who gives God a bad value – or even a good value. But though God is good, He is just there and there is neither an attribute to like Him nor to hate Him. Religion might make Him a miraculous Being, but is He really a miracle?

Again, we need to sum up our findings, because in late 2019, there would be a new cut in my thoughts, so we need to be aware of my findings up to summer 2019: At first, it was pointed out that God is the first cause and as such a creator. We can give Him positive attributes such as love and beauty, as He is of good nature. He uses His forces to create and has an intellect. To be more precisely: God is reason as a whole. Furthermore, He is necessary for humans to make experiences and everything He creates has a use in some sense, though of course, through misattributing the Good, humans can do bad things with God’s creation. Finally, we can say that “God is in everything, and everything goes back to the One. The key to God is oneness” [69] and as “God is too universal[, He cannot] be a mind creation of a few people” [70]. If we ask where God resides, He must exist beyond space and time as otherwise God would be limited and if He disappeared, His creation would disappear as well. Therefore, we must necessarily take a two world image as ground, and the forces as mediation between the ideal world and the perceptional world.

So this was my view about God, but when I got in touch with quantum physics, certain new questions arose. Leo Koguan argues that “Historically, the God of Pythagoras, Plato, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha is living outside of space and time. Similarly, the God of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Thermodynamics, Maxwell, Einstein and Quantum Mechanics is the timeless God living outside of known space and time. On the other hand, the God of Fu Xi, Xuan Yuan and Wang Yangming is in our space and time. Similarly, KQID puts our Dao-God-Founder-Creator-Ancestor inside the KQID Ouroboros Equations of Dao within 3D time (space) in time. Our Ancestor is no longer existing outside of space and time, but our Ancestor Qbit is space (3D time) in time.” [71] And of course, I asked myself, is this really true? Did I not recognize that God as our ancestor cannot be infinite on the time scale and thus is also bounded to laws? Indeed, this statement made me reconsider the whole issue – and my view on God. Indeed, we also already find such a view in Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals, where he claimed that God in fact is more or less a kind of ancestor worshipping. The ancestors of the upper castes fought for keeping up the caste and therefore, one has to be thankful to them for their merit, but “as more one tries to go back into the genealogy tree as more abstract they become for us and there might be a point where any graspability vanishes. As such, the Ancestors become God” [72]. The lower classes on the contrary have to deal with miseries, and for them, God is the only hope, He represents salvation from desperate being. The only one who understands both points of views is the priest. He can satisfy both, the upper and lower class, while at the same time, he can have an independent knowledge and get into a prestige position for reasoning. [73] “Nietzsche showed that the Christian God becomes ridiculous and dogmatic in history and through the understanding of the Christian God, he becomes obsolete in the 20th century – however, this does not make God in general obsolete. But as we can clearly understand: If the ancestors become god-like and finally are identified with God, then God exists in space and time.” [74] However, if He really is the creator, He must exist before the creation, as otherwise He did not create it. And furthermore, we already explained the problem that “if God is dependent on time, then He might disappear at any moment when His time runs out.” [75] So He necessarily must reside in a world beyond us, to be able to combine the ideas, as “if he was finite, he would disappear and with His disappearance, the whole world disappeared as well, from one second to the other.” [76]

Leo further argues: “The Qbit is everything and everything is the Qbit. The Qbit is all that is. The Qbit is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere to be found. The Qbit is the cloud of Existence.” [77] The first problem here is that if this Qbit was eternal, then how could it exist in space and time? Especially if it is “is our non-local one and only singularity Qbit Multiverse and it is a virtual null point on null geodesics devoid of space, time”, as he claims [78]. This clearly contradicts that God is in space and time and therefore, we must again take the two world conception, as everything in this universe, even in multiverse is conditioned to space and time as it can be found there at a certain time and it can be located. Leo imagines the Qbit to work like the Dao. Out of the Dao, everything merges and everything is existing within it. “The Qbit is Existence. The Qbit has a beginning but without an ending. It was, is and will be here and there, now and then. It is everywhere but nowhere. It is a local as well as a non-local phenomenon. It is finite as well as infinite. It is one as well as all. In other words, the Qbit is Cantor’s absolute infinity.” [79] If we assumed this to be true, then there would be a shift in paradigm. Nonetheless, if the Qbit is infinite as assumed above, this speaks again against a God in a space-time paradigm as “it has no ending and all finite things must have an ending. Of course, it is clear why there cannot be an ending as such, as I pointed out previously: if God (and His connector) exist in time, they might vanish in any second and with that the whole universe – or even the multiverses, if God resides in the multiverses. The qbit however as proposed by Leo is the ‘center of our Multiverse’.” [80] This leaves us in a troubling situation, as God cannot be both, finite and infinite if we do not want to harm the Law of Non-Contradiction. “To understand Leo in a better way, it is helpful to understand the Chinese world outlook in general, especially that of Daoism. The Dao encompasses everything and is the source of everything. Chapters one and four of the Daodejing clearly show the problem: On the one hand, the Dao must be pre-existent from us, thus transcendental, on the other hand, everything is part of the Dao and thus all is in the one (panenhenic). Therefore, it must be immanent at the same time. But when everything is in the Dao, the Dao must be full. Chapter 4 paradoxically claims the opposite: the Dao is empty, but when using it, it cannot be used up (道沖,而用之或不盈). The traditional Chinese call this wuji and taiji, the Dao which emanates no force and the Dao which emanates all force. So the Dao can inherit nothing and everything – 0 and 1. The Dao is not 0 or 1, but always moves in between these two extremes, something the Greeks called metaxy. It appears in Plato’s Symposion as ‘something in-between’ and was later picked up by Aristotle. Thus, wuji contains the potential to become but is itself neither of matter nor of form and can be compared to Buddhist shunyata and the Jewish idea of God as a light point that cannot be further described (ein sof), such as given account in the Zohar.” [81] However, this μεταξύ in Asian thought cannot be imagined like two extremes in which it is moving in between, but it is rather cyclic, and thus means, it always reappears to the point after a certain time, “[s]ame as autumn is followed by winter, life has its cycle: we all are born young and one day we are old, no one is spared. So according to Daoism, the Daoist nature is not volatile, but follows its laws. In the same way, medieval Jewish sources give account of cyclic existence, such as the two opposites of good and bad, which are actually not standing next to each other, but one might go into the other […] Or in other words : two seemingly opposite things might appear opposite to us, but are actually just two sides of the same coin. In Physics, the phenomena of quantum entanglement is a big issue”. [82] The clear problem that we can see in this cyclic view is that one might even assume that God is determined by these laws, as everything must necessarily return in this way. In other words, there might be the possibility that God cannot interfere into winter and say that it shall become summer right now. On the other hand, there is no need why God shall interfere in this cycle, because He has no obligation. Thus, there is the possibility that God either has to subdue to the law or not, but we neither have an argument for the one nor for the other proposition. Thus, we cannot say here, whether God is determined to any law or not, but if He is determined, then He suddenly has obligations, since He cannot act freely (anymore). But what we can say through Platonism and Neo-Confucianism alike is that “taiji contains the two forces which produce the emanation of everything” [83] and according to “Zhuxi, taiji equals li (理), the principle of reason, as everything which exists shares part of li (which is extremely comparable to Plato’s ‘the same’) and the sum of all reason is taiji – everything, and thus all reason (li altogether)” making reason the Highest principle [84]. Here, Platonism, Judaism, Christianity, Daoism and Neo-Confucianism come together: in the beginning was the λόγος which was God, and out of it, everything was created, as John 1:2 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”(KJV) Chapter 1 of the Daodejing confirms this. God is reason and everything made out of God contains a part of His nature, and thus, though not every Being has the possibility to inhere reason for its actions, there is a likeness out of the reasonable image, the idea. The likeness of the idea is on a higher stage. And those Beings who inherit reason, namely human-beings, have an access to the Divine, since the reasoned soul part is part of the ultimate reason, as Judaism already made clear in Genesis 1:27, when God created man in His likeness. This actually means, God created man with reason, the λόγος or 理, and thus all λόγος or 理 altogether is God.

Next, I proposed existence mathematically by taking Cantor into consideration. When we have a set, it is, of course, part of a power set, which has items not included in the subset. The power set itself also has a power set, as there are left-overs which were not included in the initial power set. In other words, every existence cannot exist for itself, because it is part of a bigger existence. Every item itself is not simple existence, but complex existence; and simple existence is too small to be perceivable for us anyways. So simple things go together to more complex things; these complex things go together to build even more complex things. A house consists of walls; a wall consists of a brick; the brick consists of conjointed material, like mud; the mud itself consists of even simpler matter, etc. In the same way, we can imagine the sets. For instance, we can take the set of natural numbers of which the power set must be bigger. The power set of the power set of the set of naturals must be bigger again and the union contains all the naturals, thus aleph 0. The power set of the union thus must be bigger than aleph 0. [85] Cantor further proved that any enumerable infinity has the same size, but the real numbers (algebraic + transcendentals) are not enumerable, and their infinity is much bigger in size thanks to the transcendentals, so there are different kinds of infinity [86]. Furthermore, “there must be an extension of infinity which Cantor called the absolute infinite – the absolute for Cantor, however, is a manifestation of God, therefore the Absolute Infinite is undoubtedly linked to God. Just for the sake of completeness, the absolute represents God in many civilizations. God in Anselmian thought is the highest, which can be thought, therefore an absolute being in accordance with theology. In Daoism, the highest being is the Dao which is absolute as it contains everything and everything emanates from this principle. Leibniz later took this and spoke of monads. We know that there is no vacuum on earth and everything is connected and in the same way, everything is connected to the Dao somehow. So Leibniz took the monad as smallest entity which is the most simplest thing and as such divinely as it comes from The One and as such is a direct part of divinity, so everything is a total sum of the divine. And therefore, everything is in interaction, everything is alive!” [87]

So God is not only the creator, but also absoluteness (absolute infinity). He is just there and everything belongs to Him as there is nothing greater. He is in everything and everything goes back to Him. Therefore, everything is a manifestation of Him. This still does not contradict a multiple world conception, since our world might be in a lower set, and we have no access to the higher set of being. On the other hand, not every set is a world for itself. The attribute for flower takes up the set flower which itself is part of the set for living things. Living things and flowers, however, do not exist in different worlds. At least, there must be two worlds, the ideal and the perceptional, but the question of whether there could be a third one must be postponed. What we can see instead is that the world can be classified, but that the whole world itself is just another class and that there is something above which is divine. Now we have to keep in mind that for Leo, “our creator is Q, while Qbit is the cloud. Or to put it in other terms: monads are still too big, we need a smaller entity, which is more flexible […] just because we do not think of something right now, it does not mean that we forgot it. Instead, it is saved in our brain and when we need it, it is transferred from our long-term memory to the working memory. In the same way, Leo seemingly sees the possibility that something is not inexistent, because it is not there right at the moment, it is just saved in the cloud and might be reactivated later.” [88] So everything which is intelligible is necessarily true, even if we cannot perceive it consciously right at the moment. In other words: Just because we are not aware that everything is God’s creation, it does not mean that God did not create it. In the same way, all kind of possible existence exists in the ideal world, but it does not necessarily manifest itself right now in the perceptional world. This means that “just because we are not connected to something here in this world, it does not mean that it is inexistent.” [89]

But what is clear is that the perceptional world is always incomplete, while the ideal world is complete and contains everything. We can see the same thing in set theory: “The reason why the set is smaller than the power set is the leftover in the power set which cannot be attributed to the set. As such, the power set is bigger and the set is incomplete if we ask whether it contains everything. The power set, however, is incomplete as well if we look at the power set of the power set. Therefore, the absolute infinite must be a number bigger than any conceivable or inconceivable quantity.” [90] In the same way, the Platonical creation is only a manifestation, because “if it was complete, it would be directly the thing Itself. […]We know that God must exist, but we do not know how He exists and in which way. The Platonic Theory of Forms (and form means idea) explains why we recognize things as they are and that there must be a common ground for knowledge. As things always share properties, there must be a thing in an ideal version and this ideal must be created by God, who does not exist in accordance to any revelation, but only in accordance to reason. Thus, reason turns over revelation, and this is why we call it philosophy.”[91] And this is the actual deal about God! We can never attribute a thing to God which tells us how He looks like. We have attributed certain qualities to Him, because we have accessed them through reason, and therefore they are divine qualities. But besides reason and intellect (and the forces, of course), we have no form of God, and so we cannot say whether He is all-knowing or merciful. The social component of God clearly gets weakened here, because we cannot say for sure anymore, if God really is a moral judge. We even have not fully ruled out that God is subdued to laws Himself.

Quantums are extremely small and if monads are still “too big”, then why shall not smallest particles which can be imagined like these quantum bits exist in the universe? Especially since quantum entanglement shows that there must be a way in which they communicate with each other and this does not function, if they do not have a network, but exist in an environment of empty, dead matter. “Quantum entanglement is one of the quirkiest facets of quantum physics where two particles are inextricably tied-up to one another regardless of their distance in time and space. These two entangled particles can exchange information between them as if they have a clandestine network of communication and they do so instantaneously […] Quantum entanglement is not just another conjectural hooey as many people would have thought. In fact, physicists have confirmed it in real world experiments. Two particles entangled in a superposition state maintained a sort of inexplicable relationship with each other, that is when one particles spins clockwise, the other spins the other way even when there’s not a whit of possibility for information to pass from one particle to the other dictating which way to spin. Entanglement is the heart of quantum information science. If we could somehow exploit this property and apply in our macroscopic world, it would indubitably open up a whole new dimension of applications which we don’t yet understand” [92] I do not have a profound knowledge of physics, but seemingly even physicists still have problems to understand the full dimension of quantums. This means, that quantum physics, no matter how it will develop in the future, gives a new way of grasping the world and the way in which the world is ordered. Mitch Teemley points out that “96% of the universe is un-observable and is not technically ‘there.’ I was told in my high school physics class that a spaceship leaving Earth would go through millions of miles (or more) of ‘nothing’ to get to ‘something.’ We now have names for that ‘nothing’—antimatter, dark matter, dark energy—but we still don’t know what it is. Or even if it is. The 4% of the universe that can be observed, […] is mostly studied by observing its after-effects which, according to quantum theory, mysteriously change when they are observed. According to quantum mechanics: Matter is not really ‘there,’ it is simply energy, and energy is made up of undulations of invisible particles.” [93] And this again is the point. We know a lot about the world through measuring. We can measure how energy levels change: an electron, for instance, can change its energy level by emitting or absorbing a photon. However, no one has really ever seen an electron with one’s own eyes. That is how small they are. Because of that, Teemley says that we rather live in an interpretation of reality instead of reality itself. That this must be true was already shown before. What we can take out of this information is that we do not really fully understand the universe and that we do have lots of information about the world through measuring with instruments. Even our sensory organs are instruments. And yet, even though we do not fully understand the creation, we dare to judge about God. This is the thing which always astonishes me about Atheists. One takes a super super-simplified model about the world and one dares to say that it is just “there”, when we simply do not know at all what is “there”. Now can we even dare to say that God is “just there” if we cannot even say that the world and universe is “there”? Do we have to become nihilists and reject to give any answers anymore? No, of course we can make assumptions, but same then we make assumptions about God and do not know a lot about him for sure, except that He exists and thus must be “there” in some way, so we do not know much about the universe itself. Here, I want to strengthen my point, by making clear that ridiculing believers in God makes no sense, because those who reject God cannot explain everything properly as well, and instead they use simplified models about the cosmos and its law, a kind of ideal. And so do I, when I talk about God, I search for a model about God. If I cannot understand the whole cosmos then how can I understand God? But believing in God does not make me a stupid moron. This is the very point here: same than others develop a model, I cannot find the full truth about God, but I try to draw a model which simplifies. One of the conclusions is that the universe is no dead matter which turns in an empty space, but that there must be indeed a kind of extremely fine substance which connects everything, whether it is a qubit or a monad. Therefore, the universe is like a network and maybe one day, we will be able to measure these smallest particles.

I also want to bring in a point by Cocks who wrote that “The best and most famous physicists of the twentieth century were by definition superlatively imaginative and creative individuals. The theories they espoused were about a mechanistic and deterministic world. But the source of their inspired theories was neither of those things. Spirit exists in the sphere of subjectivity, allowing free agents to intervene in the objective world of things. Human beings, and other sentient creatures, are not objects and they are not things. They have an objective aspect but what makes them special and significant is their interior – cut off from and invisible to the world of science. […] At the most, some objects in the world are symbols and indirect evidence of spiritual reality. A painting points to imagination and creativity, and so do the laws of physics considered as divulged by the human mind. The painting as an object, and the laws of physics as laws, however, are just parts of objective reality. […]Many of the great twentieth century physicists wrote books for the general public, but they did not claim that physics had religious implications. What they wrote was that there is so much more to reality than physics can possibly touch on. They were encouraging people not to become so impressed with the objective sciences that they come to ignore what the objective sciences omit.” [94] However, Cocks also states clearly that “Berdyaev goes so far as to say that God is not the creator of the physical universe. God is spirit and has nothing really to do with the physical. God is not to be found in war, violence, nor in deterministic processes. God is there in imagination, intuition, creativity, love, and freedom.” [95]

The great scientists were not God-less, they had a belief in God and as such the imagination to think beyond. Scientism, by far, was not atheist in the past – but it was always critical of churches. The scientist does not trust into the words of a church institution and its doctrine, but finding knowledge and truths without creativity and imagination is impossible. And so, it was the belief in God beyond a church institution which made them so successful, because they had the mission to understand God’s creation, they wanted to unveil God’s mysteries. Einstein was of Jewish faith and influenced by Spinoza and Newton, but nonetheless also knew the thesis of Hume. Maxwell was educated very conservatively, including an intensive Bible study and dedicated his studies to natural and moral philosophies. Isaac Newton was already known by his contemporaries for his writings of theological nature. He was Christian, but his postulations were not accepted in the mainstream discourses of the Church and some saw a heretic in him. Nonetheless, he was extremely influential. Max Planck was a Protestant, who emphasized on the belief in God, but appealed for tolerance. Furthermore, he criticized Atheism. Thus, he turned against dogmatism from both sides, the church and the anti-believers. Bernhard Riemann was the son of a Protestant priest and a dedicated Christian himself. André-Marie Ampère was a Christian who took refuge in prayer and Bible study in hard times. It is reported that he was very religious and used to write down any ideas which came into his mind which led to his great discoveries, rather than working systematically. Leonhard Euler was a Christian who had – like most scientists which were mentioned above – his own spiritual thoughts apart from the Church, but was inspired by the Bible and had strong metaphysical beliefs.  Therefore, I want to emphasize that the belief in God is not anti-scientific, as long as it is not dogmatic, but critical towards innovations. Furthermore, religions which persecute people who think beyond the scale are problematic, but religion and God have to be separated. God is an important object of philosophy and as such of scientific interest. However, “Movements like theosophy are mistakes. They take religious topics and examine them in a science-like manner, where the supernatural lies on top of the natural. Heaven is just another dimension of objective reality. But spiritual reality is not superadded to physical reality. Post-rational consciousness is not on top of rational consciousness. The spiritual is mysterious and interior. Human beings can become overwhelmed by the world of objects and lose faith in anything else. Religious movements that seek to describe spiritual realities objectively just contribute to man’s alienation from his spiritual nature.” [96]

Taking the set theory in consideration as a simplified model to explain the world, I supposed in September 2019 that “[t]he world acts like […] sets. For instance, x might be an element in set A, but at the same time also might be found in the subset B. As such, it is already an element in two sets and possibly y and z equal x, which means that both must instantiate the same, because how can they be equivalent through the ‘is’-term (=) if y+z = x is not true? If y+z = x and it is true, then we have a tautology x = x. In other words, the world is created through elements like water and earth which in itself are not the basic elements, but consist of other elements inside, which then consist of particles and we can do this up to the smallest particle that is inside. And since we do not live in a vacuum, like Leibniz’ monads propose, these particles must be everywhere and the whole universe is alive as everything is in motion! We are connected with everything which goes back to one.” [97] This goes clearly together with what was just said before. As such, at this point, I still could not answer “the question where God can be found as both theories [immanent God/ transcendental God] have a point.” [98] On the one hand, the things that appear in the world are conditioned to space and time and they are manifestations from the ideal. How can they exist, if the ideal has no idea about space and time? On the other hand, the ideal cannot exist within space and time, as otherwise the idea of the ideal would collapse. Nonetheless, “Spinoza already made clear, [that] the infinite can be found in the finite as well, so the finite world can have a share with the infinite. We also saw clearly that the Daoist dualisms are no true dualisms as they can get into a superposition.” [99] But all this only assures us that there is a God of whom we cannot know anything, except the already acknowledged points of an acting force, intellect and first cause. In contrast to what was said before, this seems not pretty much at all. Again, we seemingly do not get rid of the placeholder function, as the nature of God itself and the possibilities in which He can act can not be found by humans. Nonetheless, there must be a beginning, a first cause, this is fact. The intellect qualities must arose out of other intellectual qualities, so there is a fist intellect, which most likely is identical with the first cause. Seemingly, this first cause made everything for good and His creation cannot be a coincidence. We know that if the Earth was just a little more placed different in the universe then life would be impossible. Due to the tilted 23.5 degree of the earth axis, we can have four seasons. Just a few degrees difference would make it impossible. And all this shall be mere coincidence? People lost touch for the wonders, that life is a wonder, love is a wonder, nature is a wonder. So it must be a manifestation of God. Nevertheless, as Cock pointed out correctly “Plato recognized thousands of years ago that we are far more than a thin rationality. The question of God’s existence is an existential point involving faith and hope, and the heart. It would be surprising if anyone at all has to come to believe in God because of purely intellectual arguments. And even if they did, the resulting belief would be thin, anemic and worthless. It would be a conviction of the head and not the chest.” [100]

Both, faith and hope, are essential for human-beings to survive. If we want to take away people’s faith, then God loses its social function which we appreciated before. It is worth to mention that “Xunzi […] made clear that man alone decides what is good and evil which means that we cannot rely on God. But I think this is highly problematic as there is an objective absoluteness (God), however, as human-beings are subjective in thinking, they indeed decide on their own what they regard to be good and bad. Again, all goods and bads and all ideals […] are subjective qualities, and as they are not objective, we shall respect that others choose another path.” [101] This is so important to mention, because when people hear that God is good, one quickly hears the counter-argument that there is so much evil in the world. I gave a lot of counter-points on this, but Hayes sums it up the best way, when she says that evil is a moral and not a metaphysical reality. [102] Next, we have to deal with the ancestor-God relation. Leo assumes that Xuan Yuan is the common ancestor [103]. But “[i]f Xuan Yuan is the ancestor, and ancestor is God, then Xuan Yuan necessarily must be the common ancestor of all people in the world. Thus, one cannot only restrict it to the group of Chinese (which Leo also points out when he talks of Xuan Yuan’s Dao inclusiveness). Furthermore, if Xuan Yuan [was] only the ancestor of the Chinese, then how [would] all other humans exist? This presumes a polytheistic system, but the Daoist principle is monist. Leo proposes a Creator-God-Dao worldview through ancestry, and as such, this means that all humans are one family – they have one ancestor or a common ancestor that evolved out of the Dao.” [104] So we have to be aware that God created all of us, and that any exclusion therefore is inacceptable. The human race is one family. Of course, nonetheless, we have to question whether this common ancestor was really Xuan Yuan, but all nations have their mythical founder, often in form of a semi-divine king or a chosen person. So we can adopt this concept generally without the need to identify who the actual common ancestor was.

Next, we should see my point on divine law and its connection to the divine. As I stated: “As the nature as we perceive it is not eternal, while a divine being might be, divine law must not be part of natural law, but natural law is a creation by the divine. Thus, the way in which nature works does not have to be the same in which humans work. If natural law was identical to divine law, then animals opened courts to punish for stealing and killing. Divine law thus is only revealed to humans, not to nature. Divine law and natural law exist separately. The latter is created by the divine and acts in itself. And humans have to guard the nature.” [105] Thus, divine law comes directly from the divine and is part of the divine, natural law is (just) created by the divine.

Therefore, we have to ask, what exactly is nature in this context? “In East Asian philosophy, there is the account of an all-encompassing world soul. Hindus think that each human shares a part of this ultimate soul. In Neo-Confucianism, reason (li) derives from the ultimate existence (taiji) which evolves out of the all-encompassing Dao. This is why Neo-Confucianism is called Lixue (理学 – the school of reason) in China. So to say, if everything shares part of li, then ultimate existence must be the sum of all li, and li evolves out of the Dao. We also know that everything exists for good  […].” [106] So nature itself is good as it is just there. However, it goes back to the creator as first cause, and therefore must be created by the creator. In Asian philosophy, nature is a direct expression of the divine. In European thought, nature itself is not divine but created by the divine. Among the Bantus in Congo and Ruanda (here given as example of African thought, though of course there are plenty of different African thoughts), life is expressed through force and therefore, as more force it inherits, as more lively it is (Tempels!).

So to recall, God is the absolute and as such there is nothing greater, while our planet is an extremely small spot. We know that nothing can exist for itself and that everything is in interaction and interrelation and finally, everything goes back to God and is His manifestation, though it can only be a real existence if it is good. God does not exist in accordance to any revelation, but only to reason. However, the social components were weakened, as we do not really know anything about God for sure, concerning the question whether He is the judge or a moral authority, but as human-beings (as small as we are!), we do hope so. Nonetheless, we only have a very, very limited knowledge about the universe, and so God must be so much bigger that it makes no sense to ridicule people who believe in Him, because in some way, He must be there. And we already proposed such a way in which He must exist at least. Anyways, this is of course just a simplified model. What I wanted to emphasize is that the belief in God is not anti-scientific, as long as it is not dogmatic and as long as the scientist does not feel a stronger contribution to a church institution and to its faith, than to His findings. Nonetheless, God is not the result of a scientific finding, but of faith. Therefore, the social component gets reinforced again here. Without God, there is no hope and the belief in God is an important key for people to endure the hardships in this world. Nevertheless, God and religion have to be separated. We have acknowledged furthermore that God is the first cause and the first intellect. He receives positive attributions, as evil is not a metaphysical reality but a moral reality instead. Finally, we have admitted that God is the objective reality, but that we only have a subjective reality which cannot grasp the objective reality. Reality is subdued to reason and as we have a limited reason, we have only a limited access to truth. And to be able to grasp this limited part of the ultimate reason in the best way as we can, “people must actively clean their souls from defilements […]. In a world of so many influences and so many distractions that one has to deal with every day, this purification process is more necessary than ever before. Only in this way, Dasein can grasp why it is there – that it is a little spot in a big universe (probably even multiverse as Leo showed) and that it is up to us, how we treat the world, but also how we treat the society. The divine nature is within everyone through the soul and a clean mind can realize more reality than a defiled soul. Therefore, everyone can use the clean mind to push forward the spirit.” [107] And though “God is the source of all goodness […] [,] disconnecting from God causes all the sufferance. The bad character of humans is necessarily existent, because humans cannot absorb the Good Itself and therefore can never be wholly good and some lack the good a lot, though they have the basic intuition of goodness (and thus a basic goodness). If this basic intuition did not exist, laws would be impossible, because laws require the consent that one can act according to them, and this means that people can adopt consciously (for good).” [108] So without God, any kind of law would be impossible. The whole idea of community goes indirectly back to God. When people first agreed on rules, they spoke of divine law, a kind of law no human should even dare to break. So without the postulation of God, society destroyed itself from the first stages. That God is necessary for forming a community is evident, because we identified Him with the good, and communities can only be uphold if they observe the Good. If there was no God, people would strive only for their own egocentric interest without caring about others, but through enacted an image of God on the society, people learned – though it happened through scaring them – to respect others. Thus, God taught self-sacrifice: “It is postponing one’s own interests and also considering the interests of others. It is letting the ego go, which strives for goods which are mainly good for oneself. But who says that these goods are objectively really good? If we take the interests of others into consideration, we can also see their ideas of good and we can reflect on the different stances, in search for moderate action. Since our actions can turn out bad, but we want the outcome to be good actually, so we try the best outcome by reflecting different positions, instead of only insisting on the ours. This way, we emphasize on the community.” [109] So none of the early communities survived, if they did not propose a divine law that no human shall ever disrespect. Only through enforcing this respect, people could get to a moral code which smashed the wolfdom of ultimate individualism that causes le chaos du monde as it is beyond any Complete Freedom. So God’s social quality gets strengthened even more here, but of course, this was a social reality, not a metaphysical one. So God exists as social factor to keep the societal unity and as metaphysical reality as creator. So when I said in November 2019 that God is good, but that “everything further is beyond reason and only accessible through experience” [110], it was a stupid, though not wrong proposition. We know the qualities of God, because we have experienced them, but through reason. All other kind of experience is not reason, as experience and reason actually are opposites: reason is what we know, and experience is what we encounter subjectively. The quirky thing is that indeed, I was right when I said that God is experience, as we have to encounter God. But this is when we break through the realm of subjectivity and objectivity, which we call enlightenment. We feel something which normally can only be perceived through reason. Breaking down this border is illumination. Nonetheless, God Himself is reason and not experience Itself. But his attributes, such as love, can be experienced. So we can say that “as a society we always interact and therefore not everything can always depend on us. Through making this unity, we lose some control. In the same way, this appears when we make a wholesome unity, a unity with God. We are in His hands, but still He steps back and gives us room to act. Indeed, this is something we cannot discuss about in detail, because it is beyond reason as we have to feel it, experience it.” [111]

So theoretically, it might be possible, that there was a qubit of an extremely small size in the beginning which is the very first cause we call God. According to Leo “In the beginning is Dao/LOVE/Qbit and in the ending is still Dao/LOVE/Qbit as well as all in between, and therefore, the unity of all things in Dao/LOVE/Qbit.” [112] The problem is that the qbit exists in space and time and so it seems that it is just an agent itself, as we have shown through the two-realm-conception of immanent and transcendental realm. As if everything started with the Qbit itself, the whole universe would be torn apart, as soon as the Qbit falls apart in itself. But of course one Qbit would not be enough, but we would be surrounded by so many of them, that the world would constantly be in ‘pressure’, as they change position in any second or faster. We would, therefore, actually live in a severe chaos of becoming and ceasing. A scary idea, though Buddhism does teach the same. Moreover, as far as I know, the qbit is an extremely fragile composition and it is very difficult to store information in it for too long. After taking all these things into consideration, I decided to leave the ideas of the qbit apart, simply because I have no real knowledge about quantum mechanics and I better do not judge about things of which I do not have any knowledge. But as an existence in space and time, I propose for now, that the qubit is rather an agent, thus, something which comes after the first and therefore is not perfect in itself.  Next, I suggested that these realms are “actually just higher power sets. As such, life is nothing but a category which is defined through sets which then can be put in power sets.” [113] The problem here, of course, is that set theory is just a formal language. On our task, we can say it is just a tool for epistemology: we recognized that two things share the same properties and do belong together somehow. However, this classification is humanly made and therefore, just a means for help, but not a natural state. So seemingly, the world works like sets, but cannot exist as sets itself.

So as a conclusion we can say that God is the first cause and first intellect as He is absolute reason and absoluteness as a whole. Therefore, He must inherit force to create. We have shown that God must be good and He brought forth things in whatever manner in that-which-is-good-in-itself. There is no reason why we shall call nature an evil, as evil is not a metaphysical reality. After God finished His creation, He caused an autopoiesis to start in which man recreates Himself in a kind of evolutionary process. As a connector of everything, He uses monad-like particles, though I decided not to further identify them, due to my lack of profound knowledge in the area of physics. Concerning creation, when I pointed out in articles that I defend a form of creationism, of course, I did not refer to the religious fundamentalist form, but only to an Intelligent Design. I just made clear that in its early stages, the evolutionary theory has gaps, and therefore there must be a creation in advance in form of an Intelligent Design, which puts everything into order, while after that, this designer starts the evolution. So I never doubted science and never took any pseudoscientific stances. This is very important. I never doubted that the earth is billions of years old and that everything developed. But of course I asked that even if life came somewhere from the universe (through an asteroid) on the earth, who created that life on the asteroid? I also referred to other gaps, but as I pointed out, these are only gaps in their early stages, which makes the evolution as ultimate theory impossible, but of course, the theory is at least partially correct, i.e. after creation we encounter an autopoietic evolution.

So we finally have to separate religion and God and have to admit that God is God without necessity of giving Him a religious denomination as ground, as if this was the case, then there would be the one true religion. But everyone can have a connection with God, whatever religion one might adhere to – if at all – and therefore, there is not the one ultimate true religion. Furthermore, natural law was created by the divine which regulates nature, while the divine law was only revealed to humans, and therefore does not equal natural law. As everything is in relation, nothing exists for itself, and as only God is complete, everything else must be incomplete, as it is only a manifestation of His ideal. In the end, I pointed out that God is the reason why we can build communities and live in a peaceful society, we are many who make a one in community, same as the world is build out of many and makes a one in God who is the source, and therefore, living in communities to civilize and socialize is an expression of the divine, if reason won over the desires. Finally, God is light and experiencing his nature is an enlightenment; while in complete ultimate darkness God cannot be found.



[1] Timo Schmitz: The liveliness of the universe from a philosophical perspective (12 March 2017). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[2] Timo Schmitz: Argumentative Analogy versus Figurative Analogy (19 May 2017). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[3] Timo Schmitz: The dilemma of natural law in an organised society (8 June 2017). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[4] Timo Schmitz: The human nature in the face of God (10 June 2017). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[5] ibid.

[6] ibid.

[7] Timo Schmitz: A short summary of my own philosophy: the New Constructivist Communism (8 August 2018). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[8] Timo Schmitz: General terms and existence (31 August 2017). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[9] Schmitz, 10 June 2017 [2019].

[10] Timo Schmitz: The New Constructivist Communism in Short, Part 2: The Nature of God (8 November 2017). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[11] ibid.

[12] Timo Schmitz: The Self-Reflecting State. Berlin: epubli, 2019[a].

[13] ibid.

[14] Schmitz, 8 November 2017 [2019].

[15] Timo Schmitz: The New Constructivist Communism in Short, Part 3: Is it really a man’s world? (10 November 2017). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[16] Timo Schmitz: If God exists, then He exists through you (10 February 2018). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[17] ibid.

[18] Timo Schmitz: Causing the first cause: The creation of such a perfect world shall be the result of many accidents? (21 April 2018). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[19] Schmitz, 2019a.

[20] Schmitz, 21 April 2018 [2019].

[21] Timo Schmitz: On the unity with God (11 May 2018). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[22] Timo Schmitz: The ten sefirot and the Jewish tree of life concept, Part 1 (1 June 2018). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[23] ibid.

[24] Timo Schmitz: The Industrial Nations as Least Developed Countries? (10 June 2018). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[25] ibid.

[26] Timo Schmitz : Relation et Formation: Rien n’existe indépendant dans ce monde. 14 August 2018.

[27] ibid.

[28] Timo Schmitz: La République et l’âme tripartite chez Platon : Découvrir le Bien. 16 August 2019.

[29] Timo Schmitz: The Creation and the relation to the Creator in a nutshell (29 August 2018). In: Timo Schmitz: Collected Online Articles in English Language, 2017-2018. Berlin: epubli, 2019.

[30] ibid.

[31] ibid.

[32] ibid.

[33] ibid.

[34] Timo Schmitz: La religion – est-t-elle un fantasme?. 23 August 2018.

[35] Timo Schmitz: La purification du cœur – un discours de l’Islam. 28 August 2018.

[36] Timo Schmitz: Le besoin d’une purification de l’âme. 25 August 2018.

[37] Schmitz, 28 August 2018.

[38] ibid.

[39] ibid.

[40] ibid.

[41] ibid.

[42] Timo Schmitz : La méditation comme contemplation du Divin en nous. 7 September 2018.

[43] ibid.

[44] Schmitz, 29 August 2018 [2019].

[45] ibid.

[46] Timo Schmitz: La nature propre et l’esprit. 14 September 2018.

[47] ibid.

[48] ibid.

[49] Timo Schmitz : Dieu et la raison – La nécessité d’un Dieu pour l’existence d’une réalité. 28 December 2018.

[50] ibid.

[51] ibid.

[52] Timo Schmitz : Le pouvoir de l’amour. 1 January 2019.

[53] ibid.

[54] ibid.

[55] Timo Schmitz : La sexualité comme réunion de l‘âme. 10 January 2019.

[56] ibid.

[57] Timo Schmitz : Le mythe d’Er: La source du bien et du mal. 14 February 2019.

[58] ibid.

[59] ibid.

[60] Timo Schmitz : Le mythe d’Er : L’importance de pratiquer la philosophie – Le savoir versus la connaissance. 17 February 2019.

[61] ibid.

[62] Timo Schmitz : Le problème du maître dans la philosophie Juche. 5 April 2019.

[63] Timo Schmitz : Arguments against Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. 8 July 2019.

[64] ibid.

[65] Timo Schmitz: Short Introduction Into My Judeo-Buddhism. 2019[b].

[66] ibid.

[67] ibid.

[68] ibid.

[69] ibid.

[70] ibid.

[71] Leo Koguan: The Yellow Emperor Hypothesis: Xuan Yuan Anti-entropic Operating System 2.0. Paper presented on “International Conference on The Yellow Emperor’s Thought vs. Hundred Schools of Thought in Pre-Qin Period.” 13 September 2014. [online: https://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/publish/lawen/5564/20140926172110148290171/1.pdf]

[72] Timo Schmitz: Quantum bits and God: How we can understand existence in the 21st century. 18 September 2019.

[73] Timo Schmitz: Welche Rolle nimmt der Priester in Nietzsches Genealogie der Moral ein?. 12 May 2019.

[74] Schmitz, 18 September 2019.

[75] ibid.

[76] ibid.

[77] Leo, 2014: 6.

[78] Leo Koguan: DRAFT 3.0 – KoGuan Quantum InfoDynamics (KQID). 2013.

[79] ibid.

[80] Schmitz, 18 September 2019.

[81] ibid.

[82] ibid.

[83] ibid.

[84] ibid.

[85] cp. Tai-Denae Bradley (Writer), Rusty Ward (Producer): How Big are All Infinities Combined? (Cantor’s Paradox). PBS Infinite Series, 23 March 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbeA1rhV0D0, retrieved on 8 September 2019.

[86] Jade Tan-Holmes: Cantor’s Infinity Paradox – Set Theory. Up and Atom, 26 October 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X56zst79Xjg, retrieved on 8 September 2019.

[87] Schmitz, 18 September 2019.

[88] ibid.

[89] ibid.

[90] ibid.

[91] ibid.

[92] Sparkonit: What Is Quantum Entanglement?. Sparkonit, 13 December 2019. https://sparkonit.com/2019/12/13/what-is-quantum-entanglement/, retrieved on 3 January 2020.

[93] Mitch Teemley: That Which Can Be Seen. https://mitchteemley.com/2019/10/26/that-which-can-be-seen/, retrieved on 3 January 2020.

[94] Robert Cocks: Does Quantum Mechanics Have Any Connection to Religion?. Orthosphere, 1 November 2019. https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2019/11/01/does-quantum-mechanics-have-any-connection-to-religion/ , retrieved on 3 January 2020.

[95] ibid.

[96] ibid.

[97] Schmitz, 18 September 2019.

[98] ibid.

[99] ibid.

[100] Cock, 1 November 2019.

[101] Timo Schmitz: Political spirits and the Objective Good: A discourse why we should not enforce the Western values on China. 21 September 2019.

[102] Hayes, Christine: Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). RLST 145, Yale University, Fall 2006, Lecture 2.

[103] Leo, 13 September 2014.

[104] Schmitz, 21 September 2019.

[105] Schmitz, 2019a.

[106] Schmitz, 21 September 2019.

[107] ibid.

[108] Timo Schmitz: The Good as Source and Its Necessary Existence in Everything. 23 November 2019.

[109] ibid.

[110] ibid.

[111] ibid.

[112] Leo, 13 September 2014.

[113] Schmitz, 23 November 2019.


Published on 4 February 2020.

One thought on “[Article] My view on God and how it developed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.