Love Is Ultimate Substance

The world is in need of a more enlightened view of what love is.

The strategy I will use for unifying science and religion in my next book, “Proving God,” is to make a new ontological pronouncement about love. Love is not simply an emotion shared between two people. It is more than romance. It is the universal creative force that brings into existence and unifies all things. It is the key to understanding the mysterious nature of agency in the world. It is the ultimate substance of the universe.

The definition I use to define substance is an essence that generates form.

Love would therefore be a topic of hard science if we could show that it generates form (and bring God into the equation of generating measurement outcomes and specific position states in time and space). Modern science even offers some interesting clues that this might be the case.

Quantum theory tells us that everything is connected (quantum entanglement and non-locality). Quantum theory also suggests that primary reality consists of “tendencies to exist.” Substance in the quantum microworld is purely a dispositional property.

Love is dispositional as well. Love constantly seeks to express itself, that is, take form in some concrete action.

The mystery to be solved in quantum physics is how does a quantum event lead to matter’s ability to cohere into stable and evermore complex forms. What kind of disposition would be lawfully driven towards specific position states that lead to profound self-organization? The most popular view of quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen interpretation) describes fundamental reality as consisting of irreducible chance. But irreducible chance offers us a poor first principle for explaining nature’s incessant compulsion towards complex systems, unity, and order. In fact, quantum physics is not a theory of principles at all. It is a theory still seeking a foundational principle. How can science say that the microworld consists of both the dynamics of nonseparability (unity) and a probabilistic froth (randomness)?

There is no way to correlate “chance” with the time-irreversible process of quantum potentials taking profound form in the complicated systems of the macroworld. There is no way for randomness to create a finely tuned universe (unless the dice is loaded).

Love, however, DOES have a correlation with complexity and organization when we contemplate that all organized process portrays relational holism and cooperation among its myriad operations. So science needs to find a first causal principle that correlates with, and can generate bio-complexity and intelligent beings. This requires a living first principle that has its domain outside time and space.

God is Infinite love, Infinite wisdom, and Infinite Life. Because the Lord God lives, the universe is not just mathematical but volitional. It is striving to become more unified as it becomes more diversified. The unified complexity of the natural world emerges out of God’s inexhaustible complexity of Love seeking concrete form (measurement outcomes) in time and space.

We can each see in our own lives that what we love, focuses our attention, shapes our memory, and ultimately determines who we are. Love provides the non-physical key to the nature of agency in the universe.

Any thoughts?


About thegodguy

EDWARD F. SYLVIA, M.T.S. Philosopher/Theologian Edward F. Sylvia attended the School of Visual Arts in New York and received his Master of Theological Studies at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA and a Certificate of Swedenborgian Studies from the Swedenborgian House of Studies. He is a member of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (C.T.N.S.) and the Swedenborg Scientific Association (S.S.A.). Award-winning author of "Sermon From the Compost Pile: Seven Steps Toward Creating An Inner Garden" and "Proving God," which fulfills a continuing vision that God’s fingerprints of love can be found everywhere in the manifest universe. His most recent book, "Swedenborg & Gurdjieff: The Missing Links" is an edgy collection of anti-intuitive essays for personal transformation that challenges and inspires. He has been a student of the ideas of both Emanuel Swedenborg and George I. Gurdjieff for over thirty years. Read more about TheGodGuy, his books and his ideas at
This entry was posted in love, psychology, Reality, religion, science, unity and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Love Is Ultimate Substance

  1. Doug says:

    I like the idea of Love being an important part of our scientific understanding of God and the world around us. But honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

    Probably because quantum mechanics/physics doesn’t make any sense to me. I tend to think it is way too complicated and uncertain to be simplified, and so I am weary of anyone who tries to simplify it to prove a point. I’m not trying to say I don’t trust you, but I just have heard other people talk about quantum physics before to try to prove something goofy and I always felt they were misrepresenting quantum physics for their own uses. I generally just don’t like it. Since I can’t understand it, I tend to assume that other people can’t either (I know this is a dumb assumption. I’m not that smart).

    Are you essentially trying to say that love is something that we can view and study on a subatomic level? And that studying that energy is the key to understanding how God interacts with the universe?

  2. thegodguy says:

    Thanks for your comments Doug,

    Obviously any attempt to write a book that unifies theology and religion is risky business. But I am animated by the challenge. I am not using quantum theory to prove a point. I am merely using it to show that many scientist now question whether matter is the primary “stuff” of the universe or its creation. Scientists will also admit that they do not really know what is going on in the quantum microworld (so they are no smarter than you). That is why there are a handful of interpretations for quantum theory. The Schrodinger equation is an effective mathematical tool but some scientists believe it doesn’t actually describe reality. Pioneering physicists are looking outside spacetime for answers and speculate that CONSCIOUSNESS might be the true foundation and origins of the laws of nature. That opens the door for God to enter into the discussion!

    I am glad you like the idea of love playing an important part in science’s encounter with theology. What I am saying is that the dynamics of love can provide a schematic and model about process in the universe that has real explanatory and predictive powers. That is the challenge that I have undertaken in my current book project “Proving God.” I am not asking for anyone’s trust. God is infinitely rational and ultimately knowable.

  3. Doug says:

    Well, good luck to you. I hope you can make it simple and easy to read. Not everyone has a Phd. =)

  4. Linda Austin says:

    A very famous scientist whose name I cannot remember, but who was a co-inventor of an important childhood vaccine said in 1994 that upon study, he believed consciousness was only a result of the firings of nerves, nothing more. Ouch. Also, did you hear that scientists are near to creating a bacteria from scratch? To go along with all those viruses they can already create. Makes me wonder is God really is behind the creation process.

  5. Doug says:


    “He believed consciousness was only a result of the firings of nerves, nothing more.”

    Isn’t that kind of like saying that music is a result of sound vibrations that hit our ear drums and are then converted into brain waves and “nothing more”?

  6. thegodguy says:

    Dear Doug and Linda,

    According to materialistic philosophy consciousness is an epiphenomenon. That is, it is the outcome of numerous microscopic electro-chemical processes in the brain. But it should be known that the firing of neurons simply transfers wave signals and commands and is insufficient for explaining the higher functioning of mind which perceives, understands, judges, concludes, wills, then sends out those commands. Neuroscience is beginning to look deeper inside the neuron for additional layers of cognitive architecture (microtubules might turn out to be a micro nervous system within the neuron). The other big problem is how to integrate brain process with first-person phenomenal experience. I spend a whole chapter in my next book on neuroscience and attempt to explore a neural basis for religion.

    I have not heard of scientists coming close to creating life from scratch. Usually they modify lifeforms that already exist. So I am unable to respond. However, even the simpliest forms of life represent a mastery of science. To me, the trick of creating life would involve taking inert matter and giving it “endeavor.” If humans were to eventually create life that would not rule out God’s role in creation. God gave us an ample brain so that we could investigate ultimate reality.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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