The Sine Wave of Belief

Lately, I’ve been doing some reading about metaphysical belief systems. We all are metaphysical. Even if one doesn’t believe in God or “the supernatural” (often poorly defined), one’s lack of belief is still a metaphysical system. I would argue that we are all metaphysical in our thought process. We often find ourselves searching for the ultimate cause when given time to reflect.

God is not provable. No God also is not provable. These two statements are forever incomplete but linked.

There is a metaphor for our thought system when considering the reality of God or no God. We will reach a barrier that is never provable, never passable, and perhaps eternally frustrating. This “no-go theological boundary” is like a barrier to a particle.

The particle is defined as our thought on the subject of God versus no God. The barrier is impassable. It reflects our thought regarding God / no God right back to us with no ability to make progression or discovery.

I am a religious person, considered I would be considered a theist. I have dear friends and relatives who are atheists. We respect and love each other. Research seems to be clear that theists and atheists are very similar in that they are often analytical, have a spectrum of beliefs about non-religious issues, and generally have happy lives.

So, perhaps the atheist and theist should agree on the point that there is a boundary on believing in God or no God that cannot be studied objectively further. It is a subjective metaphysical system. There is no science experiment or natural observation to prove God / No God. The question of God / No God rebounds back upon us with no further ability to penetrate through a fog consisting of lack of information. This fog is a barrier, fence, or wall that appears to be infinite in possiblity. Humans are finite. The lack of getting to the root of God / No God is infinite.

Photograph by Ada Wang

I would subjectively consider that thinking about the possibility of God without objective evidence would be a constant back and forth between “I believe”, “I do not know”, or “I cannot prove.” Alternatively, considering the possibility of no God without further objective knowledge on the subject would be a constant back and forth between “I don’t believe”, “I do not know”, or “I cannot prove.”

Perhaps God = No God. Perhaps God and No God are the same entity.

This back-and-forth between “I believe in God” and “I don’t believe in God” in the setting of “I do not know / I cannot prove” in one’s singular mind or in a conversation between people seems to be an allegorical sine wave.

Belief ————————————————————> (Time component)

Non-Belief ———————————————————> (Time component)

There is a time component here. The belief / non-belief statement is a spectrum. One might say, as an example, “I think I believe in God today but I am not sure” or vice versa. However, whether we are dealing with an individual, a conversation parter, a group of friends, or a culture / society, this spectrum of belief exists over time. The God / No God belief system alternates back and forth in conversation. If time is eternal, then this God / No God wall may be just as eternal.

At best, this sine wave could serve a Hegelian purpose for a further understanding between the disparate ideas of God / No God. Sadly, humans are very limited when it comes to expansive thought and seem to be built to be tribal. We would rather insult, confine, or kill each other when deciding with 100% subjective security about the answer to God / No God. Our species is tragic here.

I am yet optimistic that this metaphorical sine wave could be a helpful for human understanding. I have two reasons why I believe this idea has postive consequences.

First, there is the element of time. Time suggests the eternal potential for change — physical, mental, environmental, psychological, or spiritual.

Second, the subjective and objective qualities of life and thought always influence each other. Always. Such influences also require an element of time. Scientific discovery affects how we view the world metaphysically, including our views on religion. Poetry, music, literature, and the encompassment of all art influence how we think about science. The Forman Thesis is an interesting read in this area.

Humans will not always make the right decision in this dialogue. We have a tendency to consider the “other” as “bad” or “ignorant” during such discussions. However, when done right, the realization that one cannot prove or disprove God has the potential for a good discussion using the component of time. A positive discussion here potentially can lead to advances in how humans look at the world metaphysically, especially when it comes to treating our neighbor and our planet with love, understanding, and a goal for betterment of all.

Odds and ends:

1. The “Not Even Wrong” blog (one of my favorites) has an interesting post about how Nature journal is using AI for its readers to help them come up with research ideas. Is this good for society? How is this process paid for? Answers are not clear.
2. Theology and Science journal has an article from 2009 titled “A Mathematical Model of Divine Infinity.” Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall. I like how the article describes mathematical infinities. The modeling provides axioms which is a correct concept. I worry when axioms are considered a parallel to Platonic forms.

image created by Meta AI