Is this a good theory?

Question

People speak all the time about God. But they can't really answer what is God without sparking more questions.

So here is my theory.

I think God is the personification of the Universe. The similarities of these two things from both sides of the argument (religion/science) are nearly identical.

God created all that is, he is everywhere and everywhere, he was always there and always will be, and he is all powerful. He dictates the laws of man.

The Universe was always here, law of conservation of energy pretty much states that all energy is in the universe. The universe is everything around us, and everywhere. The universe was always here, or was created from a precursor. The universe dictates the laws of man and nature (physics).

It might be just me, but I think the similarities are amazing. I think this proves that God and the Universe are the same being, except God is personified.

Your views on my theory?

P.S. Please don't thumbs down other people for they are entitled to opinions and have their views. But, please, also don't call another persons ideas stupid. Show some respect.

Answer 1

How can you believe that God created the universe if you believe in all the laws of conservation of energy.......matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

You also say that the universe has always been here, but what you are really saying is that God has always been here. You contradict yourself is what i am saying. You say he created it, therefore it (the universe) could not have always been there.

But basically your theory is very similar to many deist theories. That God created all but does not interfere with the laws of the universe. I have already pointed out the flaws in this theory. That the very existence of God contradicts the laws of the universe.

I would advise you to read Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, the metaphysics of it, and see if you agree that existence exists.

Answer 2

Well, I wouldn't quite say this is an "answer" to your question, since obviously, there's no way of me actually knowing for sure, ... but yeah, i do agree a lot w/ your opinion on your intake..

My fiance' is the one who really pointed this outlook to me, and really it makes a lot of sense...

this is something we've talked about a lot... and just so happen, randomly enough, we talked about it just today. lol

but yeah, ... again, this wasn't an "answer" exactly, but i thought you might like to know, that yes... there are at least others who deeply believe what your believing... :)

Answer 3

The Universe wasn't always here. You said it yourself : God created it. If it was created then at one point it wasn't. God on the other hand always was is and will be forever and ever amen!

Answer 4

Your theory is typical of someone who starts thinking about these problems of God and existence. Many or most who bother to spend mental time on the issue come across this. I think I was in junior h.s. when I pondered it.

We know the universe exists as we can directly perceive it. There can be no argument there except over the definition of "exist". God's "existence" cannot be declared objectively because no gods can be perceived (viewed, recorded, photographed, measured). You could argue that god exists as an imperceptible entity that controls the universe, controls the laws of physics, etc., but that argument adds nothing to our understanding of the universe.

It's like saying invisible fairies control the weather. You could make such a statement and no one can argue against because we don't fully understand all the processes that create weather. But by declaring something so obviously subjective as factual, you only create obstruction of true understanding. Like when Copernicus came up with the sun-centered theory of the solar system. He and Galileo were held at bay by the church who only supported the idea that the earth was the center of everything--an idea based upon an ideal.

Your theory stems from good thinking and logic, but be careful about using the work "prove". Theories can only be disproved. One problem to think about is: if god created the universe, who created god? If you say god always existed, then why couldn't the universe have always existed?

Answer 5

There's nothing more annoying than a teenager who claims to have discovered the meaning of life...

Here's a tip for you kid, stop trying to justify the fact that you can't get any by claiming you're above everything or that nothing matters.

Go outside and try to solve your no-s*x problem instead of writing these shallow posts here.

Answer 6

I've had an idea nearly identical to this.  I think it is quite logical.  The fact that they constantly argue over who is right even though they are almost the same really bugs me.  But this is a great theory.  You could get a book published based on this idea.  A book is a great idea, many people would read that.  It would really make society think.  And maybe this little fued they have will end.

Answer 7

While I find your theory interesting, my opinion is that God is BEYOND the universe.  I don't know if you read the bible, but it pretty much states that God created the world, and with it, everything else, including the universe.  And contrary to your parallelism about science and religion being identical,  they are definitely not!  

Let's go back to our basic biology class.  If you agree that human evolution started with monkeys, or for that matter, germs/bacteria, and for that matter, life began in the ocean, then you cannot agree with the bible.  The bible stated that God created life--animals, birds, fish, human--in six days.  Science tells us that all these stuff take years and years and many many more years.  Also, last I read, scientists discovered that there are many universes, not just one, and they can die.  So if you compare God to the universe, then based on science, God can die, as he is like the universe.  

With religion, however, God is everything and everywhere.  But the universe isn't everything and everywhere.  Science updates continue to dispute over the existence of things, facts and non-facts.  And just as they argued that there are multiple universes that can eventually die, and according to religious beliefs, God does not die, then science and religion cannot be compared as one.

Answer 8

As an idea it has its attractions – it isn’t new but it has had a bunch of support through the centuries. But really, it does have a few problems …

First: there are some pretty big gaps between this and most (not all) religions’ conception of God. The universe had a beginning and God didn’t, for example.

Second: What do we mean by ‘personification’? Usually it means ascribing personal characteristics to something that clearly *isn’t* a person. And that could be troublesome here, because in most (not all) religions God has some very specific personal characteristics – He has will, judgement, jealousy, love and so on. But so far as we know, the universe doesn’t have these things. Or do you mean that the universe in some sense actually *is* a person?

Third: it isn’t clear what this idea is leading to:

1) Justifying religion by ascribing personal characteristics (truly) to the universe?

2) Explaining religion by saying that religions ascribe personal characteristics (falsely) to the universe?

3) Reconciling religion and science by claiming that they are saying the same thing (either that the universe is or isn’t personal)

4) Just a complicated way of saying that there isn't a God?

It is a bit confused. By all means subscribe to the theory (many respectable people have), but I would suggest that if it is to actually mean anything it needs to be taken a bit further.

The Wikipedia source is a bit heavy going, but it might suggest some wider reading in this area.

Answer 9

I love fresh-perspectives like this...

1) This debate has grown tired about 'God's' existence...has it not...?

2) That being said... I think there are at least two groups of people that fall into this debate topic:

A) People asserting we only function becuase we are the sum of our parts... and that without the parts, chemicals, etc.. nothing exists or has the capacity to exist.

B) People asserting we are so much greater then the sum of our parts..that humans can transcend their parts... that there is the proverbial: "Ghost in the machine" or spirt or soul that lives within...

My bias is of the latter..and though I label myself as Agnostic... I was raised protestant... and have witnessed and experienced things... that seem to go beyond the mere description of 'Scientific Anomaly'... of the former these viewpoints need to be espoused in our society today.. because its brought Religion further out of the dark-ages of 'Witch-hunting' and burning people at the stake... even their own religious-zealots(Joan-Of-Arc)...and has in sense become more tolerant and rational when it comes to the values people hold.. though we have far to come... but turning the tables Religion has also held Science into account for calling on these values to prevent us 'The World' from blowing the Earth to bits with just a couple pushes of the button...

3) Really Science and Religion are using different detailed maps to view the same realtiy... they are dissimilar in their goals and methods..but both have something to contribute to Society-at-large...

Science gives us information, knowledge which is power...Religion interprets and gives us values which is control... both in a sense need each other for us to advance as compassionate-intelligent beings.

4) All that to say, theories like yours are a breath of fresh-air to an agnostic like myself... because it shows guts to take the 3rd-way.. and place yourself in the dangerous chasm between theist and atheist...it's a difficult ride but for me at least I've learned more about who I am and not... and what times I can and should express either trait... Best of Luck... and Thanks!!

Answer 10

What you experience as the Universe is form.

God is formless.

Gautama Buddha said, "Form follows thought."

Jesus said, " Ask and you shall receive."

We are made in God's image.

We are not our bodies.