New Paradigm Bible

While most physicists are content with working out their daily problems through either quantum mechanics or relativity theory a smaller number of them, who concern themselves with foundational issues, see problems on the horizon. I sense a growing uneasiness among these researchers in that unifying these two pillars of science has been unsuccessful.

Some scientists suspect that the answer of unity lies in a yet undiscovered and deeper theory. String theory, while mathematically promising, depends on old paradigm classical structures (strings) and its extra dimensions cannot be empirically proved.

Theologians seem to be faced with a similar challenge. While most of the clergy are content with their denomination’s doctrines, some theologians are bothered that the Christian witness has lost its sense of wholeness and unity. Since all doctrine is formed from God’s Holy Word, some theologians suspect that a deeper exegesis (interpretation) is needed that will provide new frames of reference without doing violence to the historical sense of the narratives.

So, currently there is no unity in physics and no unity in Christian doctrine.

I follow these things because I attended seminary and belong to two organizations consisting of scientists, philosophers and theologians who are attempting to unify science and theology. They are the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS) and the Swedenborg Scientific Association (SSA).

It is useless trying to unify an incomplete science with an incomplete theology. Furthermore, science and theology use two different languages. It is into this fray that I have chosen to dive headfirst, the result of which will be a new book entitled Proving God that will be launched mid-March.

My strategy is to show that the Holy Word is also a scientific document. Thanks to the visionary insights of scientist/theologian Emanuel Swedenborg, my book offers new frames of reference by which biblical exegesis can be expanded to express the universal patterning principles of top-down causal process, the arrow of time, quantum gravity, multi-leveled realities, the emergence of matter and spacetime structure from a non-local, non-temporal and non-material realm (pre-geometric spiritual world), evolution of consciousness, the science of salvation and even bring various mysteries of faith within the cognitive ballpark of human reasoning.

Swedenborg’s discoveries offer a New Paradigm Bible for the post-modern world. Proving God will offer new frames of reference for the serious thinker and seeker with which Sacred Scripture can be interpreted through a more rational scientific language.

If these subjects interest you, please visit http://www.provinggod.com

Advertisements

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 http://www.staircasepress.com
This entry was posted in god, Reality, religion, science, unity and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to New Paradigm Bible

  1. comdenom says:

    Very interesting article, it sounds like you are actually attempting to unify theology with science.
    I suspect “within the ballpark of human reasoning” would be the trickiest part. What is to become of “Faith” and “Free Will” if God is proven?

  2. thegodguy says:

    Dear comdenom,

    Yes, I believe I have succeeded. The reason why I use the term “ballpark” is because human rationality needs some set up. Most people don’t know what all the issues are or have the foundational data to jump into the discussion. So the book will challenge and stretch the minds of most readers – but that is good!

    In “Proving God” the term “faith” means more than mere religious belief. A person’s faith is his or her world view, which embraces human volition (love) and discernment (reasoning). How we act and live in the world represents our true faith – not where we spend our Sunday mornings.

    Nothing is more important to the Lord God than to protect human Free Will. This is why God seems to always be out of the picture. But God acts invisibly in infinite ways. Offering rational (not physical) proof that God exists will compel nobody to change there ways. Doubt always creeps back in. People will not believe in anything that cramps their style. Furthermore, new details about the true nature of the afterlife need to be straddled.

    Concerning “Free Will” again, it is anti-intuitive to most people how surrendering to God is the highest freedom. Human compulsion and license is slavery.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  3. comdenom says:

    I’ll be looking for the book in March as my interest is more than sufficiently piqued, even though I have no further need for proof of God’s existence.

    I recently tried and seemingly failed debate with an intellectually fulfilled atheist offering no acceptable physical proof or proof that I could translate. Even the DNA argument fell flat as he contested DNA a protein template not as code or language.

    “Surrendering to God is the highest freedom” is an oft misunderstood list of “I don’t get to” as opposed to the actual “I get to”.

    Thanks for your work, I’m looking forward to it!

  4. thegodguy says:

    Dear comedenom,

    Thank you for your interest. I wish my book was available sooner for your debate with an “intellectually fulfilled” atheist.

    Let me make three quick points. How can one be intellectually fulfilled by a science that claims the universe was created out of nothing (ex nihilo)?

    Second, the mechanistic and material view of human consciousness (epiphenomenon) has no rigorous empirical basis. This is scientism not science.

    Finally, how can someone be intellectually fulfilled when science has many mysteries before it and is starting to ask questions for which it has no answers!

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

    • intellectuallyfulfilledatheist says:

      I don’t know of any science which claims the universe was created ex nihilo. Or that the universe was created at all. Rather the laws of, for instance, thermodynamics, and the conservation laws of matter and energy strongly imply that the materials present within the universe have always existed.

      The mechanisms of thought and consciousness are being explained better and better every day without the invocation of any form of dualism using solid science.

      The same way a person can believe themselves “spiritually fulfilled” and insist that they don’t understand all of god’s mysteries.

      • thegodguy says:

        Dear atheist,

        We must hang around different scientists! Big Bang theory, which starts from a zero-dimensional singularity points to a non-physical beginning. The Big Bang was not the result of a thermodynamic instability or the mere dispersal of energy, matter, and momentum into time and space. It included the creation of spacetime as well.

        The pioneering physicists I study believe spacetime is emergent, has discrete structure and involves causality. The laws of physics break down at the singularity because there is no space or time to work with. My new book “Proving God” explores pre-space dynamical magnitudes and pre-geometery.

        As to consciousness there is as yet no comprehensive theory of cognitive architecture and its neural substrate. The higher cognitive functions of human reasoning and abstract thought cannot be explained by synaptic pathways. Subjective human experience still presents a challenge to materialistic philosophies.

        You did not comment on the topic of this blog post “New Paradigm Bible.” My new book attempts to show that Scripture is a multi-level document that can be put into scientific language and offers insights to top-down causality and universal patterning principles.

        Spiritually yours,
        TheGodGuy

      • intellectuallyfulfilledatheist says:

        Actually the big bang theory implicitly assumes that everything existed to expand. It does not imply or explicitly assert that at any point in history nothing existed, only that everything that did exist occupied very little space. Some popularists like to claim that the universe was filled with literally nothing, but this is technically incorrect since not only was everything in the universe compressed before the big bang, but so was the space-time in which everything in the universe exists. Nothing can exist outside of space-time, thus the entire universe existed very compactly and was completely filled at all times in history, but as space-time expanded the distances between the matter and energy particles contained in the universe increased which corresponds to a decrease in energy and an increased number of possible paths for particles, and a decreased probability of interaction between more distant particles, which leads to a tendency of entropy to increase.

        You seem to also misunderstand why physicists say “the laws of physics break down at the singularity”. Einstein’s equations breakdown at the singularity because as density approaches infinity his equations approach an equation of this form x/0 where x = whatever the numerator is which doesn’t matter since any numerator divided by 0 is undefined. Hence we have a singularity. It isn’t the laws of physics that break down, it’s the existing mathematical formulation of those laws. Physicists working in the field of Loop Quantum Gravity have long since abandoned the assumption of Einstein that space-time is continuous in favor of discrete space-time atoms which has allowed them to eliminate the singularity from their equations.

        http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0608117
        http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/abs/0911.3745

        There is no complete or comprehensive theory, no, however there is still compelling evidence from fMRIs and measuring neural action potentials, among other techniques which demonstrate that cognitive processes are accompanied by activity localized directly in the brain. So far, at least, no single cognitive task has been found which is not accompanied and even preceeded by activity located directly inside of the brain which is exactly as we would expect if concepts such a mind/brain dualism were incorrect. When these facts are paired with the simple fact that we can prove that the brain exists but cannot prove that supernatural things exist, and the fact that we can measure specific things about the brain and test specific ideas about the brain but cannot measure or test specific ideas about proposed supernatural things it becomes somewhat scientifically problematic to appeal to supernatural things as explanations. It ends up amounting to little more than assertions.

        No I didn’t, I commented to what you said in a comment about me, essentially, which was in itself not on the topic really of the blog entry. And your book isn’t published yet, but so far in your comment that I originally responded to and your response to my original response you haven’t demonstrated an accurate grasp of what science actually says about cosmology, at least, or a grasp of how the scientific method works.

      • thegodguy says:

        Again, we must hang around different scientists. My book demonstrates how action and topology (form) can exist beyond time and space.

        There are serious physicists out there who have suggested that space and time are not fundamental concepts. At least I consider and look into such concepts. Even in quantum physics, scientists argue whether a quantum-mechanical “particle” moves as material or non-material wave. And string theory (the current rage) offers no way of testing for the ontological reality of its additional dimensions. Theoretical physics now embraces frameworks that it cannot prove!

        All human thought does have reference (correlation) to some part in the brain. But when it comes to the higher functions of human reasoning and abstraction, measuring neural action potentials offer only a gross picture of more invisible complexities. Nature gets more complex and expanded as you go deeper – which goes against the whole tradition of science and reductionism. My book challenges many current assumptions about physics with all new models (not to mention a New Paradigm Bible, which challenges current theological assumptions as well).

        My book is published – it will not be available to the public until mid-March. It has a forward by a theoretical nuclear physicist.

        Spiritually (and naturally) yours,
        TheGodGuy

      • intellectuallyfulfilledatheist says:

        I’m sure it’s easy for action and form to exist independent of our universe’s specific space-time container, but everything that is inside of our universe exists inside of our universe’s space-time container. “Action” or events cannot exist independent of some time index, what with time being nothing more than a consequence of the fact that events happen, and form may be able to exist obviously without time, but not so obviously without a space geometry to provide an index to all of the relative positions in the form. Otherwise it would be impossible to talk about the form of something. Of course topology is an abstraction and talking about actions or forms outside of out universe’s space-time is useful in a speculative capacity but has no possibility of telling us anything about our universe or even whether or not such abstraction can or do actually exist. I don’t know exactly what it is you think you show in your book but you certainly cannot show that anything can have form without existing in some type of underlying spatial structure which determines the relationships between different components which make up and define the characteristics of the form.

        I don’t doubt that there are questions about whether or not time and space are fundamental, in fact I would argue that time at least is not fundamental at all, but is merely a consequence of the fact that events happen. Quantum physicists generally don’t waste time arguing, though, over whether or not particles move as material quantum packets or as “not-material” waves. This question has essentially been answered by the principle of duality which is pretty well understood, though of course with some debate over details, as the product of paths being subject to a probability wave which makes certain sets of paths more likely than other sets of possible paths for any individual particle. Essentially this suggests that the particles behave like particles but collections of particles will have properties of waves. We can influence the probability wave by making measurements which alter the probabilities as in the famous double slit experiments. I don’t know anyone who would consider the wave-like behavior of particle streams to be “non-material”, though. Theoretical physics uses mathematical constructs like multiple dimensions because within such constructs the behaviors of observable natural phenomenon can be derived. This offers sort of anecdotal evidence for the idea that the constructs are in some way related to reality. What that relationship is to reality is subject to interpretation, or may be purely coincidental. Loop Quantum Gravity is a field that, as far as I know, does not require the existence of 11 spatial dimensions. It isn’t, as currently formulated, capable of deriving all observed natural phenomenon, but is capable of deriving, and interestingly enough with no error terms, many of them. I think it has many advantages over string, theory, though, not the least of these being no reliance on equations which might suggest 11 spatial dimensions, whether or not that interpretation of the equations is the correct interpretation of them. The thing about quantum mechanics is that for the most part the mathematics is independant of the interpretations of what their physical meaning might be. Like Schroedinger’s equations for quantum superpositions which suggest that before a moment of decision pairs or sets of conflicting quantum states may all be simultaneously true. This fact of quantum mechanics found its most famous and extreme possible expression in the anecdote referred to as Schroedinger’s cat, which was an attempt to bring the situation out of the quantum realm where it’s difficult to understand and put it into a macro-level perspective. We can understand the obvious conflict in the proposition that Schroedinger’s cat is both alive and dead in the box until we open the box and collapse the superposition into a specific state.

        Your argument about the higher functions of human reasoning would hold more weight if there was an absence of case studies of these same higher cognitive functions throughout the animal kingdom, at least among all of the animals with brains. We differ in degree, our capacity for abstract thought is more advanced, but not unique. This may have something to do with denser networks and more glial cells which act as better insulators increasing the rate of signal inductance. So we have denser networks which are capable of mapping more concepts and the synapses fire more rapidly.

        I don’t know about or subscribe to the idea of reductionism, but I do know that what complexity essentially is is an index into a specific aspect of a system’s state. This specific aspect being the number of components within the system and the number of possible interactions between the components of the system. As we dig deeper into a system, in light of what complexity actually is, we see that it is completely to be expected that the system should become more complex. I’ll give a very simple example:
        How complex is a tub filled with hot water? The answer depends on how much detail we want about that tub. Do we just want the temperature with a relatively low degree of precision? We can just stick a thermometer in it, and that’s it, very simple, not too complex. What if we want to know the specific temperature distribution of the entire tub cubic inch by cubic inch? That’s a little more complicated, and the data set is increased, but still manageable. What if we want to know what each and every water molecule is doing in that tub? That’s a lot more components and a lot more complexity. Even if we could measure every water molecule it would be difficult to track or predict every possible interaction between every present water molecule. And we can look deeper to the actions of the individual atoms in all of the water molecules and to the subatomic components of each of those atoms, resulting in increasing complexity as we start to consider more components and interactions between components. And that’s beginning with something simple like a tub of hot water.

        Well ok, the book is published, as it is unavailable the distinction is somewhat superfluous. At the moment it may as well not be published at least as far as I and the general public are concerned because it is equally inaccessible to me and the general public despite technically being published.

    • thegodguy says:

      Dear friend,

      Thanks for the science lesson. But why should I be impressed with someone who has a professional grasp of a science that I find flawed?

      I am more interested in what science DOES NOT KNOW. I have addressed these issues in other blog posts (you stumbled upon a theological topic).

      Physicists who are concerned with foundational issues see problems on the horizon. Science has not discovered first principles and quantum theory is not a theory of principles (it is purely phenomenological). That science cannot adequately unify gravity (spacetime structure) with quantum mechanics (matter) suggests a deeper theory (and both relativity and quantum theories may need to be reformulated to get there).

      I too prefer loop quantum gravity to string theory – but it does not go far enough to provide the distinct kinematics and derivative geometries of discrete spacetime structure within nature’s scaffolding. My book offers new ideas concerning quantum gravity – with spiritual considerations.

      Why is the distinction superfluous? It is not my intent to settle complex issues from a mere blog post. That is why I wrote a book. This blog serves to draw interest in the book.

      I do appreciate the exchange!

      Spiritually yours,
      TheGodGuy

      • intellectuallyfulfilledatheist says:

        I don’t understand how anyone can draw conclusions about what isn’t known. How does pointing to what science as yet does not establish or cannot investigate tell us anything specific about those things? The argument from ignorance is a fallacy specifically because it relies heavily on assumptions about those things which are not known.

      • intellectuallyfulfilledatheist says:

        Further, spiritual considerations are outside of the bounds of what science is capable of investigating since there are no logically rigorous definitions of what constitutes “spirit” which can suggest or lead to observable evidence for the existence in reality of the concept which suggest tests or experiments which can be performed on the basis of hypothesis derived by making these observations which can tell us anything specific or useful about the nature of the concept.

      • thegodguy says:

        Dear friend,

        The science of the future will investigate non-material dynamics (otherwise it will be condemned to scientism).

        The theme for my blog site is “Love is the ultimate science.” This premise is anti-intuitive to materialistic ideologies. My new book will offer evidence (from rational principles) of why LOVE is first causal SUBSTANCE in the universe. In other words, all natural laws and forces are really spiritual forces extended into the constraints of time and space. The manifest universe is a physical analog of the spiritual realm. The top-down causal link between the two distinct realms is through correspondence.

        I detect you have a good and sincere heart when it comes to seeking knowledge. So I will give you a one sentence explanation of the difference between action in spacetime and action removed from its involvement with spaces and times.

        Physical action involves change of location while non-physical action involves change-of-state. But such an “answer” requires a lot of set-up and background material to make sense. So I hope you will read my book when it becomes available. Then we can have a more serious discussion.

        Spiritually yours,
        TheGodGuy

      • intellectuallyfulfilledatheist says:

        Of course the fact that your fundamental assumptions must be imposed upon observations rather than derived from them is what essentially renders them unscientific.

    • thegodguy says:

      Dear “fulfilled,”

      I would like to take this conversation over to my new blog topic entitled “Is Science Proving Swedenborg’s Ideas?”

      Communication between me, you and comdenom are getting a little disjointed. Her latest comment is now at the end of the list. Besides, my new blog offers interesting new scientific research concerning some of the ideas in my new book.

      Thanks to all!

      TheGodGuy

  5. comdenom says:

    I have no personal experience of being intellectually fulfilled, this learning thing has no end in sight, as well when one stops learning, one would be dead. Everything I learn just promotes more awe of the creator. I suspect from an atheist point of view, the concept of God cannot be intellectualized, unless of course you have crossed that barrier in your book and have just addressed it with your second point of human consciousness.

    Perhaps your flair presenting those points would have had the desirable impact. To view it here is the link to my argument, please don’t hesitate to correct me; http://intelsblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/re-intelligent-design-who-designed-the-designer/

    To be clear, I view your work to be much more important to the world than use in debate.

  6. Carla says:

    “It is useless trying to unify an incomplete science with an incomplete theology.” <– that's a good one. I also like that you called your book "ProovING God" as in a deepening, on-going process.

    I've begun calling "faith" "lived truths" and i call "truths" "spiritual facts" since they are as valid as any suppositions I hear coming out of scientific disciplines. Meaning, just as in science, I have to act "as if" to get my "proof" from a set of spiritual facts- to see if it is indeed true – the educated guess theory of proving them worthy- with them i get a lot of things accomplished and a lot of living done before i discover i didn't have it precisely right- it was true, but something else was "truer." We went to the moon the same way.

  7. thegodguy says:

    Dear comdenom,

    Debate divides, love unites. It is better to be GOOD than to be RIGHT! I will check out your arguments in the very near future. Most of my time is being taken up promoting and marketing my new book.

    Thank you for your interest and sharing your awe of the Creator!

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  8. thegodguy says:

    Dear Carla,

    Thank you for your positive response.

    All real knowledge and “truth” has reference to LOVE. In fact, “truth” is the measurement and quality of some “love.” Love is ESSENCE and truth is FORM. Love finds form in truth. In other words, love adapts truth (form) to its own disposition – which expresses the measure and extent of love through the dynamics of utility (goodness or love in action).

    Swedenborg called this end, cause and effect.

    As our love increases spiritually, our mind perceives more interior (more “truer”) details about universal reality (God’s scheme).

    Spiritually yours.
    TheGodGuy

  9. comdenom says:

    Thanks again is the content on your blog too contentious to list your link on my site?

  10. thegodguy says:

    Dear comdenom,

    That’s up to you. I challenge current assumptions for both science and theology. My work will certainly stir controversy.

    Since your blog focuses on the environment, you might also consider linking to my website http://www.innergardening.net

    My first book is titled “Sermon from the Compost Pile.” It straddles both terrestrial and spiritual environmental realities.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  11. comdenom says:

    @intellectuallyfulfilled, I am sorry for posting the link to your blog without realizing you would be alerted. You missed the comment that thegodguy could not look into it at this time as he is currently busy trying to market his book. Buy the book, you only have a little over a month to wait.

    • intellectuallyfulfilledatheist says:

      I didn’t miss it, nor did I go into what we were discussing on my blog at all, I instead addressed what thegodguy said essentially about me here.

  12. thegodguy says:

    Dear comdenom and intellectualy fulfilled,

    I am glad that I have got you both back in the same place. I have invited both of you (and any other interested readers to continue this discussion at my new blog topic “Is Science Proving Swedenborg’s Ideas?”

    There are enough profound scientific mysteries that still need to be solved that if I were to embrace a mere materialistic ideology I would be left feeling intellectually “unfulfilled.” That was the essence of my challenge. Science still has too many holes to fill for my comfort level.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s