Slices of God

Twenty-five years ago I started carving a walking stick out of a six-foot piece of walnut. I first turned it out on the lathe, and then started carving a blend of several Old Testament passages that reads, “If You Will Walk In My Ways And Follow My Statutes Then I Will Be Your God And You Will Be My People And It Will Be Well With You.” I got really ambitious and decided to carve the text using a raised Old English font.

Well, it took me eleven years to get through, “ . . . My Statutes Then I.” At that point our young family moved to a small farm that soon captured every waking moment of our days. The carving went on hold for the next fourteen years.

Almost a year ago we decided to move off the farm to a much smaller house and property. Having given up maintaining fencing, mowing acres of grass, and fixing one thing after another, I found myself thinking about finishing the walking stick. Sadly, however, the task had morphed from a joyful challenge into a job to get done.

Thinking about how quickly I could wrap up the project, I launched into carving the next word. “Will” was not fun to carve. The thrill was gone . . .

Last night I went back into the shop and prepared to carve the next word: “Be.” All of a sudden it hit me like a ton of bricks: I don’t know how to “be” anymore. I lost the ability to slow down and “just be.”

At that moment, I hit the reset button, sharpened my chisels, put on some relaxing music, and began to carve. Slowly and out of nowhere a joyful smile found my face. A tinge of delight in the detail took me by surprise.

As I carved, a number of phrases began floating through my soul. “Always be humble and kind.” “Be compassionate.” “Be content.” “Be anxious about nothing.” “Be still and know that I am God.” (Psalm 46:10)

I am slowly learning to be again. Just be.

– Sam Augsburger

Pride rose up against the United States and incited President Trump to parade the military for all to see. So President Trump said to the Pentagon, “Go and prepare a parade of the military like never before. Then show it to the world so that they may know our power.”

But Wisdom replied, “Why do you want to do this? Why should the nation be forced to pay for this?”

The President’s words, however, overruled Wisdom; so the Pentagon left and prepared the parade. This action was prideful in the sight of Wisdom.

Then Wisdom said to those in Congress who were listening, “Go and tell President Trump, ‘This is what Wisdom says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.’”

So representatives from Congress went to President Trump and said to him, “This is what Wisdom says: ‘Take your choice:  three years of economic downturn, three months of military disaster, or three days of devastation across the land.’ Now then, decide how we should answer Wisdom.”

But President Trump bypassed Congress and went directly to Wisdom and said, “I don’t listen to fake news.”

So Wisdom pronounced the consequences . . .

– Sam Augsburger

Questions abound this time of year. Did God literally enter this world as a child? Was it the result of a miraculous conception in a virgin? What are the arguments for and against?

The previous several posts have focused on the infinitude of God precisely to shed light on these questions. Frankly, sharing my opinions with you will not amount to a hill of beans unless you have resolved the infinitude issue for yourself. If you have not, I suggest you go through the previous several posts and carefully consider the logical and mathematical progression. Continuing to read this post may be meaningless unless you have resolved this fundamental issue.

The discussion to come is based on the following 7 affirmations . . .

1: Observationally, all effects have a cause. (The Origin of the Cosmos)

2: Mathematically, the initial cause must be infinite. (An Infinite Initial Cause)

3: Scientifically, this infinite initial cause must have personality. (An Infinite Initial Cause with Personality)

4: Existentially, we know we exist in a broken world, having originated in an unbroken realm. (A Broken World; A Puny God and a Broken World)

5: Emotionally, we long to return to “the Garden.”

6: Practically, we cannot cross the dimensional chasm that separates us from the God-realm.

7: Amazingly, only the IICP (Infinite Initial Cause with Personality) can accomplish such a task.

Mythologies, including Greek, Judaic, Eastern Religious, & Native American mythologies, are filled with deities taking on the form of human flesh. I believe mythology is fundamentally built on either real human experiences and/or innate knowledge. We innately realize not only that deities can take on human form, but also that it must be done for the restoration of humankind. If there were no such need, these myths would not abound. Some interpret the volume of messianic myths from diverse cultures and various eras as proof it is not a viable option. Again, I believe the volume of such myths only confirms this messianic need. The probability is too great to ignore: an ultimate reality drives such beliefs.

While there have been volumes of messianic claims over the millennia, and from numerous religions, mathematically this God-become-flesh must be infinite in origin. That being the case one will suffice. (If there are two or more unique messiahs, then none is infinite.) For the purposes of this post, I will continue by asserting that Jesus of Nazareth was this messiah. The evidences are overwhelming. For much more on this subject see chapter 2.15 in Slices of God.

But how is such a deity-in-the-flesh supposed to enter this broken world? Is it to happen through a normal human conception? I suppose such an entry is possible, if a deity were to replace the essence of the previously conceived embryo with itself. That seems a bit abrupt to me (not to mention finite), booting out some other soul to make room for God.

I was quite surprised as I read the Koran to find that it, in addition to the Bible, claims that Jesus’ conception was miraculous: “Remember when the angel said, ‘O Mary! Verily God announceth to thee the word from Him: His name shall be, Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, illustrious in this world, and in the next, and one of those who have near access to God; And he shall speak to men alike when in the cradle and when grown up; And he shall be one of the just.’ She (Mary) said, ‘How, O my Lord! Shall I have a son, when man hath not touched me?’ He said, ‘Thus: God will create what He will; When He decreeth a thing, He only saith, ‘Be,’ and it is.’”[1] Even though Jesus is not believed to be divine in Islam, the virgin conception is clearly affirmed.

Some theologians and textual critics work hard to refute such scriptural narratives because such things “just don’t happen.” Marcus Borg resolves this tension by arguing that scriptural stories such as the virgin birth of Jesus are not literally true, but metaphorically true.[2] (It makes me wonder if such a statement is also a metaphor!) So what is at the root of such disbelief?

This is where we circle back to the infinitude of God. If we believe and/or function as though God is finite, limited by the same constraints our common sense is, then of course we need to finagle our way around such fairytales. On the other hand, if God is infinite . . .

-Sam Augsburger

www.SlicesOfGod.com

Slices of God: Strange, Dimensional, and Fractal Perspectives on God and the Cosmos

[1] The Koran as translated by Rodwell, The Koran, III:40-42.

[2] Marcus J. Borg, The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2003), 12.

In several recent posts I implied a connection between God and our broken world. So here we go . . .

I have encountered numerous individuals who reject the God-concept due to the apparent inability of such a God to prevent our world from becoming so broken. “Surely, if God did exist, he, she, or it would not have allowed the world to become so fragmented and evil.” There is merit in such a criticism, but only if God is not infinite. While that sounds counterintuitive, in reality it is quite logical.

Let us begin with an assessment of a finite God. Such a God has constraints, boundaries, and limits. Such limits imply inadequacies. Because of these inadequacies, security would surely be of high priority. Control would be crucial to such security. Any deficiency in control would result in insecurities. Insecurities don’t get along with rebellions. Given these less-than-adequate characteristics, every effort would need to be made to squelch any variation from the rules and plans. Such a God is a controlling God: a finite God. A puny god (The Avengers).

Contrast that with an infinite God. The constraints, boundaries, and limits are nonexistent. There are no inadequacies. No insecurities. No need to squelch any rebellion or variation from the “rules.” For that matter, rules would be suggestions for our wellbeing, not demands that are followed with, “Because I said so!”

Our world is broken because God’s infinitude permitted it! When humanity boldly said, “We can do it on our own,” God politely backed off and gave us the reigns. The irony of ironies is that by attempting to own and control God’s infinitude we ended up losing faith in God’s infinitude. Wow . . .

As the previous posts show, either God is infinite or God does not exist at all. There is no in-between. But we tend to either reject God because we cannot wrap our heads around infinitude, or we construe a finite version of God, rationalizing that we worship the one true God. And, if there is in an infinite God, we tend to demand that “he” shows his infinitude on our terms and in our lifetimes! God’s infinitude is no more confined to time than it is to gender. To confine God’s infinitude to our meager lifespans and expectations is a rebuttal of such infinitude!

Most, if not all, of us live our lives either rejecting God for his finiteness, or accept a very finite version of God. It is a real dilemma. Both are limited perspectives. The confounding thing is that an infinite God is indeed capable of reaching into our finite realm, becoming finite, and touching our lives. That is precisely why we need God to become flesh. We cannot reach infinity on our own. We cannot restore this broken world by our might. Only the IICP (the Infinite Initial Cause with Personality) can, and, as we will see, in fact did. This God-become-flesh is in the business of restoration. And that, my friend, is infinitude!

-Sam Augsburger

www.SlicesOfGod.com

Slices of God: Strange, Dimensional, and Fractal Perspectives on God and the Cosmos

In The Origin of the Cosmos I argued that scientific principles support the conclusion that the cosmos was not self-originating, but had an initial cause (IC). In An Infinite Initial Cause mathematical principles demonstrated that the initial cause must be an infinite initial cause (IIC). Turning Nothingness Inside Out demonstrated mathematically that everything that exists came from zero complexity or nothingness by means of the IIC. Now I want to take a closer look at the properties of the IIC.

Just as there is no scientific data available to demonstrate an effect without a cause, neither is there data to demonstrate the occurrence of an attribute or parameter in an effect that was not present in the cause. DNA mutations can result in changes in shapes, sizes, colors, and functions of a subsequent generation, but there will still be shapes, sizes, colors, functions, and DNA. Though many theorize the onset of new parameters, there is no data to support such claims.

Evolution theorizes the rise of new and better attributes in subsequent generations. Did they come into existence on their own, or did they derive them from an ultimate cause, such as the IIC? As fully as current evolutionary theories are accepted, it is surprising that they are accepted without any evidence of attributes coming into existence spontaneously without cause or without being present in their predecessors. This pre-existing attribute criterion, or PAC, is an issue conveniently skirted by many theorists. Contrary to current theories, proven evolutionary changes involve mutations, but not different elementary building blocks. In computer technology we have learned to rearrange the 1’s and 0’s in different sequences for new results, but they are still 1’s and 0’s.

If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion, taking it to its limit so to speak, then the IIC had to have personality, since some of its effects do.[1] Therefore it will hereafter be referred to as the infinite initial cause with personality (the IICP). We can theorize that personality came into being via a collection of experiences, relational neurological synapses, or some other random connectedness, but it sidesteps the pre-existing attribute criterion. The very fact that artificial intelligence theorists are working steadfastly to reproduce intelligence in the ultimate machine, is in and of itself evidence for this argument. Whether personality is simply a collection of ideas or not is ultimately irrelevant. The artificial intelligence gurus miss the point if they think they can prove spontaneous generation of personality by duplicating it in machines. Ponder this for a second: if the artificial intelligence community is successful at building personality into a machine, where did the machine get its personality? From its causes! The point is, regardless of what personality is, the IIC had to have had it!

So, where does the God concept fit in with all this? I see little difference between God and the IICP, except that the God label is more restrictive, given the profound negative and positive preconceived images that it conjures up in the human mind. Throughout the rest of my posts I will use the IICP and the God labels interchangeably with some reservation due to so many distorted images of God. Some may find the IICP label too impersonal. I intend quite the opposite, yet understand if it does seem so. I have used the acronym so much over the past decade that I am accustomed to it and feel at home with it, especially given its ultimate connotations. Perhaps it will grow on you too as we go along.

-Sam Augsburger

Slices of God: Strange, Dimensional, and Fractal Perspectives on God and the Cosmos

[1] For the purposes of this discussion, implicit in personality are also sentience, intelligence, and consciousness.

Let us assume for a minute that nontheistic evolutionists are correct: everything that currently exists evolved on its own from lower states of existence, complexity and order. Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, uses an illustration titled “Mount Improbable” to show how order can evolve on its own, slowly inching its way up the mountain of complexity over billions of years, rather than needing a creator to boost such order to the top of the mountain in six days. That is all well and good, but a problem other than an initial cause (IC) raises its head at this point. Evolutionists acknowledge that each stage of the evolutionary process emerges from a less complex stage. If this is the case, what was the level of complexity at the very start?

Well, you guessed it: we are going to perform an infinite regression (just as we did in the previous post titled An Infinite Initial Cause), but in the reverse direction. If each previous stage was less complex than the current one, even if by an incredibly small amount, and we proceeded backwards through an infinite number of previous stages (known as taking it to the limit), it brings us to one and only one answer: zero complexity!

Even if the degree of complexity for each previous stage of development was only 0.9999999999999999999999999999999 times less complex, the answer is the same when taking it to the limit: zero. If Dawkins’ “Mount Improbable” is correct (even though he avoids taking it to the limit), everything that currently exists came initially from zero complexity. That may not seem staggering, but let us look more carefully at the implications of such an outcome.

Zero complexity equates to nothingness. Anything, even the simplest of all things, has a complexity greater than zero. Even a quantum mechanical string, the entity that physicists theorize is the building block for all subatomic particles, has a complexity greater than zero. If the total initial complexity of the cosmos were zero, there would be nothing. Not even the fabric of space itself would exist. Dawkins’ argument to prove that no creator was needed inadvertently argues that everything came from nothingness.

The two limits equations present confounding statements regarding the existence of the cosmos: either it always existed (requiring a continuous energy input) or it came to be from nothingness by means of infinity. For scientists to insist that complexity and order have risen out of the dust of the cosmos (without adequately explaining the origin of cosmic dust) on their own is mathematically not an option. The process described in the previous post (An Infinite Initial Cause), yields infinity as the cause. The process described herein, regarding complexity, yields zero as the starting point for the infinite initial cause (IIC). In a very real sense, these two values are on two sides of a very strange coin. Though some mathematicians insist that the inverse of zero is undefined, it is also thought of as infinity, and vice versa. Zero and infinity are at the root of all that is.

Reason, no matter how convincing, if limited in the extent to which it is carried out, is not in the end authentic reason, but a deceptive form of reason. Some escape the need for an infinite initial cause by claiming that the universe has always existed. If that is the case, it is infinite. Either way one cannot escape infinitude. What if, just what if, the IIC took nothingness and turned it inside out? What would it look like? Perhaps we are staring at it.

We are on a quest to understand the brokenness of the world, but we cannot fully analyze or understand our current state without assessing the stages of our development. In order to understand where we are headed, we need to know what brought us to our current state. I hope you will continue on this journey with me, attempting to get clearer pictures of both our origin and our destination.

-Sam Augsburger

Slices of God: Strange, Dimensional, and Fractal Perspectives on God and the Cosmos

It was a fateful Saturday afternoon in my garage that got all this started. I had just recalled a question that had bothered me as a boy and finally decided to ask it of God, or whoever was listening. I wanted to know who put him into power: who gave him the right to be God? It was only moments after asking this question that it occurred to me that if in fact (or by means of a miracle) he actually answered, informing me who appointed him God, I would quickly turn to that “whoever” or “whatever” and ask the same question. You see, it was a logical and foregone conclusion on my part that whoever put God into power had to have more power than God, or else he would have been incapable of ordaining him God. Then I realized that the series of questions would never end, assuming the series of individuals did not run out of patience with me and continue to answer my finite questions.

At that moment I acknowledged not only that every cause must have a cause, but also every cause itself is the effect of an even higher order cause. The scientific principle of entropy (thermodynamics) dictates that each and every cause must be of a higher order of complexity than its effect. This principle is true because we live in a less than infinite state. It is mathematically, scientifically, logically, philosophically, and experimentally impossible for any entity to create or give rise to another entity that has more complexity than the entity that brought about its existence. Einstein knew this and asserted it by famously declaring, “God does not play dice.” Douglas Hofstadter interprets this statement by saying, “What Einstein meant is that nothing in nature happens without a cause, and for mathematicians, that there is always one unifying, underlying cause is an unshakable article of faith.”[1]

On that fateful Saturday, when I was asking the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause . . . where it came from, I was actually performing what is called infinite regression in mathematics. If each effect had a cause that was only a small fraction more complex than it was, where would I end up if I asked the question an infinite number of times? The answer is infinity. In other words, each cause of a given effect is necessarily more complex than its effect, even if only by a very, very small value. If one were to ask each effect about the magnitude of its cause, continuing up the chain of more complex causes, one would end up with one and only one answer: infinity. (For the mathematically inclined, a more robust mathematical argument is available in chapter 2.03 of Slices of God.)

Mathematically the initial cause (IC) must be infinite; it cannot be less. Every effect must have a cause, and every cause must have a causal entity larger and more powerful and more complex than itself, even if by a minute amount. At the start of each and every cause-effect progression is infinity. Jean-Paul Sartre, the French existentialist philosopher pointed out that “a finite point is absurd if it has no infinite reference point.”[2] We are not the finite entities we claim to be without an infinite reference point: an infinite initial cause (IIC).

In the previous post (The Origin of the Cosmos) I asserted that the IC, or what I now refer to as the IIC, has everything to do with our broken world. How and why? As we dissect the implications of an initial cause being infinite and deduce some of its attributes we will come to understand more about why our world is broken. Obviously there is more to come . . .

-Sam Augsburger

Slices of God: Strange, Dimensional, and Fractal Perspectives on God and the Cosmos

[1] Hofstadter, I Am a Strange Loop, 120.

[2] Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, 145.

In the previous post (September 16^th) titled A Broken World, our condition was left looking a bit dreary. Yes, we are indeed broken. The whole world is broken. But, where does that leave us? Are we to simply remain in a depressed mode, knowing we will forever be broken? To address this dilemma, we have to take a step back: way back.

Quite a few of my posts have been written assuming God exists. This is not a given for many of us, including me. We really must address the God issue and its role in the brokenness we live with. To do so, we have to start with the beginning of the cosmos.

What brought about the existence of the cosmos? This very question assumes a definitive beginning. Perhaps everything always has been in existence, cycling over and over, without the need for a beginning. Much of the scientific community works exhaustively at avoiding the issue of initial cause (IC). While some adopt a no beginning stance, others keep moving backwards in time to bigger and bigger natural phenomenon to explain events such as the Big Bang. Some simply avoid the debate over a beginning altogether. Why? There are natural outcomes of assuming a beginning to the cosmos that result in unwelcomed conclusions for those who believe in complexity without a reason for its existence.

In Douglas Hofstadter’s book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, he addresses this issue by focusing on the complexity of DNA, asking the fundamental question: how did all this get started? Did it start itself? That, of course, is unimaginable to Hofstadter. He concludes the discussion by diverting the focus to the wonder of complexity. He moves away from the dilemma, delaying a conclusive discussion on origins.[1] Diverting away from the difficult issue of initial cause is too frequent a trend.

Whether one believes in a beginning or no beginning to the cosmos, one fact is insurmountable: no scientific data exists that exemplifies an effect without a cause. This is evident from Newton’s laws of motion to DNA mutations to electron transfers. In a journal article published in Physical Review Letters, E. Marinari says, “There is no evidence for spontaneous changes in nature, only changes without known causes. The only remotely suggestive evidence is within the world of quantum mechanics . . . Even this is not understood well enough to state any proof of spontaneous changes in nature without a cause.”[2]

Still some theorists attribute all that is to spontaneity, asserting that the cosmos simply emerged out of “primeval chaos.”[3] Even if such an emergence did happen, where did the primeval chaos come from? Mathematical probability, let alone logic, does not lend support to a universe such as ours coming into existence of its own accord. Physicists estimate there are approximately 10¹⁰⁰ atoms in the entire universe (that is a 1 with 100 zeros following it). The apparent order is so grand and the probability so miniscule that to espouse a universe out of chaos by chance casts a grim shadow on intellectual integrity.

The issue of existence pertains not only to atoms coming together in arrangements to bring about complexities such as stars, planets, and life, but also to the existence of atoms in the first place. Even the strings that physicists purport to make up all sub-sub-atomic particles have complexity. Where did their complexity originate? Once again one could claim that this complexity always existed (though that still leaves me intellectually unsatisfied), but spontaneously bringing higher order out of disorder is still very problematic.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is continuously moving in the direction of increased disorder. (Notice this is not a scientific theory, but a scientific law.) This increased disorder is commonly referred to as entropy. The whole universe is undergoing entropy: the whole universe.

Brian Greene, in his book The Fabric Of The Cosmos: Space, Time, And The Texture Of Reality, assures us that even though our universe is driven to more and more disorder, stars and planets and life can still form from pockets of order. However, a “more–than–compensating generation of disorder” still dictates the overall trend toward cosmic disorder.[4] While this may appease some theorists on a local level (our universe) it does not address the existence of cosmos, nor the remaining order within the cosmos that is moving in the direction of entropy. What brought the disintegrating order about in the first place?

Our whole universe speaks of causation. “All things are subject to the law of cause and effect. This great principle knows no exception.”[5] The scientific community has discovered no exceptions to this principle. The Dalai Lama states in The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, “Since we interact and change each other, we must assume that we are not independent . . . Effectively, the notion of intrinsic, independent existence is incompatible with causation.”[6] While this may be a reverse argument, it is nonetheless an argument for cause.

I assert, based on the second law of thermodynamics, that any and all complexity indicates a cause. No-cause equates to zero complexity and zero complexity equates to nothingness. Furthermore, as pointed out earlier, no scientific data exists demonstrating any effect without an associated cause. It truly is that simple.

Some get around the initial cause issue by asserting that the universe has no beginning. There are very elegant arguments for this. I am not opposed to such a theory. Though no beginning is very appealing, such a cyclical existence cannot continue without energy input. Why the need for a continuous energy supply? Any loss of electromagnetic radiation is both a loss of energy and mass. One could argue that energy never escapes, but energy must be spent in order to keep energy and mass in. Any loss of energy implies eventual total loss of energy and mass, which implies that our universe will not go on forever. If it does not go on forever, the implication is also that it has not gone on forever. “No beginning” theories do not do away with the need for continuous energy input. Cause is still a factor.

Part of the problem with such pursuits is that we are a part of the very system we attempt to analyze. “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And it is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of the mystery we are trying to solve.”[7] While this is true, we can continue to explore and reason to the best of our ability, working diligently to move beyond our biases (be they scientific or religious) to gain deeper understandings of the nature of our existence. As an example, we have explored and come to understand so much about the human body in spite of the fact that we are confined to such bodies.

Hilary Lawson aptly says, “Science can give an account of the causes of events in the world by reference to other aspects of the world, but it cannot give an account of what caused the world to exist, for the cause would have to be outside of the world.”[8] Regardless of whether you are a millions-of-years evolutionist, a 6-day creationist, a nanosecond eventist, or an eternal cyclist, the common denominator is the inescapable issue of initial cause and/or continuous energy input. All scientific data points to a cause for every effect, and ultimately to an initial cause.

So, what does this have to do with a broken world? Everything! But, we must first analyze this initial cause in more detail. Stay tuned!

-Sam Augsburger

Slices of God: Strange, Dimensional, and Fractal Perspectives on God and the Cosmos

[1] Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, 548.

[2] E. Marinari, “Numerical Evidence for Spontaeously Broken Replica Symmetry in 3d Spin Glasses,” Physical Review Letters 76, no. 5 (1996).

[3] Boltzmann in Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (New York: Random House, Inc., 2004), 320.

[4] Ibid., 173.

[5] Carl Menger

[6] Lama, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, 47.

[7] Max Planck in O’Murchu, Quantum Theology: Spiritual Implications of the New Physics, 85.

[8] Lawson, Closure: A Story of Everything, 231.

Are you one who believes that we are not in a dualistic world of good and evil, but that we are evolving our way out of the current problems and on into a better state of humanity? Or are you one who believes we are in a world of brokenness, wrestling with both good and evil? I suppose you could be one who has never thought through the state of the world to the point of deciding which it is. Regardless of your position, something is wrong.

Perhaps I could be persuaded to believe that we are evolving out of our current state if someone could offer an adequate explanation as to how we got here in the first place. Just as evolutionary theorists have difficulty explaining the presence of religion, they also have difficulty in explaining the presence of brokenness and evil. Some insist that evil (though most theorists don’t like the label) is simply a “dysfunction as a form of collective mental illness.”[1] Even if this were the case, how could an elegant process like natural selection result in such a dysfunctional state? To put it simply, the origin of brokenness and evil evades evolutionary theorists.

I believe something catastrophic happened in our past. Even if we completely ignore religious texts, logically we come face-to-face with that something. What was it? Perhaps our ability to ask such questions holds the answer: we are free entities.

We are clearly beings that ask questions and choose. What is more, I believe we as a human race did in fact choose to follow God’s example to the core: we chose to follow ourselves alone as God does. In essence, we replaced God with the god within. The irony is that only God can follow himself by recognizing the sovereignty that dwells within. It was in error that we, given the same choice, chose to follow ourselves.

As though it were not enough to be broken, we perpetuate our brokenness via what some identify as sin. Eckhart Tolle provides a clear understanding of sin in A New Earth, “Sin is a word that has been greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted. Literally translated from the ancient Greek in which the New Testament was written, to sin means to miss the mark, as an archer who misses the target, so to sin means to miss the point of human existence.”[2]

I believe there are numerous ways we miss the mark, but the first was initiated when we humans decided to advance ourselves on our own terms. We do so still. It is a place as much as it is a condition; it is a location of brokenness. It is not an intermediate stage in an evolutionary process leading to a greater place. It was a backward evolutionary move on our part, one away from the driver who was leading us forward. In this light sin is our condition; we are in a broken state. We missed the mark when we decided to walk away from the target.

Sin is, in a sense, self-induced neuropathy. It is like drinking water that leaves us thirsty.[3] We can be better people, live successful lives, have wonderful families, be productive in work, and give back to society, yet still thirst.

We need a new paradigm. Religion alone is not leading us there. Religion is part of the problem.[4] We need more than manmade efforts to solve the brokenness of our world. What is more, we are not going to evolve our way out of this conundrum. The very fact that we humans imagine a world without pain and evil is an profound indication: we miss what once was. John Lennon’s song Imagine was not a dream: it was a memory. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream was also such a memory. Mahatma Gandhi saw visions of this past. These memories call us forward to a strangely old and familiar paradigm, with traces woven into the fabric of the cosmos.

I believe most of what we humans do is aimed at repairing our brokenness. From acquiring material things, to seeking pleasure, to publishing self-help books, and exploiting each other: all are aimed at self-restoration. We live our lives obsessed with finding the missing pieces. Most efforts are ineffective. Some are counterproductive. They may address little bits of pieces that are missing, but not the hole in our souls. We so desperately want to be completely restored. Instead, in our pursuits of restoration, we are sidetracked by our own efforts. We are our own worst enemies. We need something that goes beyond the limits of evolution and efforts to restore ourselves. We are broken.

-Sam Augsburger

Slices of God: Strange, Dimensional, and Fractal Perspectives on God and the Cosmos

[1] Tolle, A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose, 8-9.

[2] Tolle, A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose, 9.

[3] John 4:13.

[4] For a fuller explanation of this claim, see chapter 2.09 in Slices of God.

In the year and a half since I published Slices of God I have received a range of responses. The responses from those who have read the book in its entirety have been overwhelmingly positive and full of gratitude. But, therein lies the key: the 548-page book and its topics have been a bit overwhelming to a few, preventing them from launching into it or finishing the journey.

For some of those who have been intimidated by the book, I have recommended simply reading the six narratives that surround the five sections of the book. These narratives are intriguing and entertaining portrayals of a young man on a quest to understand many of the topics covered by the book.

Early on in the process of writing Slices of God one of my editors strongly encouraged me to publish the narratives in a book of their own. Well, it has finally happened. The Wanderer and the Strange Loop is now an 80-page paperback available from Amazon.com (Kindle version also available). The description on the back of book reads as follows . . .

The Wanderer and the Strange Loop is an enchanting story of a young man struck by the strangeness of life, puzzled by ever-present paradoxes, and enamored by the repeating patterns of the universe. He is on a quest in search of meaning, but discovers as many questions as he does answers. He encounters mystical characters in a world where old is young, future is past, and diversity is unity. His understanding is stretched beyond his imagination. And just when he thinks his wanderings are over . . .

If you are hesitant to dive into the larger work or simply want to ease into the concepts, I trust you will become as excited about the narratives as my editor and I are. Allow yourself to enter a very strange, dimensional, and fractal world where the counterintuitive becomes the norm and the journey becomes the destination.

-Sam Augsburger

The Wanderer and the Strange Loop

Slices of God: Strange, Dimensional, and Fractal Perspectives on God and the Cosmos