On God

VOR = Voice of Reason
GK = Gavin Kanowitz


VOR: Ok what do you see God as?
GK: God is multifaceted and this is a consequence of his omnipotence. He therefore can be perceived on many levels (Please note I use the male ‘his’ and ‘he’ to describe God not because I believe God is male – God does not have gender – but for the mere sake of convenience). I, myself, choose to view God at two levels. The Spirit God that is ‘everything ‘ and from which our souls originate and the personal God to whom I communicate with.

VOR: What is this ‘everything’ you associate with the Spirit God?
GK ‘Everything’ is what can and cannot be perceived by us. It is all of matter, energy and spirit. It is all the dimensions that exist in space-time and beyond. In short it is the absolute. Nothing exists beyond it.

VOR: So it is a singularity?
GK: In a conceptual sense yes but in its full truism its impossible to even attempt the reduction of something outside our comprehension.

VOR: Can the spirit God be understood at all?
GK: Not with respect to determining the reason for its action, only the consequences. Unfortunately western philosophy believes that both can be ascertained. It attempts to quantify and qualify this spirit essence. Consequently it falls short every time. We can build intellectual Towers of Babel but our many lines of erroneous logic will trip us up all the time, forcing the tower to collapse. We have however another way of understanding God and that is through personal communication. Which brings me to the concept of the personal God.

VOR: Ok so what is this personal God?
GK: The personal God is your spiritual side being. It is that component that links your matter-energy makeup (the physical you) to the Spirit God. You can choose to accept it or ignore it.
The choice is yours. Accepting it allows you to have a window directly to God.

VOR: And if you reject it?
GK: Then you will likely experience the loneliness associated with mental separation from a higher force. Existentialists try to justify this by saying that there is meaning only in one’s existence, thus ‘removing’ the need for the Personal and indeed the Spirit God. Although this may benefit some, the truth is that the spirit God is always around and it is a positive force. It doesn’t disappear because we deem it so, anymore than the sky changing to red because we would like it to be that way. Existentialists choose to negate what they don’t understand, I choose to understand and negate only when I find the reasoning behind the phenomenon to be fallacious. This is not the case with the Personal God.

VOR: But how do you know the Personal God exists?
GK: He exists because it is impossible to prove that any event is random. All that exists is connected. Systems organize and that ‘directing’ force is the spirit god. The Personal God is an abstraction of this spirit god, just as fractals in chaos science mirror the entire system as a whole.

By opening my eyes to the Personal God I have seen his action. The evidence is overwhelming. Look at events in your lives, even in your daily existence, and you will see purpose. ‘Things’ happen for a reason. There is method behind the apparent randomness. For example if I meet somebody and interact with them if I sit back and think about it, a purpose for our interaction will spring immediately to mind, the second one asks the questions: Why did we meet? What did I learn from this meeting?
There is always something positive that springs up. Something new that is uncovered. This is the action of the Personal God trying to enrich us.

VOR: But one can say by the same logic what about the negative thoughts?
GK: Negative thoughts are only negative if we choose them to be so, if we look at the thoughts as guiding lights then they become positive. This is what my interaction with the Personal God tells me.

VOR: So negativity is an illusion?
GK: Yes. The only real concern is the non-randomness of all events and the existence of non-random phenomena. This is what defines God in the strict logical sense.

VOR: Getting back to the Personal God. If we follow your reasoning it appears that he is always present?
GK: Definitely. We always have a direct conduit to God. Any religion that tells us that we need an intermediary is mistaken. It is as east to speak to God directly as it is to converse with yourself. That is the whole concept of the Personal God.

VOR: But are we not in believing in the Personal God recreating God in our own image? Does that not make us the same as those pagans that the bible takes great care to warn us about?

GK: God is all powerful. He can take our image just as easy as he can take on any other image that exists in space and time. I choose to see him in my image because it simplifies my relationship with him. It provides a dimension to God which I can understand. As far as this being Pagan in outlook I argue that it is quite the contrary, Pagan religions are no different to mainstream religions in that they do have an image of God that they want all to worship. Traditional religion opposes this as it represents an alternative mass-image threat. I feel that both sides are in fact wrong and indeed the same. One’s image of God should reflect what one finds easiest to relate to. Standardized versions of God that are espoused by Paganism and traditional religion are therefore nonsensical as they ignore individuality.

VOR: But wouldn’t an evil person create an evil version of God? Does this not in some way condone acts of evil through the instrument of moral relativism?

GK: As mentioned God is everything - Good, Bad and Ambivalent. A failure of many beliefs is that of separating evil as being a non-godlike quality whilst still championing God as being all-powerful. This is a blaring contradiction. Defining Good and Evil is extremely difficult. Partly because we do not have access to the full picture. We are like people looking through a keyhole and describing the world we see. Our senses for one are limited, our knowledge negligible, We cannot even begin to define in a universal sense what good and evil are. Having said that this does not mean that we can do what we like. Law governed by utilitarian (what is good for the majority thinking) prevents this, in order to negate chaos and preserve a workable structure. This is why legal systems exists.

VOR: For the greater good?
GK: That and to avoid chaos.

VOR: Isn’t that slightly Hobbesian?
GK: No Hobbes argued that man is evil/stupid and needs a strong system of law to keep him in check.
I don’t see this as the case. Man is not inherently evil or stupid but he is prone to error. However as a player in the scheme of the world, he is prone to chaos. The more people the greater the degree of chaos. Law limits this.

VOR: I see a conflict in your full argument though. On one level you argue that Gods existence can be justified by the non-randomness of the universe on another front you see law as a mechanism to avoid a natural flow toward chaos. If God introduces non-randomness why then does entropy exist? Why is there a drive in the direction of chaos?

GK: There is no conflict. Chaos exists side beside non-randomness.is a state that exists. Chaos is God inspired as well. It is a phase that God uses to change one non-randomness dominant into another type. This process is dynamic. When I talk about mankind’s slide into chaos what is worrisome is not so much the chaos itself, but a slide into a non-randomness dominant that is less favorable to the species.

VOR: But can one not argue that this slide is part of God’s will?
GK: God provides us with many options. In a dynamic universe we face multiple possible non-randoms dominants our choice is to find the direction that takes us to the next most favorable one. Law prevents us slipping quickly into those non-randoms that go against our greater good. It is a breaking force.

VOR: Do you feel that true chaos (a complete absence of randomness) is impossible because God will always act to introduce non-randomness?
GK: No I reckon God can sit back and allow non-randomness to happen but for some reason or other, he hasn’t.

VOR: how can we separate the actions of God from those of physics? Is God constrained by the laws of physics?
GK: Of course not. God created the laws of physics in the first place. God uses physics as a mechanism to simplify his actions for our level of understanding. The laws of physics are the outline of a great book whose revelation is beyond us. In different universes it is conceivable that these laws might change.

VOR: Are you thus saying that the laws of Physics are in someway a simplifying illusion?
GK: No they are very real for us as beings as God has defined us around them. However for God they are insignificant.

VOR: So science cannot tell us all there is to know?
GK: Yes of course. Science is limited by the frame of reference that it exists in. Everything other than God is limited as well.

VOR: In a way then our relationship with the personal God is greater than our study of science. Is this a reasonable argument to make?
GK: The two are different. The personal God instructs us as individuals. We are still guided by science as to what we can and cannot do in the matter world.