The God

We do not define things or feelings or events. We define the limits of the application of words. What shall we define as the limits of ap­plication of the word "God"?

For many people the word "God" is limited to an object of worship, an object which is assumed to have an existence of some order, such as to make it not meaningless to pray to it, that is, to direct one's words, thoughts, feelings, will or act­ion towards it, in the hope that some effect will be produced which, without such prayer, would not be produced.

Such a God, an object of worship, may be con­ceived as made of wood, or stone or metal, or other material, effective in itself by its intrinsic virtue, or as resident in, or associated with such a material object. Or it may be conceived as a psychic or spiritual being active directly or in­directly, through an idea or a feeling, or other im­pulse, and so guiding or empowering one's action.

Any god thought of as in any way formed may be called an objective god, that is, a god which may stand as an object of worship. Such an ob­jective god may be other than the worshipper, sep­arated from him. Or it may be the worshipper himself self-worshipping, adoring or praying to himself as his own object. The only essential pre­condition of an objective god is that it shall be formed, that is, circumscribed and defined so that it may be held in consciousness as an object.

The essential of an objective god is its form­edness, and most people, whether in fact they believe in the existence of such a god or not, think of the idea of a god as in some way formed or characterised. A god that is formless would appear to the objective god-thinkers as no god at all.

But not every worshipper of God is a wor­shipper of an objective god. Some worshippers worship God as the non-objective ultimate source of all objective existences. What do we mean by non-objective?

We mean not bound, not limited, not circum­scribed, not defined, not formed. Let us consider this further.

We can conceive a sheet of paper like this one only so large that we cannot see its edges. If we cannot see its edges we cannot define its shape. If its edges are unseeable we have no real reason to assume that there are any edges, other than the statistical one that most of our other perceived ob­jects have had edges. We may therefore conceive the paper as a plane extending beyond our vision edgelessly. To be edgeless is to be formless, undefined.

Now, when we think of the paper in this way we notice a peculiar thing about it. Insofar as we have thought of it as edgeless we have removed from it its limitations. We have thought of it as not definable beyond the range of our vision. But in­sofar as we think of it as paper having thickness, we are thinking of it as definable, and therefore formed and objective. We may say that the piece of paper which extends itself outwards beyond our vision is an undefinable in the horizontal plane. But insofar as it has a measurable thickness we may say that it is a definable in the vertical dimension. We may say that it is horizontally undefinable and vertically definable.

As to define is to objectify, we may say that it is vertically objective but horizontally non­objective beyond the range of our vision.

Now let us draw upon the paper a circle (we may use a letter "0" on this page to represent this, mentally rubbing out the other letters.) This circle is an objective, that is, a definable or formed something upon which we may focus our attent­ion. Outside this circle we may draw other circles. Each will be an objective within our field of vision. Yet the plane of the paper will extend beyond all of these circles, beyond our vision, and therefore beyond definition, beyond all objective circles. The paper in the horizontal plane will be a non-objective on which many objective forms are drawn.

The objective God-worshippers are like beings who worship one or more of the circles, perhaps even a big circle surrounding many little circles. But the non-objective God-worshipper is like a being who worships the paper in its edgelessness in the horizontal plane.

We have conceived the paper as an edgeless plane extending itself infinitely beyond the limits of our vision. We may think of it as an infinitely extended horizontal plane. We may now imagine that we place upon this plane another and another horizontal plane until these planes extend upward beyond the limits of our vision. We may do the same downwards. We now have an infinite num­ber of infinitely extended horizontal planes rising above and descending below the original plane. On each plane we may draw any number of circles of every size, some circumscribing others, some standing alone. All conceivable sizes and arrange­ments of circles, mutually exclusive, inclusive and overlapping, may be drawn. If we now fuse together the edges of all these planes we produce an infinitely extended three-dimensional contin­uum of paper throughout which our circles are placed. By a continuum we mean a substance not made of separate parts.

In the material world of things there is no true continuum. Each existent thing is made of molecules, these of atoms, these of sub-atomic particles, electrons, protons, and so on. But below the level of the sub-atomic particles is the true continuum logically necessitated by the fact of the functional relations which are manifested by the particles. The fact that particles in themselves separate are held in relations and functional pat­terns demonstrates a causal link or nexus between them. What is the nature of this link factor?

Today we know that material particles are merely functions of force or energy. Wherever en­ergy spins or rotates, there we may think of this energy as "material". Matter is simply energy spinning or rotating. There is no matter whatever that is not merely energy rotating.

What lies between the zones of spinning en­ergy we call material particles? Between such zones is simply force or energy relatively not ­rotating. The zones of spin we call material part­icles, and the spaces between such zones are all force. Force is not made of material particles. Material particles are behaviour patterns of force. Force in itself is a continuum, that is, a continuous causal field not made of discrete or separable parts.

When we talk of separable parts of a whole we are thinking of zones of spinning energy. When we think of force without spin or rotation we are thinking of it as continuous. All zones of spinning energy are in and of the continuous force field. The force itself is continuous throughout. Where the force spins we may say a material particle exists, but this particle is only force or energy spinning. In between zones of spin the field force is called space. There is no space other than field force. What we call space between particles or bodies is simply field force not spinning.

Spin is relative to an observer. What appears as spin to one observer outside the spin zone as a material body, may appear to another observer situated within the zone of spin as space. Each zone of spin has its own spin-rate or periodicity or frequency. Whether an observer sees a so­called material body or not in a given place de­pends largely upon the periodicity of the energy spin constituting that body, and the periodicity of the energy spin constituting the observer's organs of vision.

In our analogy of the paper and the circles drawn upon it, each circle represents an energy spin and the whole paper represents the infinite field of force in which these energy spins appear.

Each energy spin is or may be an object to an observer. Each energy spin has its own form, pat­tern and individual functional characteristics, which enable it to act in definite, efficient ways within certain defined contexts or situations.

From its individual functional characteristics each energy spin derives its right to be defined as good for some purpose.

We have said that the objective god­worshippers are like beings who worship one or more of the circles on the paper. As each of these circles stands for a zone of spinning energy, we may say that the objective god-worshippers are worshippers of zones of energy spin, the charact­eristic functions of these zones constituting the individuality of the worshipped object or god.

The non-objective God-worshipper is like a being who worships the whole paper on which the circles are drawn. The whole paper represents the infinite field of force, the continuum of power which appears as the infinite space in which the finite zones of energy spin are produced. The non-objective God-worshipper is therefore wor­shipping the ultimate source and cause of all objective gods.

The non-objective God we shall call The God as the Greek Gospel of John does. The greatest objective god, which we represent by a great circle embracing innumerable smaller circles, we shall call the Logos or Word-God, and all the smaller circles we shall call Little Gods. A man is a little god. So is a grain of mustard seed, a particle of sand, an electron, and so on, down to the minut­est existential point of energy spin which may be demonstrated or conceived to exist.

We say that each circle or zone of energy spin may be worshipped as a god because it is good for something. The statement "God is good" may be understood as an equation "God equals Good", which may be read also "Good equals God", pro­viding we may be sure that the Good to which we refer is on the same plane as the God we intend to indicate. On the lowest plane we may say "A god is a good", or "A good is a god". On the highest plane, that is, the level of the greatest circle, which contains innumerable smaller circles, we may say "The greatest (Logos) God equals the greatest (Logos) Good". Beyond this stretches infinitely The God, the infinite continuum force, for which we may make the equation "The God, the Infinite, equals the Infinite Good".

When a theologian evidences nervousness about allowing the equation "God equals Good, "Good equals God", it is because he is afraid that some careless thinker may believe that this equat­ion is equivalent to saying, "Any good is equal to The God", which would be manifestly untrue; or "Any good is equal to the Logos God", which is also untrue.

The God comprises and transcends all other gods. The Logos God comprises and transcends all other gods other than The God.

It is more intelligent to worship the Logos God than the little gods it circumscribes. It is most in­telligent to worship The God as source of the Logos God and all little gods. Speaking of his miracles, Jesus in his conscious identification of himself with the Logos God, said, "Greater works than these shall you do, if you go to my Father". By "My Father" he meant The God, source of his own and all other power.