That postulate I read the other day, was quite a surprise for me and was able to initiate a series of arguments within me. Not knowing about the postulate of three forms before, I raised the question, which one comes first, God and then three beings (forms), or three forms and then God?
In the previous post, I tried to reason that if the existence of three forms was Plato’s first postulate, then that assumption could theoretically lead us to the existence of one being made of pure antimatter. And since antimatter is knowledge, then we argued that this being, the carrier of full knowledge, must be God. This may seem very plausible , but as I said at the end of the previous post, there may be a twist when we try to argue this way. That logical explanation may lead us to a being that is full of knowledge, and made of pure antimatter, but does that mean that that being is God?
If we want to find the right answer on the truth about God, we must consider not just one postulate (three forms and then God), but two postulates, the opposite of the first one, that God exists first then three forms. In fact we must consider three postulates, or to be more accurate four postulates. Well, I am not sure when we can stop, so let’s start right away. But before we start, the answer to my previous post is that No, Plato did not, and could not prove the existence of God, whichever of the two postulates he would use. Let’s see why.
Postulate 1: Two forms exist separate from one another, independently from each other’s existence, and these two forms are matter and antimatter, and God is one of those forms, the pure antimatter. But if so, we cannot say that God is the creator of universe because God is not the creator of matter (we just postulated that matter and antimatter both existed separately from one another). Some people may want to use concepts of matter and energy, or mass and energy, for this postulate. The answer is still the same, therefore, this postulate does not prove the existence of God.
Postulate 2: God exists. God was first, and then three forms and then, everything else in the universe. If we start from this assumption then this is a postulate/assumption, therefore it is not the proof that God exists.
Postulate 3: God does not exist. This may be true too, because, if we have the right to come up with assumption 2, that God exists then we also have the right to come up with an opposite assumption.
Postulate 4 A: All three beings exist separately from one another, matter, antimatter and mixed beings. Then which type is God? If God is just matter than is not right, because God will not be able to think or create ideas. If God is the antimatter, the carrier of ideas, then this leads us to postulate 1 which could not prove the existence of God. And if God is the mixed being of both, matter and antimatter, then God is a dependent being, dependent on matter and antimatter, which existed first. As so God is not the creator of the universe. Two beings matter and antimatter would be the co-creators of the universe. But, this takes us back to postulate 1, which could not prove the existence of God.
Postulate 4B: Three beings exist first, independently from one another, and the third type is not a mix of first and second being. Again, this takes us to postulate 1 that since God did not create the other two beings, then God is not the creator of the universe and everything in it.
Postulate 5: God existed first, then God split itself into two beings matter and antimatter, and two beings created everything else in the universe. In such case, we can say that God no longer exists, since it was split in two different beings, and is no longer the same being. Nevertheless, God is or was the creator of the universe, since after God’s existence everything else came to existence, first two beings, then three and so on…
Well then, it seems that Nietzsche was right. God is dead….
But, maybe not, because for each postulate we must also accept its opposite. As so, I will add one more postulate here, which is the opposite of postulate 5.
Postulate 6: God did not exist first, two beings existed first, matter and antimatter. Then, these two beings joined in one being to create God, a perfect balanced form of both matter and antimatter. We can call this being Universe that is made of matter and antimatter, mass and energy, space and time, always in perfect balance. For everything new that God created or that it/he/she may create, God do not create it from nothing, God creates it from whatever was there first, that existed inside itself, keeping this way the same amounts of matter and antimatter in balance always, for ever and ever.
Accepting that God was not first, opens the door to accept God’s existence because God is not the first assumption. Now that God exists, and since the assumption #6 says that God was created as a joint of two independent beings (forms), matter and antimatter, then we can say that God is not the pure antimatter being. God is this perfect being that has both matter and antimatter in equal amounts.
Can mass turn into energy and energy into mass, as Einstein assumed? My answer to this question is NO. How can I argue it? If mass which is matter turns into energy, then both mass or energy are no longer in balance, and if they are no longer in balance then God is not the perfect being; hence God does not exist. To keep the universe/God in perfect balance for every amount of mass that turns into energy, somewhere in the universe/God, the opposite process must occur simultaneously where energy turns into mass.
Question to scientists that experiment on colliding particles: Have you considered philosophical questions ever? Have you ever stopped to think first and then play?