Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Criticism of theism and atheism

I wanted to write down my criticisms of theists and atheists in this entry because I find it frustrating to discuss the subject matter with people on both sides who do not seem to comprehend what they are saying.  They seem to be ignorant of their own illogical and hypocritical arguments while criticizing another's point of view.  I want to point out some of what I consider illogical arguments and refute them.  As a point of reference, I do not view myself as either a theist or an atheist.  My beliefs are based on the notion that we could be considered "gods", but the word "god" does not make sense in that context as there would be no one to worship us (there is no point in worship in the first place, if you realized what consciousness is).  I consider all individual conscious beings as representative of the concept "god", and the collection of all the different types of consciousness is the "God" that monotheism thinks of (omnipotent, omniscience, etc.), which is the will of us all as One (this does not mean "God" is only the sum of all of our consciousnesses, but rather we are a portion of All That is).  I explained before that the One became the Many (us), and that the Many will eventually become One again when the Many realizes their true nature through all experience. [edit: this last perspective used to be what I understood about One and Many. Now I realize that We are always One, but we experience Many through our incarnations. So the "return to the One" only means we remember that we are always One when the experience of being Many is over. Also, there is no such thing as "all experience". There is only experience and we create infinite probabilities to experience.]

Monday, January 16, 2012

Into the Wormhole

I was watching Into the Wormhole today, the episodes "Is there a 6th sense" and "Does time really exist" and I gotta say, I feel excited to hear that at least some scientists (though the hardcore materialists would complain that they're not "real" scientists) are examining the same concepts I've been thinking about.  The information I gained for my writings are my basic understanding of science, my expanded understanding of our "true" nature (spirit/soul/energy), and trying to connect to my true self through medication and introspection.  Most of what I write has been a product of my inner search and it has provided me with what I feel are important insights.  They aren't unique perspectives, as many, many others before me have written about these same concepts for thousands of years.  But for me to understand these things (at least in my opinion), maybe not quite in depth but fundamentally, tells me I'm on the right track in terms of searching for my truths.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

What is the basis of my information?

I thought I'd write down the progression of my beliefs and how I got to where I am today in case anyone wanted to check out any of the sources as well.  This will be long.

New Age Belief?

Some people have wondered if what I am describing is New Age.  Although there are aspects of New Age beliefs, I do not see my belief as being New Age.

The label "New Age" comes from the movement of thought started through the past century.  Much of the insights seem to be derived from both individual philosophical thinking and extra sensory perceptions (channeling, mediumship, etc.).  Many of the ideas I have come from reading of books by authors loosely related to the New Age movement such as Jane Roberts and Rudolf Steiner.  However, most of my thinking is the product of my own intuitions in addition to what I have read.  Even as a Christian, I could see there were inconsistencies and idealistic human perspectives in the theology.  Reading materials outside of religion has shown me that misinterpretations of concepts and ideas existed, not just within the religious framework, but in all beliefs.  But this together does not mean I am a New Ager.  There are just too many different points of views within New Age itself, just as any other religion.  Nothing I write is new or unspoken of.  The concepts have been around for ages, well beyond even the known human civilization.  Tales that are the basis for religion speak of the same concepts that I've written, although through the ages, people have misinterpreted these tales and turned them into a religion.  I don't want that to happen again.  I want people to be as they choose to be, whether Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, New Age or whatever religion they choose.

I believe all differences of belief stem from the fact that each individual understands things differently based on their beliefs.  Even my beliefs are very much limited by my current knowledge and understanding.  That is why I do not believe anyone's belief is more correct than any other.  It really matters not what anyone believes in terms of social beliefs (religion, non-religion, etc.).  The only thing that matters in my opinion is to have an open mind to things you may not understand or believe, but most of all to be aware of your own experiences and intuitions.  We each have our own experiences, understandings, and knowledge about the world and we color our view of the world through that lens of experience.  It is because of this that I do not wish to be labeled any religious or philosophical point of view.  It is simply my belief of reality.

As an example, I live my life in a secular way, while accepting that Jesus existed, but also that Buddha and all the other world's religious messengers existed.  When I look at more and more religious theologies, I see the same message: that we are spiritual beings.  I also hold to scientific facts.  I recognize that in this reality, I am a physical being living in a physical world.  I go see doctors when I feel sick, but I also believe in the fact that I am a spiritual being and have the same abilities as a God figure.  I do not claim I have supernatural powers, but I believe we all have that ability to be discovered and trained.  What I don't do is expect everyone has to be like me, or that they have to believe what I believe.  That is why I do not accept religion as a practice because they typically require people to follow their set of rules and regulations.  But I also do not accept atheism as a practice because it denies a possibility.  I have not seen magnetic forces, but I know it exists because of the effects it produces.  In the same way,  I believe we are an effect of "spirit", whatever "spirit" is.  So I can't say there aren't non-physical beings.  From my perspective, I view myself as a non-physical being having a form that is physical and I tried to explain the reason for this in my previous posts regarding the existence of "God".

The central tenant of what I am trying to describe in my posts is that we should decide who and how we want to be and that if you want to change who you are, then it should be your decision, not someone or something else's.  If you don't want to change who you are, then it is your decision also.  No one should make you conform through threat or coercion.  We are all free-willed beings and nothing should take away that freedom of choice.  I'm not suggesting we should do whatever we want at the expense of others.  However, even though some actions take away the freedom of choice of others, it also is part of learning.  Our free-will exists so that we can utilize it in an educative and creative manner.  All actions have consequences that exists for our learning and understanding, both "good" and "bad".  However, not everyone recognizes the aspect of learning from their actions and thus continue to do things that are not beneficial or that they do not like or want to.  On the flip side, those viewing actions from a 3rd person point of view make judgments without understanding either.  They judge the consequence alone rather than the educational aspect from the action and consequence because they are trying to impose their own will upon others, thus denying free-will.  The idea that "I know better" is incorrect.  As I said earlier, we all only know what we each understand.  Without being able to utilize our free-will, we cannot understand based only on another's point of view.  When we see or hear another's point of view, it is an interpretation, not the actual experience.

Because I believe we are non-physical beings, there is no "end-of-life" consequence for anyone.  In other words, there is no "death" as we perceive it, but only a changing of form back into non-physical.  If we were to truly die, then life itself would be without any meaning, as the activities done during the short lifespan would be as if nothing occurred, and thus we would be fooling ourselves into thinking anything we do or say or believe matters.  This is why I do believe we are spiritual beings in different form and that what we do does matter for our own development individually and collectively.

The freedom to choose to be as we wish of atheism, with the meaning and purpose to exist of theism.  That is my belief.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Proof that "God" exists part 2

There is a common theme among those who only seek scientific proof for evidence of something's reality.  One theme is that evidence must exist with consensus before something can be proven to exist as a reality.  The other theme is that purpose does not exist in existence.  I will try to explain why these limitations of thought will hinder science from finding any evidence of non-physical concepts.

The main aspect of science is that for something to be evidence, it must be observable and repeatable.  Otherwise, it is merely an error, an interpretation or an anomaly.  The problem with this notion is that if one is trying to discover something that is not physical or not physically oriented, then how does one create an instrument to detect a non-physical thing?  If one does not know what to look for as they are unable to describe a concept that is non-physical, then one cannot know how to design something to look for an unknown.  An example of this is to try to explain what some word is.  For example, how would you describe what a "dog" is in another language to someone who does not know nor has seen a dog before, so that they could find one?  (As an aside, true image recognition in computing is incredibly difficult because how does one even recognize a form like a dog, given the infinite varieties that can exist, unless the concept is already understood within our "unconscious" mind before we consciously labeled it?  With all AI systems, they must be trained first before it begins to make matches.  That can be considered the "unconscious" knowing in the computational AI field where the data is "taught" by the "subconscious" aka user to the system.)  Therefore, science can only create instruments to detect physical things and thus never be able to gather any proof of non-physical evidence (by physical, I'm referring to the aspect of the physical universe, including those forces such as gravity, magnetism, and other unseen but physically oriented phenomenon.  By non-physical, I'm referring to the religious idea of "spirit", but as I've said before, I view a different kind of energy that has not been detected, that which allows everything in the physical world to be experienced, including those unseen forces, to exist as "spirit").  However, there is evidence, if one were to accept circumstantial evidence.  These are the subjective experiences that people have which cannot be experienced commonly.  While there are many who have similar experiences, they are all personal and interpreted individually, and so it does not quite fit the scientific method for evidence.

At the end of the day, everything that we observe as "objective", meaning it is perceived to be outside of our control, these objective experiences are merely the consequence of laws that govern the physical reality.  But physicists know that these laws only apply at the macro level.  Below this, at the subatomic level, there is no actuality, but only probability.  The way a probability becomes an actuality is subjective because it requires an observer, and each observer must observe that actuality personally, which means it is subjective.  In other words, the observer created the results being observed because they caused the effect through observation, while in the physical universe, the observer seems to have no control over what is observed, meaning the observer does not appear to be the cause of the effect.  This illusion that the observer is viewing an objective world is why you cannot guarantee evidence through observation since the cause of any objective observation is through the observer's accepted beliefs of the macro laws that govern their reality, whether consciously or not.

The other notion is that there is consensus of acceptance.  The problem with this argument is that all forms in this reality are limited by the same limitations as the instruments.  Our physical body is only geared to receive information within this reality (though our mind is not).  Therefore, logically, people's common acceptance does not mean it is true.  It merely means that something is accepted to be true with the current understanding.  Science has been proven wrong many times throughout history, so by that fact alone it should be known that consensus is not a basis for evidence (nor is scientific evidence infallible).  In that case, any evidence simply means the current effect is agreed to exist, but the cause may be disputed.  Even if consensus exist for a cause, the assumptions for the cause may not be true.

As I described in my previous post about the existence of "God", I wrote that science knows and understands to a certain degree properties of energy.  They may not understand how it works, but they do understand that such a non-physical concept exists in physical terms.  The whole of physical reality cannot exist without the properties of energy.  So while science recognizes and accepts as evidence that energy exists, they have not proven it exists.  They have only observed properties of energy and calls it energy.  Isn't this the same as religions calling the properties of the soul/God as spirit?  There is no proof that either exists, but only the observed properties and depending on your belief, it is accepted as either scientific or religious in concept.  One might argue that you can measure energy using instruments, but in reality, you're measuring the physical manifestation of energy, whether it's the photons or electrons or other subatomic particles, but not energy itself.  In the same way, I could argue that you can measure "spirit" as well, but you have to accept what "spirit" means.  If I claim "spirit" means "life", then you can easily see life all around you.  You can't disprove that life equals spirit since the term "life" is a quality, not something quantifiable, just like energy.  You can't measure the amount of "life" in something living, but you can measure each individual living being as a packet of life.  Even for the non-living, if "spirit" means the same thing as "energy" as I believe, then everything physical is spirit since everything physical is made up of energy.

The other hurdle for science to accepting an intelligent creator concept is the notion that purpose exists  with physical existence.  I believe the reason why those who reject the notion of purpose is because they do not accept that consciousness resides outside of the physical.  If the consciousness exists outside of the physical, then it isn't hard to accept that intelligence can exist at a greater level.  One can accept that we as individuals create purpose, but if you do not accept that the individual is something more than the body, then of course, there could not be something non-physical with intelligence which has created the physical.  My personal belief is that we as non-physical beings created the physical as a portion of All That Is, not that All That Is alone created the physical reality and it is we who create this physical reality for our own purpose.  The reason why we do not realize this while in the physical form is because when we incarnate into this reality as form, we are so focused on the physical data (sensory perceptions) that the portion of ourselves that we call the conscious mind is "tricked" into believing it is real and that nothing else is real.  This intense focus blocks all other non-physical data (perceptions) and so for the most part, we ignore the information that comes from the intuitional aspect of our identity and rely solely on the physical data.  But that is my philosophical belief.  To prove such a thing "scientifically" is as pointless as it is to prove a non-physical reality exists with physical instruments.  It can only be proven by the non-physical.  I suggest that the mind/consciousness is non-physical because if all material things can be proven to be composed, not of particles of matter, but of energy, then thought/mind/consciousness is also energy and energy is non-physical.  The other problem with denying purpose is that some refer to the question of "why" as really meaning "how".  But that is a philosophical debate because in order to desire to know "how", one must recognize the importance of "why" for there to be a reason to know "how".  The fact that one desires to know "how" is purpose ("Why" does one want to know "how"? To understand, which is purpose.) and so "why" exists before "how".  "How" is meaningless if there is no purpose.  Either purpose exists for all or purpose does not exist at all.  The only way some things can have purpose while others do not, is by the individual's choice to ignore or deny that purpose exists.

So why are we here?  Why do we exist?  Quite simply, because we are expressing our selves as physical form.  We haven't so much "created" anything as much as we've transformed what we are into physical reality, at least a portion of ourselves.  If you think of yourself in terms of energy, you've used a portion of your energy to "create" or transform into the body, and other consciousness transformed its energy into other forms of matter such as the planets and all that exists on them.  The universe is the collection of All of "us", consciousness, which we are also a portion of All That Is ("God"), each using our energy to create multiple and varied realities, as creatively as we would be creative in this world (think imagination coming to life).  The reason why most people have a difficult time either accepting or understanding this point is because of what I said earlier, that people are so focused on what they sense with their physical body that they do not realize there is an underlying "truth" to their senses and only accept the surface "truth", that which is "obvious" aka "objective".

I am not trying to suggest that energy means "spirit", whatever it may be.  I am merely suggesting that they are equivalents, although the terms are used in different domains (science and religion) and because of their common conceptual properties, they represent the same principle.

In conclusion, I have tried to explain why the concept of "God" can exist.  But as far as scientific proof is concerned, it isn't relevant.  The only thing that is relevant when it comes to evidence is personal experience.  It is only that which each individual accepts as something real or not real that forms their beliefs.  If one chooses to ignore experience or has not experienced conditions outside of the "normal" physical experiences, then they will have a difficult time accepting other's non-normal experiences as real.  This is the nature of self-deception.  We interpret all physical data and that interpretation occurs because of our beliefs about reality and everything else.  No one can tell someone what to believe.  They must themselves find the evidence, if they seek it.  Many do not seek evidence.  Rather, they merely seek confirmation of their current beliefs and thus limit themselves.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Proof that "God" exists

I've read various arguments on atheist websites on why they do not believe in "God" or other religious aspects of specific religions.  Most arguments are geared against the Christian theology of "God" and the teachings.  I will try to prove that an ever-present, all-powerful, all-knowing, infinitely expansive "God" exists in this blog.  I may miss some arguments or counter-arguments, as well as fail at explaining certain concepts as I am not a physicist or mathematician, but hopefully it will be clear enough why "God" exists.

First of all, when I see the word "God" it usually is defined in reference to the monotheistic concept of a singular god figure as I intend to prove exists: ever-present, all-powerful, all-knowing, and infinite.  But the problem I have with the term "God" is that it can be misused to describe a  personality, a being that is like us humans.  In addition, it uses terms like "spirit" to describe what God is, which doesn't really describe anything meaningful.  The term "spirit" is typically assumed to mean "non-physical".  But as I will explain later, terms are simply a means for man to convey a concept using accepted sound structures.  In other words, "God" does not necessarily need to be described with just an abstract conceptual term.

My definition of "God" is nothing of the sort.  As I try to lay out my argument, it will become clear how I define the term "God".  I prefer to describe "God" as All That Is or simply Source but for simplicity and recognition, I'll use the word God in its place.  The reason God is not a single personality is because if we are all a part of God, then we are also a part of God's personality.  We ourselves are not singular personalities, but that is another subject matter entirely.

We as physical beings know we exist because we experience the life within the body.  We have conscious control over our environment and are able to express our inner thoughts clearly without any doubt.  Most of us do not sit and wonder if I am "real" (though some may struggle with the external world as being real).  The nature of our existence proves to us that we are real, though what part of us is "I" is debatable.  Because of this, we automatically take for granted all experience as real.  That means the surrounding environment we are in is accepted as being real.  In addition, we do not question that which we do not perceive as being unreal, if it follows the same principles and laws of reality of that which we do perceive.  For example, you do not question the existence of another country that you do not see because you know it's composition is the same as the location you are at.  However, our physical perceptions have limitations because of the need to interpret that perceptive data by the mind.

Early man (in relation to our current history, not past civilizations that have disappeared) did not know what the stars, sun and moon were.  They were assumed to be gods because of their heavenly position and the way they overlooked man.  They appeared to create destruction or cause suffering when at certain positions, so man feared and worshiped them as deities.  Man's lack of understanding of astrological bodies created in their minds ideas about their reality.  Today, we may find their misunderstanding to be unbelievable, but man even today have limited, if any, knowledge of other areas of reality.  There is much knowledge and understanding at the conscious level that is not fully understood yet.  Perception is limited by our conscious minds, though what you consider the "unconscious" mind is not limited as such since it does not limit its perceptions to the physical.

As I wrote in my previous blog entry (http://simon-mlogs.blogspot.com/2011/12/we-are-spirit-we-are-energy.html), the human body's perceptive ability is very finite and limited to a very narrow spectrum.  In order to know there is data outside of our physical observations, man must create instruments to detect such data.  The basic problem with this is the fact that all matter resides within the reality of matter.  Matter will always be limited to detecting matter.  That is because man creates the instruments based on their expectations and assumptions.  They look for something and create instruments to find that something.  If they create the instrument appropriately, they will find it eventually if their assumptions were correct.  But what is missing is the understanding that the basic structure of matter is not matter.  Science assumes matter is composed of smaller and smaller matter, and yet they seem to ignore that "matter" is held together by energy.  If you get to the core of mass, it is only energy.  This can be proved by the fact that our body's perceptive organs only detect electrical signals as described by my last post.  We know the electromagnetic spectrum is theoretically infinite.  We use certain portions of this to our benefit.  X-ray's, visible light, radio, etc.  An electromagnetic field is a property of the existence of moving energy.  When an electrical current exists, an electromagnetic field is created.  How can there be an electromagnetic spectrum?  Because energy is moving!  There is an infinite spectrum because there are infinite levels of energy.

Now what is energy?  That's the same as asking what is "spirit"?  I cannot explain either, but I would argue that in terms of concept and definition, they are equivalents.  Energy exists everywhere.  Spirit exists everywhere.  They are both non-physical and they both are necessary for existence.  Your body cannot exist in its physical form without energy.  You cannot continue to exist without energy (food and warmth).  Things cannot be made without energy, not just living things but non-living things as well such as atmosphere, planets, etc.  Actions cannot be produced without energy.  All of existence is composed of and needs energy.  Because of this, energy is life.  According to the religious definition of spirit, it is what gives life.  Based on the synonymity of the concepts of life and energy, and according to the religious definition, God is spirit.  One could then argue that if the term energy is the same in concept as the term spirit, then God is energy.  Since the qualities of energy as we know it is everywhere and infinite and cannot be created or destroyed, God is ever-present and infinite and eternal.

Next, you know you exist.  I know I exist.  I exist because I am consciously aware of my being.  This does not require physical senses.  I close my eyes and shut out all sensory perceptions and I can still know I exist.  My conscious mind is the proof of my existence.  You might think, "but when I'm unconscious, I cannot sense myself".  This is not strictly true.  Your ability to remember differs between the conscious state and the "unconscious" state.  Perception exists even when you are "unconscious", and if your brain was able to remember the unconscious experience, you would be able to recall your "unconscious" experiences after you become conscious again.  This is why some people can't remember their dreams while most everyone else do remember their dreams to varying degree.  When one is dreaming, they are technically "unconscious".  The translated phrase by Descartes "I think, therefore I am" is quite apt here.  Your physical existence needs your conscious awareness, but your conscious awareness is not possible without existence itself.  They are one and the same, and so it has no beginning and no end.  It produces itself, and yet it cannot exist without such production.  This is the origin of thought, knowledge, information, understanding, etc.  Whatever exists, exists because of whatever.  The Schrödinger paradox about the cat in the box is the same concept.  You cannot know what the outcome is without observing what the outcome is.  Something cannot become concrete without being aware of that concrete something.  It exemplifies the notion that "God is everything, and everything is because of God".

The question then becomes what is conscious mind?  I have said that the physical body is energy formed into what we perceive as matter.  The perception of matter is based on the interaction at a sub-atomic level with electrical properties.  Sensory data comes to the brain as electrical signals.  The mind interprets that data and processes it.  But if the body itself is a specific pattern of energy, then the mind must also be energy.  How can I prove this?  By the fact that if all matter is made of energy, then the only thing that truly exists is energy.  And yet I am conscious.  Therefore, the only two things that exists are energy and consciousness.  They may not be one and the same, but the fact that thought transferred in the body is an electrical signal as well (output) shows that there is some association between the two.  The mind and energy are connected in some way just as sensory input is energy.  This is difficult to give a conclusive proof because there is a juxtaposition of a concept with another concept.  If I was a mathematician, I may be able to formulate the proof, but the only proof I can offer is that thought is the mind sending a signal to the brain no different than a touch or vision, which then transfers energy into action.  Without the body, thought would become energy transference immediately.  If you accept that thought is energy, then the conscious mind is energy.  If there is infinite energy, and all of that energy is consciousness, then God is all-knowing, since all possibilities and all thoughts exists within the energy which is God.

If everything is energy and all forms are patterns of energy, then anything is possible through that energy.  Conversion of energy into form is accepted as described by the periodic table.  Each element is a combination of energy particles.  Each element combines to form molecules.   Each molecule combines to form matter.  But in order to begin the process of transforming energy into something else, requires energy, just as energy is released when that form is deconstructed.  A nuclear reaction is the breaking apart of bonds, which releases tremendous energy.  Imagine how much energy is required to combine them!  That energy cannot have randomly been injected to create form because of the laws of thermodynamics.  First of all, energy cannot be added or destroyed, but only changes form.  Secondly, in order to add energy to a system, you must have transference of energy from higher to lower, meaning energy must move from higher concentration to lower.  In order to have a big bang, you must somehow increase the entropy of the system (add energy) to be able to generate work (release energy).  For a system to gather energy spontaneously would mean it is a perpetual motion device, able to feed upon itself the energy necessary to do work.  In other words, for matter to form from energy, it must gather that energy to form itself.  In a random system, to gather enough energy to change forms would not be possible because it must overcome energy's natural stable nature.  This alone must demonstrate the need for a catalyst, a force beyond the nature of the system.  Any input means there is design or thought because something must feed energy into the system consciously (an unconscious action would again mean there is some force that can go against the laws of thermodynamic, lower to higher).  If only energy exists and energy is thought, then it itself is the source and it itself consciously moved to create form.  Therefore, that energy can overcome it's natural state, which is the epitome of consciousness: to act out of free-will.  This means that God is all-powerful because it can act freely to overcome what we accept as laws of physics.

Also, the idea that we exist because of random chance cannot occur without a force causing motion or change.  The reason is because something has to exist before it can interact into something else.  The fact that something exists means that there is no beginning.  In order for there to be a beginning, there must have been nothing to start with.  If nothing exists, then no change can occur regardless of chance.  When I say nothing, I mean both visible and invisible.  If something that is not visible exists, then that is something still.  For a change to occur from something, it must move into motion in order for chance to exist, which requires energy.  Chance simply means that a possibility of something occurring exists because the system is always changing.  If the system does not change, then there can be no chance of anything happening since a static system will remain static.  An atom is never in a static state because energy is always moving.  From this fact, we know there is change in the system.  This fact gives us the proof that there is energy in the system that gives "life" and that it cannot be chance that energy was created into the system from nothing.  Where did energy come from?  Does it have to appear from something or somewhere?  Isn't energy, at the core, simply a concept, an idea, rather than something tangible?  The concept of beginning is only a physical concept because to have a beginning means that something came from something else which came from something else, etc..  If there is no beginning, then something must just exist or nothing can exist at all as something cannot come from nothing.

Hopefully, I have been able to describe why God exists from a logical point of view using understandable terminology.  None of my arguments is to say that God follows physical laws as I already stated that God can overcome such laws, but rather we can observe these laws in the formation of physical reality through the energy that exists, which I am calling God.  From this, I postulate that energy is God because it is the one aspect of nature that exists in all things.  But God, just like energy, is indescribable.  We define energy in a limited way, but it does not mean we understand it or know it.  Only that we observe the principles of matter as a function of the concept we call energy.  Even though I am using the term "energy", it does not imply non-intelligence or non-consciousness.  In fact, I argue that energy is the source of intelligence and consciousness, hence the idea of God.

Lastly, the reasons why atheists do not accept religion is not invalid to a certain degree. The rejection of specific interpretations or belief systems of religion can be valid.  I myself do not accept the traditional beliefs of various religions because I find that they are too restrictive in comparison to that which is possible through even the religious idea of God.  In order to have a God figure that is all powerful, then nothing can be restrictive in worship of that deity, for the worship must be representative of their deity's abilities.  Yet this is clearly not the case for many religions including the traditional Christianity.  But this too is due to a lack of understanding and knowledge.  Just as early man worshiped the stars and the sun as deities, modern religious man worships deities with qualities closer to man's current understanding.  The more understanding one gains, the more powerful the deity becomes, until they realize they themselves are eternal beings, a portion of All That Is.