Omnitheism

[Exaltist Ethan]

I am writing this in the Pantheism DIR because Omnitheism as I understand it is very similar to Pantheism.

I would like to discuss with my fellow Pantheists about the change that I started to suspect will happen in the distant future. What I see this natural, pantheistic reality, where nature controls the destiny of all and everything that happens, to an Omnitheistic reality. In this reality the being itself is God. This means that instead of one natural God, there would be an infinite number of infinite material Gods.

How do I get to this point? I try to imagine technology that will surface in the future. Synverse creation, Soul technology creation, hybrid consciousness technology, among others, should allow each identity to be its own God, especially if there is an eternal soul attached to it. Imagine the perfect apple. Now imagine that perfect apple being created an infinite number of times in parallel realities, where in some of these realities it Is even possible to transfer your consciousness into one. You could literally experience what it might be like to be an apple one day. How delightful that would be!

I have always said that the worst thing about existence is that you can only be yourself. It is impossible to be other things or be more than one thing. This actually kind of makes me upset honestly. I imagine a world of technology in the distant future that because an infinite number of universes and souls exist, it is possible to be anything you want and you’ll have a near-perfect post-life In the far future. I believe this because it is not only what I want but I suspect it’s what everybody else wants as well.

I also don’t believe it’s entirely black or white. In fact, I believe at the beginning there existed panendeism, that became panentheism, this is becoming pantheism, and with the advent of intelligent life pantheism is solely becoming more omnitheistic each and every day. The whole was God; now life exists for its whole to be God. As stated before, there as many neurons in your head as there are galaxies in the entire Universe. Is it so difficult to imagine that we transitioning into this new life paradigm where physicality itself becomes divine? Is that even possible?

Not only is it possible but if it wasn’t I wouldn’t believe in pantheism to begin with. Humans were ushered in by nature; we are a natural byproduct of such. Now that we are trying to find ways to harness it, it should come to no surprise that an omnitheistic reality is starting to shape and form by the will of growing and evolving humans. We haven’t stopped evolving; we simply now do things to replace natural evolution.

As an Exaltist I am thereby declaring that once was The Omniverse as one God shall manifest into an infinite amount of Gods in an infinite amount of realities, each taking their own shapes and forms. Humans were made to create the extropy and technology needed to harness such abilities. The Omniverse, Entropy and Extropy are all natural forces designed to develop and create Gods, this is why they are the divine forces of nature to begin with.

Remember, God is what nature is becoming, my friends. This article is part of an overall worldview I have developed and understood as I start to comprehend what exactly Exaltism entails. The Omega Point isn’t the end, it’s the beginning of a massive and never ending process of widespread self-deification.

Fellow pantheists, what is your opinion on my take of Omnitheism? Do you agree that this is an accurate description of such, and even more importantly, do you consider yourself an Omnitheist to any degree? Teilhard’s Omega Point is intentionally vague but describing it as an Omnitheism paradigm at least gives us some base to work with by our development of such.

This is not to say that ultimate reality – The Omniverse along with its primal forces, Entropy and Extropy, will not be important after the Omega (Omnitheism) Point is established. However, after objects and beings become their own Gods and a plurality of near-infinite realities exist, the very concept of a being or soul will control these infinite forces, rather than the other way around.

As a Pantheist are you also an Omnitheist or do you focus more on the whole rather than the individual? Let us know what you think below.

 

[vulcanlogician]

There is a guy around here with a dog avatar that is an Omnitheist, I think. I'm not sure he belongs to this DIR or not. But maybe PM him because he seems pretty insightful and might enjoy discussing the particulars of Omnitheism.

One of the main determinations that drives many to adopt pantheism is the view that the whole can explain the parts better than the parts can explain the whole. To me, it seems like the whole of things has a single explanation for its existence rather than a whole bunch of little ones (an explanation for each thing that exists). But the matter is far from settled. Apart from how you'd prefer things, how do you think the whole and its parts relate?

I'm curious: what is Exaltism? Yeah, I could google it. But where's the fun in that? How do you define Exaltism? And what do you find attractive about it?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

There is a guy around here with a dog avatar that is an Omnitheist, I think. I'm not sure he belongs to this DIR or not. But maybe PM him because he seems pretty insightful and might enjoy discussing the particulars of Omnitheism.

I'm pretty sure you are referring to @sun rise , who is an Omnist, not an Omnitheist. Let me explain to you the subtle differences between the two. An Omnist respects and values all religions. Omnism is less a stance on theology and more of a stance on religion. Omnists see all religions as having pieces of the truth, but no one religion has all the truth that could be out there. On the other hand, Omnitheism, in the way I have learned and understood it, is a theology and believes that each entity is God. No matter how permanent or ephemeral it happens to be. Pantheism believes in one God: Nature, Omnitheism takes every single part of nature and dissects it, and says all of those individual things themselves are their own Gods.

As far as the relationship of Omnism and Omnitheism, some Omnists believe that every religion's God or Gods exists, some Omnists don't. Some Omnitheists only see God as a dissection of pantheism, whereas other Omnitheists have a truly spiritual side to them. However, if you are an Omnitheist it should be noted that if you see everything as its own God, it should come apparent to you that all religions, no matter how widespread or esoteric they happen to be, should be respected on it's own right - Omnism. Some people would say Omnitheism is the theology of Omnism, that the belief of all Gods means the inherent belief that all religions have core truths to them.

This could get complicated, but I take theology, not natural theology, but spiritual theology, subjectively. If you believe there is a God who is affecting you somehow, and can sense you, and somehow you can know this God, then that God has some subjective influence on your thoughts and behavior. That does not necessarily mean those Gods exist in reality - but you acting and thinking those Gods existing does in some small (or large) ways influence your behavior. It's tricky. You could call me a spiritual subjectivist, and that alone could isolate to me being Omnist or Omnitheist. However, the way I approach Omnitheism is from naturalism, and a pantheist point of view.

What controls the ocean's current? Nature does. What controls the tornados that touchdown in Kansas? Nature does. And if we focus on the fact that we can study and understand nature, there's a good chance that one day we might be able to control it too - climate control. While I do not fully advocate from this position, and least not yet, if we are able to control the forces that ultimately created us, as humans, are we not somewhat God-like with our powers then?

One of the main determinations that drives many to adopt pantheism is the view that the whole can explain the parts better than the parts can explain the whole. To me, it seems like the whole of things has a single explanation for its existence rather than a whole bunch of little ones (an explanation for each thing that exists). But the matter is far from settled. Apart from how you'd prefer things, how do you think the whole and its parts relate?

My favorite playlists, the ones I constantly put on rotation, tend not to be the ones I put on shuffle when I immediately listen to them. My favorite album is Us by Peter Gabriel, and my favorite playlist is Definitely Morning Glory by Oasis. When I listen to these I put them on from start to finish. No skipping a track, it's not a shuffle, I simply put those two albums on as if I own them on vinyl and immediately put side B on when done with the first side. The reason why I'm saying this is because I firmly believe that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. By that, what I mean is, listening to either one of those gives me a type of musical euphoria when the entire thing is spun all the way through. Sure, there's low moments on both. I'm not too keen on "Fourteen Black Paintings" by Peter Gabriel or "Whatever" by Oasis, but I listen to the whole thing anyways because each song builds up to the next, and transitions almost perfectly with each other.

After "Washing of the Water" ends, I imagine myself flooding out of a river and into the sand, then the sand becomes grass when "Digging in the Dirt" starts. If you can feel the emotion from an entire album there is more feeling into it than happily listening to each song individually. This is why even though Peter Gabriel is not my favorite musician, I'd prefer to listen to his masterpiece, Us, over something produced by my favorite musician, Martin Page, which each song signifies a different situation, a different scenario. I really like Martin Page and what he did with In the House of Stone and Light and A Temper of Peace, I may even listen to them more often than Us given their accessibility, but when I listen to Us by Peter Gabriel it's more like an event. Definitely Morning Glory by Oasis takes advantage of not just the accessibility of many Oasis songs and the ability to pick and choose between each one, but also sounds fantastic when the whole thing is played in its entirety. For this reason that playlist is more significant to me than Us or even certain playlists with thousands of songs that I put on shuffle. Again, if you find the right rhythm in these, the whole can be much more than just a sum of its parts.

This is why I believe The Omniverse for all in case and purposes is God and not the byproducts of it. But the byproducts break down due to entropy, then by extropy build divinity back up again. It becomes self-meaningful, building a life for itself and others of its own species. Is it not fair to assume that once given permission those parts will start to replicate themselves in different places, in different realities? The whole will never be the same again after this happens, and the soul that becomes developed will be able to gain a sense of universal characteristics, that may and will expand outside that scope. The human race doesn't end on Earth, it ends when all entities themselves become Omniversal, or possesses the same characteristics that The Omniverse does, such as eternalness, ubiquity, potency and more.

We are slowly creating things to become more God-like over time. Now, a lot of people could say that doesn't make any sense. That, I can take an apple and eat it. But don't we use the same mechanisms to produce more apples? If the material that exists in the Universe could in theory exist in all Universes, Multiverses, and so on, and we develop realities outside this realm to exist on, it's only a matter of time before matter itself becomes God too. Sure, I get it, all the cells in my body are replaced after ten years, and in ten years time I'm literally a different person. Similar to cutting nails or hair. But I suspect that this driven evolution we have created for our species, to help us evolve and grow and become something new after time, not only exists for humans but it exists for all of creation as well. I want to exist. I want to continue to exist. As long as I exist, and can type up this extremely long paragraph that I will cut into pieces, I have the ability to change things. The ability to change things is why we have sentience in the first place.

And one day, when we develop technology to give ordinary objects the same sentience we have, by transferring our essences or souls into them, we will be able not just to exist as humans but as anything else we could possibly imagine, and then transfer that energy into anything else as well. There will be technology sometime in the future that will allow us to do this, I firmly believe this, because there's a great amount of utility in sensing and feeling other objects and things. I believe that once we are able to do this, a sense of panpsychism will be formed and we will realize that nothing is truly dead in the sense we give it today. Why do I believe this? Because if I slam the toilet seat on the toilet, does it not make a sound similar to someone screaming for half a second? This might appear crazy to so many people but once you understand my beliefs, it actually makes more sense than just about everything else at this moment.

When future technology allows us to divide our consciousness and soul (not that nature already does a pretty good job at that after death) in an intelligent way, we will create parts that will connect together as if they are one thing, one body, that will exist in many parts of different galaxies or universes. When we are able to exist this way it will allow each part to be exalted, deified, as if the smallest things themselves contained an Omniverse in them. It's a cycle and a regression at the same time. The Omniverse exists. It breaks things down with Entropy. It contains some order of Extropy. At one point, the amount of all three of these things will be equal and nearly infinite from each other. When this happens the smallest things become intelligent, like humans, and will be able to connect with the whole of its totality. This is why and how that I see it that one day God will go from being The Omniverse as one God to each entity in The Omniverse itself becoming Omniversal on its own right. Pierre Teilhard described this phenomenon in a few books, published posthumously, in such books like The Phenomenon of Man.

I'm curious: what is Exaltism? Yeah, I could google it. But where's the fun in that? How do you define Exaltism? And what do you find attractive about it?

Exaltism is the bread and butter that I use to describe my theology. The paragraphs I have used to tell my thoughts is the long-form version of it: the simple version is, an adherence towards raising the rank, and seeing the divinity in things most people would not considered to be divine. People have no idea how even ordinary things in our life is creating our extropy and thus people, and those individual things, are becoming more divine over time. It is a breakdown of The Omniverse, becoming smaller and smaller, developing sentience through us, so then we can one day connect everything in every Universe and develop divine qualities and characteristics from it, like we are already doing now world wide with our species. When the end of war is neigh, then unity shall sweep across the planet and with the end of the build up of our divine characteristics finished we shall then work on our way towards the Kardashev's Scale, and perhaps, the greatest story in all of any reality: the human.

Are you ready for that?

If you want more information on Exaltism, there are links in my signature. You can head to exaltism.org for the bread and butter but what I've just described to you is advanced syntheism, and perhaps the most important reasons how and why I've decided to become and define Exaltism for myself.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I'm pretty sure you are referring to @sun rise , who is an Omnist, not an Omnitheist.

Ah, yes. I got the two mixed up. But thanks for distinguishing the two for me. It was an interesting read.

What controls the ocean's current? Nature does. What controls the tornados that touchdown in Kansas? Nature does.

I see what you mean. But I would be more prone to view nature as as "determining" (because of its inherent properties) rather than controlling (as if it had a sense of agency). Maybe that's what you meant. Not trying to split hairs or anything.