Possible Models of God

We now can see beyond any doubt that if God exists (and has the standard properties ascribed to God), God is the Universe. There are a number of ``instant'' corollaries to this theorem. The condition ``if God exists at all, then'' is a presumed preamble for all of the following:

• God did not create the Universe. The Universe of all that has objective being cannot have been created, as the creator would have to have objective being in order to do the creating.

• God did not create part of the Universe. Creation is an act with a presumed arrow in time and the Universal set is timeless (time is just a parameter of events in the set). Also, God is already the whole thing, no part of which could have been created.

The following are empirical corollaries or open questions conditioned in the same way, based on e.g. the evidence of our own objective existence and experience of information entropic time:

• God (as the Universe) is no less sentient than the aggregate sentience of all sentient beings within the Universe. My own human mind is a lower bound on the sentience of God looking at the only thing that exists to be looked at, Itself. My ability to ``look'' and ``appreciate'' is contingent upon a lack of perfect knowledge and my existence as a subset with high information entropy relative to the whole, which permits me to experience the passing of time.
• The upper bound of sentience, where the entire Universe is self-aware and able to experience entropic time in a high level way appears to be blocked by both the zero-entropy requirement and G"odel's theorem. However, if the Universe is open (especially if it possesses an open infinity of dimensionality) then for certain orderings of limits God could function as Its own source of information entropy for an infinite interior out of a larger infinite exterior.

This leaves this as an open question - perhaps the open question that separates an atheist, a pandeist, and a panendeist, and the one that permits all three to be considered choices that can be made differently and yet rationally. However, the theorem has implications for the current formulation of panendeism as the belief that God is a superset of the Universe - the correct formulation that is consistent with the theorem above would be God is the Universe that is an open superset of the visible Cosmos. This correction is itself a healthy one from the rational point of view, as at least some aspects of this as a theory are in principle capable of verification - development of consistent, evidence-backed theories in physics for additional dimensions connected to this Cosmos, development of consistent, evidence-backed theories in physics for additional/parallel or embedded Cosmi.

If God is real, God is the Universe, so the only sensible way to look for God is to study the Universe, at least as much of the Universe as we can see. Cosmology and physics together, then, are the only possible natural, reason-based placed where science and religion can meet at the metaphysical cusp between plausible knowledge based on evidence and the unknown that lies forever beyond our reach.

We thus see that although we do not, and cannot, address the question of whether or not the Universe (which we can certainly see and which appears to have concrete objective existence) is in fact God, this proof has many consequences for conditional models of God, and it can certainly guide any serious search for God, now that one knows where to look. Let us explore the compatibility of this theorem with existing world theisms, and then spend a short time considering whether or not any existing models for God survive the test of this theorem.