God and Religious Toleration/The proof of God

With many possible definitions of "God", which may or may not contradict each other, it is hard to rigorously reason about the existence of God without first addressing the question of what "God" means. For many possible definitions of "God", there exists no definitive proof of its existence, nor of its absence. A select few definitions can be more rigorously reasoned about. Some definitions, for example, may lead to logical inconsistencies and paradoxes. Other definitions may instead be fully compatible with science.

As such, answering whether God exists is, for the most part, a question about the exact definition of "God". After all, we can be reasonably certain that there exists no man in the sky with a long beard, the common caricature of a god. The more abstract notions of "God", however, can still be reasoned about, and can lead to interesting philosophical insights.

Various religious philosophers have made several attempts at formulating proofs, which tackle the matter from different standpoints. It is important to realize, however, that these proofs tend to tackle only one specific definition of "God", and as such, each argument should be seen as separate.

The Proof of God's Existence
A common argument in favor of the existence of God is through the concept of "enlightenment", commonly described as a particularly large inner happiness, serenity, inner peace and compassion. Millions of witnesses in the world have claimed to experience enlightenment in some way or form, in different cultures and in different times. In this argument, it is argued that this experience itself refers to "God", in essence defining God as this experience of enlightenment.

Critics of this argument, however, claim that despite the re-definition, this is a logical fallacy: simply because many people experience something, does not mean that the phenomenon points to something fundamental about the universe. For example, optical illusions occur in every tested person, yet they are clearly just manifestations of the mind.

The most important take-away of this argument, however, is that the re-definition of "God" to mean this experience of enlightenment can lead to arguments about that particular existence. It cannot yet prove other aspects a God may have, such as its ability to enact miracles, whether it transcends nature, and so forth. Additional arguments are necessary to prove those aspects. After all, if "God" were to be defined as the feeling of inner happiness and compassion, then there would be no dispute as to its existence. However, many people define "God" as something much more powerful, and that requires additional proof.

Psychological Proof of God
There have been attempted psychological and the physical proofs of God's existence. Importantly, God may be defined as a purely psychological phenomenon, in which case the proof is rather simple. For the psychological proof of God, it is sufficient that the enlightenment is mental and that an enlightened one sees God. There are many enlightened witnesses (for example Jesus, Buddha, Patañjali, Church Fathers, Teresa of Ávila, Dalai Lama, Swami Sivananda, Mata Amritanandamayi, Sri Anandamayi Ma, Mother Meera). Indeed, this argument points out another important aspect of potential definitions of God: a god that exists only within the mind is one that can easily be demonstrated. However, proof of the existence of God outside of the mind remains insufficient, as there is no physical evidence either way. Quantum mechanics do not make any claim about supernatural phenomena despite its common misinterpretations, and supernatural experiences are unfortunately not thoroughly investigated enough to provide solid evidence either way. Critics of the existence of such an objective existence of God, rather than one bound to the mind, argue that the existence of such a God has as much proof as the existence of any other arbitrary fantastical entity, and believing in one of them necessitates believing in all other ones too, as they have equal evidence.
 * Atheist: The proof of God has been rendered by TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation). The Canadian neurologist Michael Persinger put on his subjects magnetic fields, and they are touched by God. God is the creation of certain brain areas. Thus, your witnesses evidence is nothing more than auto-suggestion.
 * Theist: You make a major logical error, as many other brain researchers too. If God can be perceived by the brain (there are even certain areas of God), does this not mean that God is only in the brain. If an apple can be perceived by the brain, does this not mean that there is no real apple outside the brain. God can exist inside and outside the brain. Persinger did a psychological proof of God. Great thanks to him. TMS confirmed the fact of enlightenment. Enlightenment exists. The enlightened one sees God. Enlightenment is thus at least a psychological fact. As a condition of human consciousness enlightenment is already clearly established. The big question is whether God really exists outside the brain, such as the above mentioned apple. There are many facts such as the quantum physics, the supernatural experiences (for example, the cures of Lourdes) and the statements of the enlightened.

This critical counterargument does not disprove any specific God either, of course, but does point out an interesting equivalency. This is especially important for this book about religious tolerance. Regardless of which definition of God is true, or whether the real deity is something as comical as a giant invisible unicorn living under the seas, since either of them still lack objective evidence, we would be hypocritical not to be tolerant of beliefs that have equally limited evidence. This way, we avoid the hatred that may spawn from disputes, and avoid the suffering that is induced by such hate.

Physical Proof of God
The physical proof of God is that God not only exists inside the mind of an enlightened person, but also as part of an outer reality. In this case, it is very important to properly define what God means in this context. Again, a God that is merely a man with a beard in the sky is something we can be fairly sure about does not exist. Instead, something more abstract would be necessary.

An interesting viewpoint relates to the fundamental nature of matter, which mostly concerns metaphysics.

Although it is still subject of scientific debate, it is commonly accepted that there exists some underlying foundation of the universe, be it a set of information fields as defined by physics, a space filled with particles, both at the same time, and so forth. For example, many physicists agree that we are likely just part of a large equation, a theory of everything, that describes the motion of the entire universe from beginning to end, whether deterministically or with randomness included. Alternatively, however, we may actually be part of a simulation, which itself would be part of an even bigger universe on the outside.
 * Professor Dürr: "Basically, there is no such thing as material. Primarily, there exists only connections to material foundation. We could therefore call it consciousness material. Energy appears only as coagulated secondarily, solidified spirit. (... ) Many discoveries of quantum physics are not only immaterial, but that is a work in completely different ways that have nothing to do with the standard three-dimensional spatial sense we have. It is a pure information field, a sort of quantum code. It has nothing to do with mass and energy. This information field spans the entire universe. The cosmos is whole information because this field has no limit. There is only one, but this one united entity is differentiated."(P.M. Magazin 05/2007)

God may fit into this picture if it is defined in a very specific way. For example, re-defining God as being this guiding equation of the theory of everything, it suddenly becomes evident that this likely exists. However, in re-defining God like that, we also would realize that this removes all commonly claimed powers God may have: it is no longer a sentient entity, nor is it something that can enact miracles. After all, it is defined as the rule set of the universe itself. This is a rather enlightening realization in and of itself, but it also means that using the word "God" to describe something with a more specific meaning can lead to confusion in debates where the word "God" has many more meanings, so this explanation should be used carefully.

In the worldview that we live in a simulation, however, more things become possible. In this scenario, God may indeed be a physical entity that exists "outside" of this universe, possibly like the player of a video game who observes the universe and may, in fact, intervene. Of course, the question would then still remain who created this God in all its complexity, but suddenly, miracles do become plausible.

It remains important to note, however, that although these thought experiments provide a way for a God to still be compatible with scientific evidence, it is in no way proof yet either. After all, it may be the case that there is no person behind running the simulation, or that this person observes but never intervenes. Furthermore, in such a scenario, there is also no evidence that prayers will be listened to, or that the way one religion describes prayers is the correct one. Such a God may in fact be a cruel one, or it may be a kind one. Indeed, this again feeds into the topic of this book: religious toleration. With no definitive proof of any religion's set of methods being the ultimate truth, we must remain tolerant of other people's beliefs and their views of the world to prevent ourselves from tumbling down a spiral of self-induced misery.

God and Quantum Physics
Quantum physics, being one of the final frontiers of the scientific search to the nature of the universe, has long been a subject of speculation about the fundamental nature of the universe. It is important to note, however, that quantum physics is often misinterpreted, and metaphysics and physics is often confused with one another in philosophical debates that touch upon the topic. As such, this section merely outlines some views of the matter, but cannot be seen as proof in any way.

According to some quantum physicists (Hans-Peter Dürr, Amit Goswami, Michael König), there is behind the material world a hyperspace that can be regarded as an afterlife or a heaven. Basis of this assumption is the proved (verified) phenomenon of quantum entanglement. If two entangled (by contact "mentally" connected) photons (light particles) can communicate over a large spatial distance much faster than light (immediately), there must be a higher dimension (a hyper-space) through which this is possible. Because the special theory of relativity from Einstein shows that signals spread out in the traditional dimensions of space can do this not faster than light speed.

Evidences for the nature of the hyperspace are not yet available. There are the string theory and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. If they are verified a multi-dimensional universe (multiverse) can derived from them.

The French physicist Jean Emile Charon (1920-1998) developed the complex theory of relativity, meaning that there is a photon gas in the interior of an electron, which can form structures and is a kind of inner memory of the electron. The consciousness of man can for Charon be stored in electronic memory (see Biophotonics). Since electrons have an eternal life, the German physicist Michael König made in the 1980s the hypothesis that essence electrons form in the body of a man an eternal soul. They continue to exist after the death of the man and incarnate again later on into a new body on the earth. For the existence of a soul independent of the body speak, according to some scientists, the findings of the near death research, the reincarnation research and the after death experiences of the 16th Karmapa. [http://www.buddhismus-heute.de/archive.issue__37.position__5.de.html The death of the 16. Karmapas, Dr. Mitchell Levy (germ.)].

'''The physicist Burkhard Heim (1925-2001) made a quantification of space and time with the extended quantum field theory. He assumed that the space is filled with tiny quantum and that there are also time quantum.''' Spiritually formulated, one would say that the universe exists out of light (an ethereal substance). A mystic can feel this. The hyperspace is not empty, but filled with "light". So Burkhard Heim was able to calculate the hyperspace beyond matter. Overall he found a twelve dimensions universe. Charon and Heim are previously little-noticed in the current physics. But things can change. Outsiders may be the mainstream.

'''The German quantum physicist and mystic, Michael König (b. 1957) published in 2010 the book, "Das Urwort (The physics of God)." In it he made the Firstword-theory. Our universe is an idea of God. All began with the wish of God that a cosmos with thinking beings should be there. He spoke a mantra (ELI) and the multiverse was started. Consciousness is the center of the universe from which everything is developing.''' Michael König has worked up the theories of Charon and Heim and extended. This enabled him to confirm through quantum physics, what was found by the enlightened ones and mystics of all time by the inner exploration of their consciousness. With his Urword-theory he connects the traditional knowledge of the mystical philosophy with quantum physics.

In accordance with the traditional Indian philosophy our entire universe exists out of three primary areas, the material cosmos, the afterworld and the heaven (God, Light World). Through spiritual practice, a person can develop a light body and ascend to higher realms of consciousness. On earth, there will be a golden age in the future, based on the association of spirituality and science. "And God's light will flood through all people, (...) all love each other, they will laugh and be happy." (Michael König, Das Urwort, p. 265.)

'''God is a higher dimension of consciousness consisting of energy, love and information (ELI) in the center of our multiverse. From this center, the Eta-particle (basic light-quantum) flow and form the afterworld and the material universe.''' After the teachings of hinduism at the end of time everything flow back into God, and after some time of rest the dance of Shiva starts again. But it will take an eternity, until everything dissolves in God. Until then, we can live as happy souls in the multiverse. Or as unhappy souls, if we prefer this.

'''The mathematician Klaus Lange has reviewed the theory of Michael König, that God is a high density of energy (light, love, consciousness) in the center of our multiverse. He found two things who can be tested experimentally.'''(Der Mathematiker Klaus Lange zur Urwort-Theorie.) Now we just have to wait until the test takes place. Science will make a quantum leap.''' Love is the essence of the universe. We do not fight against each other anymore, but together we build up a happy world.''' We create the paradise on earth and after we die we all get up into heaven. Until then, it can still be a long way, as the previously unsuccessful attempts to prove the string theory show. But we can be optimistic because the near death research, the reincarnation research and the visions of the enlightened point towards provability.