The Belial Point Theory

[Rex]

The Belial Point Theory
by Dave Golgotha
Everything has a beginning - the point where it starts. A tree has a seed, a chicken an egg, etc. But each of these beginnings also had a cause - the seed to grow the tree came from a previous tree; the egg that hatches into a chicken was caused by a chicken before it laying the egg. Doesn't it then make sense to assume that everything has a cause, and a cause before that, and before that, repeating infinitely until the theoretical 'first cause' is reached?

The 'first cause' exists only as a concept, since in order for it to exist as an actual 'force' that caused something to be, that exact force must have been caused by something, therefore making that force not the 'first cause'. So we must move back one step further, and the situation then repeats itself. For sake of clarity , we'll call this abstract idea 'first cause', the Point of Belial, or Belial Point. I will explain the meaning of the name later. Just as the geometric point of a triangle can never be reached, since no matter how far we 'zoom in' searching for it in two-dimensional space, the geometric point is always infinitely smaller than what we can see, the first cause is the theoretical point at which the whole chain of infinite events was kicked into motion.

Ultimately, everything that has existed, exists now, and will exist, owes its existence to that first cause infinitely back up the chain - the Point of Belial. Mankind has subconsciously known this, and everyone has attributed various aspects and 'personality traits' to this first cause, which in turns leads to beliefs in deities such as 'God', the supreme creator, the infinite being. Yet if an infinite being exists, e.g. God, then according to the reasoning shown above, God had a Belial Point. The Belial Point is not personal - it does not think, or have consciousness - in this respect, it can be likened to another force, such as gravity or friction.

Does gravity think? No, it just adheres to a set of principles and works the way it does. The force exerted at the Belial Point is infinitely simple - the very 'spark' or 'chance' that set everything in motion, to cause the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause, repeated ad infinitum. This 'ultimate cause' can be accepted on many levels by the human intellect. Some, choosing to worship it, give it a personality, and establish a formal or informal set of 'rules' to govern their beliefs, usually based on an idea similar to 'in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' As the Belial Point is simply a cause, worshipping it has no actual relevance - it's just a way of accepting that it happened - giving meaning to man's existence.

Other people choose to study its effects as far back as they can, e.g. scientists looking for the reason behind the Big Bang and what it lead to. Yet others just ignore it and get on with their lives. How you choose to accept your existence as caused at the Belial Point, and whatever meanings you give to it, is entirely that - a choice, grounded in as much uncertainty as the next person's choice. If you choose to worship it as a god of some sort, giving it a personality, then go for it - it leads to emotional fulfillment and a sense of 'worth.' If you choose to study it, and learn as much about what has happened since and why, then go for it - knowledge of the mechanics of existence is sure to be a good thing. If you choose to ignore it, and just get on with living however you see fit, then that's fine too - if it makes you happy, go for it. Each choice is just as valid as every other choice, and no particular way is 'right' or 'wrong,' 'good' or 'evil,' as these are all subjective terms, and only mean what you want them to mean - basically, 'good' is what you like, and 'evil' is what you don't like.

As all choices are equal, no one has the right to condemn another for their personal choice on how they accept the Belial Point, as, in the end, we're all believing in the same thing anyway. I call this theoretical point the Belial point, as 'Belial' symbolizes true independence - independence from having being caused, as it is the first cause of them all.



Is using the word worship or belief a cop out?

 

[Master Hoomer]

Everything has a beginning - the point where it starts. A tree has a seed, a chicken an egg, etc

:shock: In qaBbalah..the beginning IS the end....
I dont think God has a beginning or an end.... :roll:

 

[Master Hoomer]

In science matter has been observed...that means that "the effect occurs before the cause".....even matter doesnt want to play the beginning and end clear cut game...... :shock:

 

[Master Hoomer]

I think reality is subjective...so the word belief is totally valid......interesting ideas though rex...

 

[Engyo]

Actually, reality has been scientifically proven to be subjective. Certain experiments provide different results if the experiments are watched while in progress. Thus the fact of focusing our intelligence on the experiment changes the result.

I don't think that changes the point of the theory though. One sci-fi story I read likened each solar system to the equivalent of a petri dish; a semi-controlled environment in which to test theories and watch developments as they play out. the Belial Point for this scenario would be before the petri dish was loaded with agar and prepared to accept the test media.

Whether one likes the big bang/big crunch model, the single bang/ever expanding one, or any of the others, these are interesting ideas to play with.

Paraphrasing the Buddha though, none of these theories really change what I have to do when I get home from work this evening, or when I set the alarm clock for in the morning.

 

[anders]

The theory I prefer is that the universe is eternal, in both directions of time. In that way, I do not have to image a beginning or what caused the beginning or the beginning of that cause.

That theory is of course influenced by the Western view that time is linear. Except for that, it corresponds fairly well to Hindu beliefs, if you add that the world periodically (cyclical time!) comes to an end and then is re-created. Recreation is nice.

The Buddha tells us not to worry: O bhikkus [monks], this cycle of continuity [samsara] is without a visible end, and the first beginning of beings [...] is not to be percieved."

Anders

 

[Runt]

Actually, reality has been scientifically proven to be subjective. Certain experiments provide different results if the experiments are watched while in progress. Thus the fact of focusing our intelligence on the experiment changes the result.

Heh, had to go grab a book that had a quote directly relating to this:

"In this thought experiment, two particles--say, an electron and its antimatter equivalent, a positron--collide, annihilating each other and creating two photons, which speed off in different directions. By the strange laws of quantum mechanics, a photon A does not posess properties such as spin or velocity until it is noted by an observer; the very act of measurement is said to 'collapse its wave function' and assign it values at random. At the moment that observers do measure photon A, causing it to acquire a certain spin, photon B will acquire the opposite spin, no matter how far away it is, and despite having no connection with the first particle. Photon B seems to 'know' instantaneously what photon A is doing."

Source--"Mysteries of the Unknown" (can you get a more generic name?) by the editors of Time-Life Books

 

[anders]

I may be repeating myself, but here it is:
The only supernatural thing I believe in is sub-atom physics.

There are even more fascinating things about those experiments. We are taught that the speed of light is the highest velocity that can be attained by anything. Yet, if the photons travel in exactly opposite directions, the information travels from one photon with at least twice that velocity to catch up with the other particle.

But it can be even worse for our poor brains.

Some collisions between particles, and the new particles that emerge, can be illustrated with diagrams that describe how one or more particles travel backwards in time! So much for our "linear", constantly forward-moving time.

Anders

 

[Runt]

The only supernatural thing I believe in is sub-atom physics.

But couldn't subatomic physics account for some of what we consider to be "supernatural" (things we THINK are supernatural but simply are natural occurances we do not yet understand)?

 

[anders]

Runt:
"But couldn't subatomic physics account for some of what we consider to be "supernatural" (things we THINK are supernatural but simply are natural occurances we do not yet understand)?"

Me:
Exactly.

Anders

 

[Alaric]

I think the Belial guy is not appreciating the difference it makes (or at least can make) whether you believe the first cause involved a thinking being acting with purpose, or just a random or necessary chain of events. You don't 'just' believe what you like, and it isn't necessarily 'okay' what you end up believing; the consequences of the way to see yourself and others can be profoundly affected.

And that crap with 'good is what you like, bad is what you don't like'.... :roll:

 

[Lightkeeper]

The Belial Point Theory

by Dave Golgotha




Ultimately, everything that has existed, exists now, and will exist, owes its existence to that first cause infinitely back up the chain - the Point of Belial. Mankind has subconsciously known this, and everyone has attributed various aspects and 'personality traits' to this first cause, which in turns leads to beliefs in deities such as 'God', the supreme creator, the infinite being. Yet if an infinite being exists, e.g. God, then according to the reasoning shown above, God had a Belial Point. The Belial Point is not personal - it does not think, or have consciousness - in this respect, it can be likened to another force, such as gravity or friction.


Is using the word worship or belief a cop out?

I think the key words here are "Mankind has subconsciously known this..."
I think we have all of the answers within us and the Buddhists may be on the right track by the nonattachment approach. The more we can slough away the unnecessary and be one with the Void, the more we will learn about our beginnings. Scientists have never been able to explain the empty space in an atom. An atom is mostly empty space. This brings us back to the void. I think there was no beginning and no end.

 

[anders]

In senior high, I was scolded by my chemistry teacher for questioning the current atom theory (that was more than 40 years ago). Now, Nobel prize awards are awarded to theories approaching mine <suitable emoticons could be, for example, self-ironical and/or massively joking>:
Maybe there "is" nothing whatsoever in an atom, but just probabilities of force fields.
If you think that this sounds complicated, be warned that really it is even worse.
I am with the no-beginning-no-end theory. Energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed, so it must be eternal.

 

[Runt]

Scientists have never been able to explain the empty space in an atom. An atom is mostly empty space.

Aye, and since everything is made up of atoms, even the densest materials are still made up mostly of space... kind of an odd concept to think of when you walk down a concrete sidewalk or drive in a metal car...

 

[Runt]

…cause effect cause effect cause effect…

In theory it should be a trend that continues in either direction ad infinitum. You cannot have one without the other; it is similar to the chicken and egg question: which came first?

The Belial Point Theory ignores the infinite stream of cause and effect, and instead states that there was an ORIGINAL cause that set into motion all other causes and effects. In this theory there was nothing before the original cause. And then out of nothing came the First Cause, called the Belial Point, the point at which cause and effect began.

Is the Belial Point God Itself? Or is the Belial Point is God’s first action?

These questions raise yet more puzzling questions. If God is the Belial Point, the First Cause, then did God not exist before that point? Or was God, the First Cause, a very long first action… an action extending back forever in time?

If the first is true, then this would refute the idea that God is infinite; that which has a beginning also has an end.

However, if the second is true, and God is the First Cause and that First Cause is infinite, then what we believe to be cause and effect is really just one long cause that never ends. Furthermore, if we are God’s creations, an indirect effect of that First Cause (a cause, which, by this interpretation, is infinite), then all the effects of that cause, being part of that cause, are therefore infinite as well. We are infinite. (Many religions, believing in the concept of a soul, believe this).

However, it gets more complicated. If God is the First Cause and the First Cause is infinite, then God is infinite. If ALL effects of the First Cause ARE the First Cause because the First Cause is infinite, and if we are an “effect” of the First Cause, then we too are that First Cause. And because, again, that First Cause is God, and we are that First Cause, then we are God.

If, on the other hand, if the Belial Point was God’s first action instead of God Itself, then something DID exist before the Belial Point: God. This refutes the idea that there was nothing before the Belial Point, the original cause.

The Belial Point Theory insists that there was NOTHING before it. So if the Belial Point is God’s first action, then where is God?

Which gives us two choices: either the Belial Point theory is true, or it is false.

But now even a greater paradox. If the Belial Point Theory is true, then God COULD NOT HAVE EXISTED before the Belial Point theory, making all acts of creation a mindless, uncontrolled phenomenon instead of something controlled by a conscious (even if conscious in a way incomprehensible to our human brains) entity.

And if the Belial Point Theory is NOT true, then there WAS something before the Belial Point. The question here is, WHAT was there before the Belial Point?

If the Belial Point Theory is false, then cause and effect really are infinite, because there can BE no first cause if there is something before it. Meaning God must be the Belial Point. Bringing us back to my second theory about we humans being God.

 

[Alaric]

I think the Belial 'point' assumes that you can make a division between 'something' and 'nothing', which is itself paradoxical. You can't really say 'from such and such a time there was something, before there was nothing', or 'over here we have something, and beyond that border we have nothing' because then nothing would be something - it would be defined as that which was not something. So, it doesn't make sense to say that something sprang from nothing - if there really is 'nothing' then that includes no cause!

So we could call 'nothing' instead 'that which contains a cause' (so it's not nothing after all) and call everything else (the something, the universe we know) an 'effect', which includes God should He exist.

Now, even if God was Himself an effect, He might still have the power to make time in terms of His creations as long or short as He wanted, meaning He could still be infinite to us even if He himself had a beginning (imagine a timeline for God, then imagine the timeline for everything that God creates as going perpendicular to His own. He can add as much as He wants to it, but He is still a certain number of God-years old). Then God could be the first cause of our world, but would not be the first cause of Himself.

 

[Runt]

Hmm... interesting way to look at it!

He can add as much as He wants to it, but He is still a certain number of God-years old

This would allow God to have a "youth", and "old age". Now, assuming those things are in some way equivalent to these states in the existence of other creatures, in particular Human, would there then be a time in God's life when It was inexperienced and made mistakes, or will be a time in its life when It is old and senile and makes mistakes? Or a time when It is going through It's midlife crisis? Did God ever go through a learning experience? And if so, did it learn from its own mistakes, or did something TEACH it?!?

In an odd way, that would account for many of the problems in our existence... the formation of "evil", all resulting from that formation, the flaws in humans and other creatures, natural disasters, etc etc etc. God was like a young genius of an artist working to create It's masterpiece...but hasn't quite gotten it right yet...

This is assuming, of course, that this God was not born out of nothingness with perfect understanding of everything. Then God could not make any mistakes with Its Creations...

Or assuming that "time" really is a repeating thing... that as soon as God reaches Its "end" another God (whether young and inexperienced or young but with perfect understanding) pops up and begins creating its own infinite stream perpendicular to itself...

However, the power that we call "God" would still be infinite...energy is infinite; it cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. So perhaps the energy released from one God's passing creates a new God. "God" would be in a constant state of flux, just like energy, and just like its creations. Therefore, just like the line of God's creations is infinite but each individual creation is not, so the line that is "God" is infinite but each different God is not.

Hmm... this would mean that in each God's lifetime it sparks a machine of creation, cause and effect, that is perpendicular to itself and keeps going infinitely. Therefore there are multiple infinite streams of time, one sparked up in each God's "life" that are existing simultaneously... but are parallel to each other, meaning they can never intersect and interact...this could account for the theory of their being multiple dimensions...

Fun theory Alaric!

 

[Alaric]

Yeah, playing around with these kinds of thoughts 'till you get totally tangled is great fun!

The amount that God needed to learn, or the extent to which He could make mistakes, would rightly depend on His level of knowledge. He couldn't be completely omniscient, even only about His created universe, since He would need to know what He Himself was going to do to the universe, or else He wouldn't know it and wouldn't be omniscient. And if He did know everything He was going to do, He not only wouldn't be able to think, He wouldn't even be able to take any independent decisions (He already know what He will do from the moment He is born) making Him effectively a divine vegetable and totally meaningless. So, God needs to be less-than-all-knowing (and so less-than-all-powerful).

Then there's the issue of how much power He has. If He makes mistakes, couldn't He just erase them? He could 'save the game' in His mind and start again, or rework the whole thing to make it so that the mistake wasn't made. Because everything is cause and effect, God should really be the initial cause of our universe or dimension (just not the Belial point which preceded Him) and so should make the laws of physics work in such a way that creates the best results. So He sets in all off, watches, then perhaps realised 'Oh crap, nuclear armageddon again' then erases it all and starts again. So our whole universe could be destined to be erased if we get it wrong - good motivation to try hard. This would entail God not being able to violate His own laws of physics by getting involved, but perhaps engineering within them certain ways of allowing His creations to know Him and learn the necessary ways of behaving. But it would also mean that God had some (hopefully very very good) reason to erasing it all the time when He didn't like it. Some kind of divine purpose. What would justify it?

But then, if God is less-than-all-powerful and therefore able to think and feel and have purpose, there might be some laws of action that all self-aware beings have to follow. If we are created in God's image, or there is such a thing as karma, then this would be likely - but then God has little power of us, just over the world in which we live and evolve (Bruce Almighty - vast powers, but you can't interfere with free will!). Which means that knowing the contraints of God would be the same as knowing our own constraints, and attempts at objective ethical laws like the Golden Rule or Categorical Imperative (act in such a way that the maxim of your act should become a universal law) would apply to God as well, and we could learn to understand Him. Perhaps He can't morally interfere with our free will by giving us a purpose? Or perhaps God is the divine originator of all morality, and because we are imperfect vessels of His morality it's only by faith and submission to Him that we can truly 'come back to Him'?

 

[Runt]

Heh, I personally like the theory of a God that knows all and simply acts without thinking. The "Cosmic Vegtable". Kind of like a tornado... we are caught in it, it doesn't think or care one bit for us, but it has total power over us. Only difference is that a tornado DOESN'T know everything...

Now, if God is the natural laws of our universe (even those yet undiscovered) and therefore the force behind cause and effect (rather than just being responsible for the first spark of creation)... it could be like that Cosmic Vegtable... always acting, part of everything, all knowing, but unthinking and uncaring.

 

[Alaric]

But the idea of God really only applies to something that does think and does care. Other He is just the natural laws of physics, which are just to be understood and resigned to, not appreciated or worshipped.