1

1. Debate Topic: Is there a God?

Supposition: Yes.

2. Viewpoint applied: Management from Unitary Perspective.

2.1 Definitions.

Negentropy (Negative Entropy)- The tendency of an open system toward increasing order and complexity. The universe , and our world within it, is just such an open system. Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for proving negentropy. With negentropy as a fundamental principle of the universe, we know that the universe is becoming more organized and dynamic, like a living thing, and not decaying and growing cold, as we thought from our earlier science on the bounded-system principle of entropy.

Management - The continual resolution of complexity and diversity in science, society, and philosophy into a simpler dynamic system of controlled order. (My modification of an earlier definition found in the 1963 Reingold Encyclopedia of Management.) Management is a social application of negentropy.

Evolution - A process of unfolding or continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse state to a higher, more complex, or better state. Evolution is a biological application of negentropy.

Supposition: Conceptual barriers between science, society, and philosophy lead to internal and thus external conflict. Within a culture, individual and group views of separation between and within the domains of science, society, and philosophy are the direct cause of poor management practices and disorder, and thus of cultural problem resolution. The more one has assimilated and taken down the artificial boundaries between knowledge from science, society, and philosophy, the simpler and richer life becomes.

2.2 Unitary Perspective - There is only one thing, with infinite manifestations.

Supposition: Everything is interconnected in space/time (e.g., No leaf manifests without a twig, branch, trunk, tree, environment, ecosystem, world, solar system, galaxy, cluster, volume, universe, space/time, and potential preceding it in order). No thing is separate, ever or anywhere! Review the physical sciences regarding "non-locality" and "negative entropy" to begin understanding the proof/accuracy of this perspective.

3.1 The arguments in the debate of "Is there a God", and similar debates, are both complex (many parts/terms) and diverse (separated by difference). They can be simplified (few parts/terms) and reconciled (joined by commonality), and made systemic, understandable, and actionable, if the debaters take a unitary perspective. A definition of God that encompasses all debaters' definitions would be necessary before the debaters are even talking about the same thing. The debaters are quite literally arguing apples and oranges until this is done. This same situation is the reason why creating a data dictionary, dictionary, or lexicon in the management field is so hard and yet so valuable, and why arbitration to resolve differences is such a difficult task.

3.2 What is the definition of God used by each debater?

Is God a physical entity, with a body, mind, and personality, separate from us?

Is God an organizing principle at the foundation of all potential and our space/time, which is/was/will-be present, but is not active and thus indifferent?

Or perhaps God is an active intelligence whose body is that same potential and space/time, of which we are an active component?

Are you familiar with the story of three blind men describing an elephant? (i.e., snake, tree, rope). A fourth man, sighted or blind, can see their three viewpoints and their errors, but only if he is standing far enough back to either let his sight encompass all three men and the whole elephant, or he has touched the entire elephant. You have to stand back to see the three definition's commonality and differences, and base the comprehensive definition on commonality.

3.3 Is our relation with a God based on Dependence, Independence, or Interdependence?

3.3.1 Those who see their relationship with a God as Interdependent would tend to be labeled as "spiritual" believers. This interdependence and interconnection was taught and demonstrated by such spiritual teachers as Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammed, and Buddha, (and many others throughout space/time) in the context and lexicon of their time and culture/space. Philosophically, I believe "Interdependence with an infinite God" would be called "panentheism", although I prefer the term "unitary-theism". (See also Holism, Monism, and Non-Separatism, by Glen Fitzpatrick, Metaphysical Review, Vol. 3, August 1, 1996, No. 2) These are distinguished from pantheism, polytheism, monotheism, deism, atheism, etc, which each carry some degree of separation from the infinite.

3.3.2 Those who see their relationship with a God as Independent would tend to be labeled as "atheists" or "agnostics". Agnostic belief is based on a view that only empirical proof of Interdependence will suffice to justify belief in God, often assuming that what we can know in the future is constrained by current scientific knowledge. What is an agnostic's definition of God?. Atheist belief is based on rejection of Dependence on a God, always assuming that what we can know in the future is constrained by current scientific knowledge. Again, what is their definition of God. Both see themselves as Independent of God, with Agnostics waiting for proof, basing disbelief on their ignorance, and Atheists absolutely denying all possibilities of proof, basing disbelief on fear of proof. I imagine both sitting on a fence, unwilling to go to one side and fearful of going to the other.

3.3.3 Those who see their relationship with a God as Dependent would tend to be those who believe the intermediaries (i.e., organized religions) of spiritual teachers, and who take the label corresponding to that particular intermediary group. Those who believe they have a Dependent relationship with God accept that they are separated from God and must DO something to "rejoin God" now (e.g., baptism, confession, communion, good acts, etc.) or in the future (i.e., go to heaven) or they will face eternal separation (i.e., go to hell). Those in authority within an organized religion are more than happy to tell the Dependents what they must do to rejoin God. Note the opportunity for abuse of authority in this situation. Note also that superior/subordinate relations (dependent on authority) are not the same as container/component (inter- and intra-connected) relations.

3.4. I submit that all definitions of God which are grounded on experience are partially correct, but constrained by the cultural perceptions of the believer. The closer the believer comes to accepting and then seeing everything as interconnected and interdependent (i.e., an extension of their identity), without constraint, the less limited their perception. Since my cultural background was "Protestant", I'm largely bound-to, and will thus most effectively communicate, using that lexicon and history.

3.5. Note that I define our "love" as the act of extending our identity to encompass another thing, making it part of us. I therefore submit the definition:

"God is all love, the one identity that actively encompasses all things in space/time, giving them its infinite potential".

Refer to scientific research and finding on "negative entropy" and the physics of an "organizing influence in the universe" to see the scientific basis for this definition.

3.5.1 Each thing is part of that omnipresent and actively organizing identity, and thus can say and demonstrate: "I am God", to their greater or lesser degree of acceptance of that belief. The statement from Jesus of Nazareth of "I and the Father are One" applies this context as did his miracles. In referring to his miracles, Jesus of Nazareth said "These things you shall do, and more...".

3.5.2. Note that this definition of God encompasses the interdependent pairings () of: creation and destruction, yin and yang, oneness and separation, form and flow, organization and chaos, negative-entropy and entropy, order and disorder, life and death, growth and decay, giveth and taketh-away. These pairs are all equivalent terms for the same omnipotent physical and perceptual activity in space/time.

3.5.2.1. This also means that there is no room for a purely "destructive" entity, e.g., "Satan, the fallen Angel", because an infinite God encompasses all. There is only "Good", coming from God. The only "evil" in the world is the erroneous belief in separation from the infinite Good/God, and all evil acts are based on that erroneous belief. How much of our world's fear, doubt, pain, hatred, greed, anger, frustration, and despair is based on the believer's ignorance of their interconnection and interdependence with the infinite God, and thus each other? Answer: All. The only and original "sin" is the belief in separation from God and acting on that erroneous belief. Those who pursue "evil" intentions, capitalizing on the populace's belief in separation, may exhibit a little power, but the very belief in evil puts their efforts on a course away from the one source of power (infinite God), taking it out of their control, resulting in unanticipated repercussions (e.g., bad karma, collapse of empire, "getting what you ask for" rather than what you need, justice, etc.).

3.5.2.2. This leads to the concept of "God's Will" and our will, and the corollary of "God's Plan" and our plans. I've come to accept that God's Will and Plan is simply this: "Everything will grow increasingly organized and into full awareness of infinite interdependence". Any act or belief that sustains or accelerates this is what we call "Good". Going against God's Will/Plan is any act we individually or collectively take which contributes to belief in separation from each other.

I've seen the following sequence of events, in what I believe is the "Agenda" of God's will of fulfilling God,

form life - let the dynamic patterns of form and flow, order and chaos, prevail and be creative

animal oneness - flow of life, with perception of difference and change, and signals to peers, as advanced survival mechanisms

humanity arises - human ancestor animal learns to name things and communicate verbally - beginning of description, classification/taxonomy, and perception of separation evolves from the earlier perception and signaling of difference. Where humanity falls out of animal-instinct oneness. Most tribal religions

first consolidation - human's begin to perceive connections and then greater unity of the world (e.g. Empedocles)

second consolidation - belief systems based on unity of world arise (e.g., Buddhism, some tribal religions)

third consolidation - theism (pantheism - little gods in everything, then polytheism - a few major gods as in Greek and Roman gods), progresses to monotheism (one active God, e.g., Judaism and Islam), or branches to belief in an indifferent God "out there" (deism) and then to Atheism (no God) or Agnosticism (unsure, don't care, ?). In all of these cases God is separate from humanity

fourth consolidation - monism (e.g., taught beginning with Jesus of Nazareth - we're expressions of God, within God), where humanity is the child/expression of God, and contained within God. (Note that most major Christian religions teach the monotheism of Judaism (God out there), and not the monism of Jesus. Most of our species with Christian beliefs have not completed the fourth consolidation.)

fifth consolidation - panentheism (e.g., New Thought), a belief system where a life form, such as a human, is empowered as a living expression of an all encompassing God, and is part of God.

sixth consolidation - human oneness with of life and universe, where humans increasingly become aware of, and become active in expressing, the full potential of their God-derived identity. I believe that many humans have achieved this awareness, among them Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammed (i.e., Muhammad), Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) Gandhi, and Martin-Luther King, to name a well known few.

seventh consolidation - oneness as all, where all of humanity fully expresses its full potential and full partnership with all life and form in the universe, all being God-derived entities, and thus humanity expresses themselves as an intelligent and active God made manifest.

My loose speculation on the progress of consolidating humanity's awareness of Oneness, guided by a combination of ancient unitary beliefs and new unitary knowledge from science. See diagram

Date/Consolidated Percentage	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Prehistoric	95	5
10000 B.C.	70	20	10
2000 B.C.	25	60	12	2	.099	.001
50 A.D.	5	70	20	2	.098	.001	.001
1700 A.D.	5	50	40	3	1.8	.1	.1
2000 A.D.	.2	5	80	10	4	.6	.2
2100 A.D.	.2	3	58	30	6	2	.8
2500 A.D.		1	20	20	40	20	9

3.5.2.3. Note that separation is not the same thing as difference. Variation on common themes, from all potential in our space/time, is how God manifests in our world. Acceptance and appreciation of difference is acceptance and appreciation of the "works" of God.

3.5.3. When Jesus of Nazareth said "....the kingdom of God is within you.", he was conveying that all of the acts of the universe in space/time are accessible by our consciousness, because the omniscient consciousness of God is present in all of us. Consider this analogy:

the physical universe is a physical "shared data storage" device (i.e., matter, space, and energy in time),

our bodies are physical "local computers" (i.e., matter, space and energy in time),

our personalities are non-physical "applications" (i.e., information and energy in time),

our conscious mind is our non-physical "local application processor" or "client" (i.e., information and energy in time),

our thoughts are the non-physical "user interface" (i.e., information and energy in time),

our soul is the local non-physical "Operating System" (i.e., information without time),

the interconnected awareness (e.g., Christ spirit) is the non-physical "Network Operating System" (i.e., information without time),

the subconscious mind is our non-local, non-physical "network application processor" or "server" which we all share (i.e., information without time), and

God is the unitary "Enterprise" that organized us and the network to achieve its purpose (i.e., information, matter, space, energy, and time).

4. I recognize that what I've presented here may be a different view from the majority of our species, but it's very old. In an infinite, unitary universe (and in systems analysis), any view that excludes another view is incomplete. I recognize that I can believe my words above and accept all the other beliefs I've seen in these debates and other debates. Since I perceive that my belief is inclusive of all other scientific, societal, and philosophical beliefs, mathematical "set theory" and my own definition of management leads me to accept that my belief is closer to the facts of our space/time and will result in a more manageable, simpler, dynamic, system of controlled order for my life. That is: My beliefs help me be happy!

This information is copyrighted by Roy Roebuck, Arlington, VA, 1982-1998, and may be distributed and used, wholly or in part, only if accompanied by this copyright notice, after email notification of Roy Roebuck at roy(AT)one-world-is.org.