Let’s talk About God


This essay introduces a metaphysical model for God that satisfies current understanding of the nature of reality based on parapsychological and survival research, with emphasis on the evidence of transcommunication.

It is common to hear people speak of God, usually in grand terms such as “God is the all-knowing yet unknowable punisher of the wicked and benign provider to the deserving.” The usual proof of this god is “Look around. How else could all of this be possible?”

Spiritualists speak of God as a ubiquitous presence and the source of Natural Law. The National Spiritualist Society of Churches (NSAC), of which I am a part, rejects the father god characterization. But, individually, Spiritualists tend to stay with the old ways, characterizing God as a benefactor and giver of laws.

For many people, the need to look to a higher source is stronger than the desire to maintain a rational world perspective. A person may not believe in God but still look to a divine influence to make sense of life. We are good at compartmentalizing our need for divinity from our need for rationality.

Informed Perception of God

If God is a father god living in some distant part of reality like the mythological gods of Mount Olympus, then perhaps God will remain unknowable. However, an important assumption in many ancient wisdom schools* is that reality is knowable. As a logical exercise, that means God is knowable, as well. So, let’s talk about what we know, beginning with three assumptions:

  1. God is the source of reality: The Source life field is the reality field.
  2. God is expressed as order in reality: Organizing Principles.
  3. God is knowable: Prime Imperative,(12) progression.
  4. Each instance of life is an aspect of God: Differentiation, Creative Process,(13) Life Field. (1)

* Ancient wisdom schools, especially Hermetic Traditions, tend to be knowledge-based, rather than faith-based. The assumption that reality, and by extension, God is knowable, is the foundation assumption of systems teaching the concept of Natural Law.

Taken as a logical argument, these assumptions imply a conclusion which might be worded as:

Therefore: By knowing about ourselves, we can know about God.

Building a Cosmology

A cosmology is a model of reality based on the metaphysical study of the nature of reality. A useful tool for developing a cosmology is black box analysis. The technique is often used for reverse engineering a competitor’s device when only the purpose, input and output is known. The result is supposed to be a device, process, technique … something that will satisfy the input and output to fulfill the same purpose.

Black box analysis is also a way to develop a metaphysical cosmology that may not be actually correct but is functionally correct and useful for further study. The theory presented here has evolved from of such a study.

Foundation Concepts

A number of important concepts need to be part of this study. It is important that you understand and are comfortable with them, so please feel free to use the contact tool at the bottom of every page of ethericstudies.org and atransc.org if you would like a better explanation, have questions and suggestions:

  • Reality is referred to here as the etheric, as opposed to the physical which is referred to as an aspect of the etheric. The psi field described in parapsychology is etheric. The confusion comes from the fact that psi field researchers speak of it as an aspect of the physical; a body-centric perspective. From the perspective of immortal self, one must use the etheric self-centric explanation for the psi field. That is, that it is actually a local manifestation of the etheric. I often refer to the etheric as the psi field when discussing parapsychological theory.
  • A person is an immortal self entangled with a human in an avatar relationship. The Functional Areas of a Life Field diagram below illustrates many of these points.(1)
  • Our natural habitat is the etheric. This includes our personality (who we really are or Core Intelligence as I am this), mostly unconscious mind, perception and expression processes and conscious self (I think I am this). Our natural perspective is etheric-centric. As a person, our conscious self experiences reality from the perspective of the human body. That is body-centric.
  • Conscious self’s perception is normally dominated by worldview. Worldview is populated with a combination of human instincts, inherited urge to learn, inherited and acquired understanding and beliefs acquired during the current lifetime (cultural contamination).
  • Sensed information from the human body is transformed via the brain into etheric form. Once it is in etheric form, information from the body’s five senses is processed, in the perception and expression functional areas of our mostly unconscious mind (External Influence in the Life Field Diagram below). All information from the body and other etheric personalities are processed in the same way. The meaning of that information is assigned based on worldview. Information intended to control the body is transformed from etheric to physical form in the brain.
  • The Prime Imperative. We inherit an urge to gain understanding about the nature of reality. As such, we enter into a lifetime to experience reality as it is expressed in the physical. It is this acquired understanding we retain after transition out of a lifetime. Understanding determines perception, and therefore, the aspects of reality we are able to access. (12)
  • Life fields are the basic building block of reality. As objects of reality, fields consist of related elements which are attracted to an intelligent core (common or shared influence). Reality consists of life fields and expressions of life fields.(1)
  • All life fields have the same basic characteristics, but express them to a different degree, depending on perception. The basic functional characteristics include are illustrated in the Functional Areas of a Life Field Diagram. The behavioral characteristics of life fields include:
    • Purpose Motivated: Spiritual instinct to gain understanding which is ultimately integrated with the collective understanding of life fields.
    • Perception: Selectively sensing to environmental signals.
    • Expression: Selectively responding to environmental signals.
    • Curiosity: urge to gain understanding.
    • Collective Cooperation: Shared urge to gain understanding includes shared understanding.
  • Source is the Core Intelligence of reality. Source (God for this discussion) is the top Life field, and therefore, is the reality field. In the cosmology, life fields are arranged as a hierarchy of nested fields. Functional areas of each instance of a life field are more or less expressed. For instance, compare human life field to cell life field.(2)

Functional areas of each instance of a life field are more or less expressed. For instance, compare human life field to cell life field.

Implicit Cosmology

The Implicit Cosmology (11) represents my effort to model what we think we know about reality, our immortal self and our relationship to reality. The functional areas in the Functional Areas of a Life Field Diagram provide an overview of the cosmology.

Life Field


Our perspective is always the Conscious Self functional area. The Attention Complex is our mostly unconscious mind and Personality functional area is our higher self and that which is immortal. The Intelligent Core is the autonomic system of our life field in the same way its body consciousness is the autonomic system for our body.

Think of the Conscious Self functional area as the experiencing part of who we are. It represents our etheric eyes and ears and typically thinks it is our physical body during the waking state. When free of our body during sleep or meditation, it is the experiencer of our inner consciousness. Always, what it experiences is moderated by the Attention Complex, specifically the contents of Worldview.

As Above, So Below

Another assumption is that reality is homogenous, in that knowing the nature of one part indicates the nature of the rest. Hermes is said to have taught this fundamental concept around 6,000 years ago via the Emerald Tablet.(3)

The first two lines of the Emerald Tablet read:

  1. It is true and no lie, certain and to be depended upon, that which is above is as that which is below; and that which is below is as that which is above, for the performance of the one truly great work.
  2. And as all things are from only one thing, by will of the one God, so all things have their origin in this one power, by adaptation to their individual purposes.

The Great Work is the process of transmuting a faith-based worldview into one that is in accordance with the actual nature of reality. Of course, the one thing is God in the form of expressed organizing principles, purpose and understanding. It is important to note that, while Hermes has told us all things are of God, he also said that each individual has been differentiated as a unique aspect of God. This echoes the concept of life as a fractal in which God is the top fractal.

The Sierpinski Triangle is an example of fractals in which the triangular shape is the fractal, each smaller triangle is a fractal of the top triangle.

Morphic Fields

In the Hypothesis of Formative Causation proposed by Rupert Sheldrake,(4) formation of a living organism is managed via what he refers to as a morphic field. The field is nonphysical and formation is based on what he refers to as Nature’s habit. In a physical organism, the fields are arranged in a hierarchy of nested fields, meaning that there is a top field (Intelligent core is body consciousness) and many dependent fields such as skin, bones, organs and cells. There is a many-to-one relationship (nested) so that for instance, many cell morphic fields would be associated with the skin morphic field.

Speaking in terms of cosmology, morphic fields are etheric. To work, they need the same functional areas shown in the Life Field Diagram. Nature’s habit is like the Worldview functional area. The ability to evolve Nature’s habit is in the Perceptual Loop. External expression in the diagram represents the organizing influence a morphic field has on the physical processes of organism formation.

Sheldrake’s Hypothesis of Formative Causation is by no means established science. In fact, it tends to be an updated variation of Lamarckian evolution(5) which competed for a time with Darwinian evolution but then was discarded for lack of a recognize physical mechanism for transmitting change to the next generation. The difference is that Sheldrake has given a mechanism for inheritance that makes sense considering current understanding of the etheric.

There is some analytical support for the inheritance of acquired traits,(6) but the real interest for this discussion is how Sheldrake applies Nature’s habit. Expression by a life field and a morphic field must follow the same principles. Applying the principle of as above, so below, if morphic fields are validated as the building block of organic life, the same principles and research should apply to life fields.

Unconscious Perception

Who we are, is not who we think we are.(7) As the Functional Areas of a Life Field Diagram shows, the Attention Complex is a mostly unconscious part of our mind. We become consciously aware of the output of the Perceptual Loop. And so, what we become consciously aware of is based on our worldview.(8)(9)

The importance of unconscious perception is that we use the same mechanisms that organize cell formation to develop an objective image of our physical world. This is an emerging realization of mainstream science(8) and you can expect to hear a lot more about it in the future. The Functional Areas of a Life Field Diagram illustrates unconscious filtering of conscious perception.

Source as a Life Field

Considering what has been presented here, reality can be modeled as a hierarchy of nested life fields. Source is the top life field, and as such, it is also the reality field. In effect, everything in reality is in Source’s life field by way of the thread of entanglement between first cause and subsequent aspectations. This influence of entanglement is a function of intention, attention and imagined outcomes.

A morphic field is modeled so that the organism it influences is in the field. This is because the morphic field imposes an influence on the biological process. In the field means within the field of influence expressed by the morphic field or life field. Since the etheric is conceptual space in which everywhere is here, this is a conceptual In the field and not something like a physical envelope around the organism.

This hypothetical model is important to explain that God (Source) is the reality field. Consider how we express our personal reality. What we imagine remains associated with us by way of a link of attention. What we expect to express via our creative process remains in our influence field. It is in effect, in our field of influence, just as we are in God’s reality field.

Personal Reality

Key to this discussion is the idea that we make our world. We have a personal reality based on what we believe to be true (worldview). Since we only become consciously aware of what our mostly unconscious perceptual processes present to our conscious self, we literally experience objective reality as it is expressed by our beliefs. This is becoming established science.(8), (9) We manage our sense of reality by learning to change worldview. One way to accomplish this is via mindful living.(10) In effect, that is what we do while learning to understand the nature of our local reality.

If life fields are in Source’s reality, then it is arguable that Source also has a personal reality and is seeking to align it with its actual nature. As such, God is still learning.

Self-Organizing Reality

An important indication about the nature of God (Source) is that organizing principles (Natural Law) enable reality to self-organize without an all-knowing god. If a cosmology begins with a sentient personality that is given the functional attributes of a life field, then all else follows without much intervention.

Notice in the Functional Areas of a Life Field Diagram that there is an Intention Channel between conscious self and the Attention Complex. That is the one conscious influence we have on our unconscious perceptual processes.

If Source is given the attribute of curiosity about its own nature, it is arguable that it will attempt to visualize itself and its environment as a means of satisfying that curiosity. Using ourselves as a model, our curiosity about something naturally initiates a mental exercise in which we imagine various aspects of it as it might relate to us.

A useful exercise is to imagine what it would be like to own a new sports car. It is likely that we would imagine a situation in which we would be driving the car. If we really want to know what it is like, we would give that Little Me self-determination. When we have explored the situation, our Little Me would return understanding of the experience to our worldview.

Such imaginings are usually only a moment in duration in our unconscious and only the decision emerges into consciousness. However, the exercise will become part of our personal reality if we focus our attention on the question and allow our conscious exploration to run its course.

In this model, the physical aspect of reality is such an imagining done by creators of our venue for learning (local source). It is shared by many personalities via their collective of aspects.

The idea of a shared venue for learning is useful to explain the many references in religion to personalities holding the physical aspect of reality in their mind (angels, devas, nature spirits) and we who experience lifetimes in the physical.

As it is modeled in the Implicit Cosmology,(11) many personalities are using the physical venue to gain understanding about specific aspect so Source’s nature. Their imaginings produce many aspect personalities which remain entangled with them so that they are the top life field for the collective of their imagined personalities. I am part of such a collective. You may be part of the same collective (Soulmate?), but more likely part of another.

Examples of Self-organization

The functional areas of Life Fields naturally occur in response to the influence of curiosity (Intention and Perception) and the state of understanding (Worldview). This assumption is based on the expectation that such functional areas are necessary to produce known response patterns.

An Organizing Principle that naturally results from our perceptual processes is Perceptual Agreement which can be stated as: Personality must be in perceptual agreement with the aspect of reality with which it will associate. The implication is that we are not able to experience parts of reality which do not agree with our expectations (personal reality). There is no need for an ethereal being to say we cannot go to heaven. If our worldview will not allow our sensing of heaven to emerge to conscious self from the Perceptual Loop, we will simply not be able to experience that aspect of reality.

A second Organizing Principle is Cooperative Communities which may be stated as: An effort to express understanding is necessary for progression. This can be understood in simpler terms as: Personalities are attracted to communities of like-minded people cooperating to facilitate personal progression. The conscious decision to express an idea by one person must be coupled with the conscious intention to understand by others in the community. A continuing exchange of ideas can affect worldview in the same way as a Maybe outcome of the Perceptual Loop. (A Maybe outcome changes Worldview).

A more pragmatic way to express the Golden Rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you is Teach me as I teach you principle. The objective of a lifetime is to gain understanding. As it is modeled, the collective may not fulfill its initial purpose until the intended understanding has been gained by every member of the collective. Cooperative communities are a natural response to that imperative.

God and Gods

In a sense, people speak as if there is an impersonal ubiquitous god of Natural Law and a personal god of our reason for being. We find meaning in communion with our loved ones and enjoy the comfort of knowing we have guides dedicated to our progression. Our inner space is populated with loved ones and guides, … sometimes with nature spirits of one character or another.

Always implicit in our sense of inner community is the understanding that there are ethereal beings at the edge of our awareness; present, but acting through our more accessible loved ones and guides. It is to those implied gods that I believe we direct our prayers; perhaps not as the deliberate act of a metaphysician, but the instinctive act of respect for those whom we sense care if we progress in our understanding.

In this cosmology, these ethereal beings are the top life field of our collective. Just as we have many little me aspects of ourselves populating our imagined inner worlds, created by us to experience an imagined situation, so we are little mes for these beings. It is those pinnacle life fields who must wait until we gain sufficient perceptual agreement to return our treasure of understanding so that they may move on toward their source. As I have come to understand order, it is through this progression that Source will eventually come to understand its nature. As expressions of Source, we are part of its nature.


  1. Butler, Tom. “Life Field.” Etheric Studies. 2014. ethericstudies.org/life-field/.
  2. Butler, Tom. “Source.” Etheric Studies. 2015. ethericstudies.org/source/.
  3. Butler, Tom. “A Contemporary View of the Emerald Tablet,” Etheric Studies. 2015. ethericstudies.org/contemporary-view-emerald-tablet/.
  4. Sheldrake, Rupert Ph.D. “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields.” Rupert Sheldrake Biologist and Authorsheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance/.
  5. Waggoner, Ben. “Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829).” University of California Museum of Paleontology. www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html.
  6. Appleyard, Bryan. “Rupert Sheldrake’s Alternative Science.” Brian Appleyard.com. 2012. bryanappleyard.com/rupert-sheldrake-alternative-science/.
  7. Joshi, Sheila. “James Carpenter’s First Sight model and neurological damage-induced psi openings.” Blog: Neuroscience and Psi. August 11, 2012. neuroscienceandpsi.blogspot.com/2012/08/james-carpenters-first-sight-model-and.html.
  8. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. “Decision-making May Be Surprisingly Unconscious Activity.” Science Daily. 2008. sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414145705.htm.
  9. Bargh, John A.; Morsella, Ezequiel. “The Unconscious Mind.” Yale University. 2008. yale.edu/acmelab/articles/Bargh_Morsella_Unconscious_Mind.pdf.
  10. Butler, Tom. “Mindfulness.” Etheric Studies. 2014. ethericstudies.org/mindfulness/.
  11. Butler, Tom. “Implicit Cosmology.” Etheric Studies. 2015. ethericstudies.org/implicit-cosmology/.
  12. Butler, Tom. “Prime Imperative.” Etheric Studies. 2017. ethericstudies.org/prime-imperative/.
  13. Butler, Tom. “The Creative Process.” Etheric Studies. 2014. ethericstudies.org/creative-process/.

3 thoughts on “Let’s talk About God

  1. Fascinating theories! I congratulate you on your work and I will definitely be reading more. I do have a question however… if “God” is trying to learn about itself via our experiences, why does it take so long (thousands of years if not millions) to learn about suffering? Wouldn’t one experience of suffering be enough for a god? Why do people still die with horrible diseases? How many 4 year olds writhing in pain from cancer does it take for this “god” to finally grasp the concept of unspeakable suffering? I’m not trying to come off as hostile but this is a question that is valid in any instance where a god concept is posited.

    • Ronald, Thanks for the question.

      I have come to think of the god concept in two parts. I use the term “God” here because that is the concept people can relate to. This is not the Father God, though.

      The first part of god in the Implicit Cosmology is Source. Source is modeled as a life field like. You and I are life fields when you consider our nonphysical aspect. Source’s personal reality is the actual realy in which we exist. In this concept, the organizing principles which govern the operation of actual reality would be based on Source’s original assumptions about itself. This, not in the sense of “I am this and I am that” so much as the consequences of perception and expression and curiosity.

      Our inherited urge to gain understanding is modeled as a consequence of Source’s curiosity about its personal reality. Since the actual reality is governed by principles, our urge manifests as gaining understanding about those principles. In our unique instance, it is how those principles operate in this venue for learning … under the unique assumptions posed when this venue was imagined.

      The second part of god is really a collective of personalities which are aspects of Source, expressed as a visualized means to explore imagined venues. For instance, we express an aspect of ourselves to explore something we are trying to consider, such as a little me driving a car we are thinking of buying.

      In this model, we might be an aspect of an aspect … for unknown rounds of expectation. It is beyond the scope of this model to speculate if Source has feelings toward its immediate aspects. It is clear that our local source is concerned about our well being in a practical sense of wanting us to gain understanding. However, the ordering principles, including self-determination (free will) argue that there are limits to how much our local source is able to directly influence our lifetime experiences. Without self-determination, we would not be able to experience the natural operation of the principles.

      When I began modeling this cosmology, my every effort to include a loving, caring god was blocked by a “if this is true, then that must also be true” kind of conflict. As I moved my perspective from a body-centric one (my conscious self looking out of this body’s eyes) to a personality one (immortal self immersed in the greater reality), I realized that the daily experience of this lifetime are relative.

      To know the consequences of imposing our will on another person, it is necessary either to be offend or be the offender. Reading about it doe snot work. The suffering you speak of is the product of natural threads of events that probably began with someone feeling justified to act (like a president deciding it necessary to go to war), or a naturally occurring event brought about as the result of organizing influences such as overpopulation of microorganisms due to warmer climate or thermal/gravitation process in volcanism.

      So my answer to your question is that this model does not include a God capable of controlling our lives, and from the perspective of a personality seeking to understand, the suffering is an experience which provides important opportunities to understand. Once the suffering person’s conscious self transitions out of the lifetime (the person dies), the conscious self is free to consider the experience from an objective perspective. We occasionally see reports of this effect.

      I cannot ignore this suffering. My body is getting old and it fears dying and really dislikes pain. But these are natural parts of a lifetime with no evil part. It would make what little suffering I experience even harder to take if some god were to intervene. Then there would be no sense to any of it and I know reality is a sensible place.

      I hope that helps a little. Please feel free to ask again. I will try again.

Leave a Comment