Are the first causal principles of the universe ALIVE?

The debate between scientists and theologians concerning the existence or non-existence of God as necessary for the creation event would become more profitable and rational if the discussion turned to whether the first causal principles of the universe were inorganic or alive.


Well, God is a living Being. Therefore the creation and evolution of the universe, from a theistic point of view, would have to be based on the concept that the universe emerged from a living action and principle.

Current materialistic science admits it has not discovered the first principles of nature. The Big Bang theory suggests that, in an instant, reality went from a state of nothingness to a state of infinite thermodynamics. That is a real head-scratcher! Furthermore, in spite of reverse entropy, in which all coherent productions formed units, organized systems and complex structures (that not only evolved into living creatures but intelligent beings) scientists believe that the expanding world will succumb to thermodynamic death. Ka-poof!

Life is a mere “blip” in what seems to be the meaningless trajectory of creation.

However, there is reason for a more positive and meaningful worldview of reality. And since scientists admit that first principles still elude them, the door is certainly open for alternate and theistic models of reality.

So, what does Nature reveal to us?

Nature shows us that it has an incessant drive towards self-organization. As mentioned above, this drive or endeavor of nature has led to the evolution of living forms with increased intelligence. In terms of laws that depend on inner consistency (which scientists seek), first principles must be present in their effects. Otherwise the universe would not be coherent or unified—and most physical scientists believe the universe is unified and is understandable precisely because it has order and orientation.

We must, therefore, seek a new theory that allows first principles to contain the essence of order and orientation. This suggests intelligence and purposive design.

Evolution is the trajectory by which structures of increased complexity become more vivified and more perfectly oriented—to reflect the nature of its origins, that is, God. The human race has the capacity to be an image and likeness of God. Whereas nature unifies itself by creating more intricate forms of material relationships through coexistence, humankind can evolve this unifying endeavor towards increased relationship making through the principle of spiritual LOVE. Love, which is in a perpetual endeavor to unite and form relationships, is the reason why reverse entropy rules over the physical laws of thermodynamics.

Love is a living principle of unification.

I have written a book, Proving God that provides a wide range of evidence to show that all order and orientation comes from an all-loving, all-wise and infinitely living God.

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 god, Inner growth, love, Reality, religion, science, unity and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Are the first causal principles of the universe ALIVE?

  1. Ivonne says:

    Hi, I am glad I stumbled upon your blog. I wanted to add some points (I have found). In Biology there seems to be a huge bias, for ‘Evolution’ (described as a blind process). If you don’t buy the credo in textbooks ‘nothing in biology makes sense, except in light of evolution’ then you are looked down upon as anti-intellectual. When there are good arguments in favor of Intelligent Design. In universities, if you don’t buy Evolution, you are not ‘admitted’ into the circle and may not get taken serious (funding, tenure, opportunities, etc). Within science, there has developed ‘elitism’! Evolution, the new Religion. And Steven Hawking… Well… i get the impression he has an agenda to deny God, arranging the pieces of the puzzle in that way. But it is clear they did not consider what you wrote here! Good job… I enjoyed reading it… 🙂

  2. Anonymous says:

    Apparently you do not understand entropy. There is no such thing as reverse entropy, entropy always increases in a CLOSED system. The world only appears as if it is experiencing reverse entropy because it is an open system, that is there is an external energy source. The input of energy allows for a system to become more ordered. The moment our primary source of energy, the sun, dies, the world will start to become disordered. You should be ashamed of the pseudo-science bullshit that you are trying to pass off to uneducated fools on the internet.

    • thegodguy says:

      Sorry “A,”

      I offered plenty of rational evidence in my book that first causal principles come from an internal energy source – God. I bet you didn’t read it.

      Spiritually yours,

  3. otbricki says:

    As a scientist I think this debate on the existence of God is pointless. Science is fundamentally an effort to seek naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. The supernatural is not useful in the context of science because is cannot be the basis of prediction. Any hypothesis involving a supernatural influence, God, ID or whatever is useless to science. The supernatural is fundamentally not provable or disprovable by science. Scientists themselves have widely varying views on God, some believe, others may be atheists, and others have intermediate views, say like Einstein for whom a deep awe of Nature led him to religious feelings towards the natural and Spinoza.

    Science is a very young discipline, perhaps about 500 years old. In that time it has accomplished a great deal. As such it is likely to advance and be able to increase in descriptive and predictive power over time. Theology is far older and much more static. This I think will lead to increased tensions between the two – the ideas of science will conflict more and more with theology as time goes on.

    Right now there is a lot of debate regarding the topic of first causes. That is, what caused the universe. Of course there is set of theological answers from the world’s various religions. These answers share several characteristics: 1. There is no evidence to support them. 2. They conflict with each other. 3. They cannot be used to make predictions about other aspects of reality.

    As far as first causes go, I have a prediction. Science will develop a theory about a first cause that will be extremely strange and be nearly impossible to express in the English language. Clearly the many of the ideas about the universe that science has already presented are hard if not impossible to express in English because they describe phenomena under extreme conditions that English nor the human mind has no reference to. Quantum mechanics is full of such. Clearly the creation of the universe is an even more extreme condition. I think it is very likely that the concept of causality itself will be found to be irrelevant to creation, and whatever explanation arises will shake the foundations of philosophy as nothing has done before.

    Causality is already weakened significantly at the scale of quantum physics. For example consider an atom of U-235. At some time in the future this atom will undergo radioactive decay. Completely isolating this atom from its surroundings will not change that fact. Nor can anyone predict when that decay will occur. So how can one say that the decay of that atom has a cause in a classical sense?

    The most useful interpretation of quantum physics, the Orthodox or Copenhagen view actually does away with classical causality altogether.

    • thegodguy says:

      Dear otbricki,

      Thank you for your thoughtful comments. However, your opinion that such a debate is pointless is based on current scientific and theological arguments. My second (and award-winning) book “Proving God” unifies these two belief systems by revealing a new kind of science and a new kind of theology that offers unnexpected answers to issues like quantum gravity, first causes, complexity theory and the lawful creation of spacetime from non-physical forces.

      If you were to read the book we could have a fruitful discussion. Again, thanks for contributing to this most interesting topic!

      Spiritually yours,

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