The idea is that God created the universe, but in doing so became the universe. Because the universe is rooted in God, it has transcendent attributes like existence, causation, morality, logical consistency, etc. But because God has become the universe, we should not expect any kind of direct, objective communication. Instead, we are meant to be true to our divine heritage by exercising the same creativity and sacrificial love toward each other that God exhibited in creating us through giving up his own being.
Better to stick with Roman Catholicism.
Why should we not communicate with God? He has been communicating with us since He made us.
God is the creator so how could he become his own creation?
The universe is sustained by God. God is not his creation. The act of creation is an act of love. Why would God create something he loves and not want to interact with his own creation?
Interesting question from someone who believes that God became human.
Why would God create something he loves, and then interact with it through a church, or a book? As I see it, it reflects much better on God if God sacrificed his original purity of being to become the universe, and is no longer in a state where direct, objective communication is possible.
It sounds cool and plausible
I agree interesting and plausible. Ill have to look into this idea more.
Any hypothesis about the nature of God needs to explain all phenomenon, including incarnations like the Christ (as well as Krishna, Buddha etc) which we know did occur… A God who does not exist as person and can not communicate, also can not send these Messengers or any divine revelations.
In my opinion it also discounts the notion of the Creator and the “created” altogether.
I think the description puts man-made limitations on what God can do. Please be careful of that. It does not follow that if God created the universe and even became the universe, he cannot communicate.
You are describing a plausible understanding, until you place these man-made limitations on God.
Of course, these limitations also inherently deny any religion that claims some divine revelation, and I suspect that may be the purpose. It is not a theory so much as a denial of belief in any divine revelation. The pan deistic theory of God becoming the universe is merely a wrapper around the more fundamental claim that God does not make divine revelations to anyone.
However, OP’s hypothesis is not that different from the Hindu concept of God and Creation (at least as I see it - some may disagree). Here it is in brief:
Initially there is only brahman - an undifferentiated, impersonal, unknowable consciousness. Out of this brahman appears a trinity of Gods - Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma (note difference in spelling).
The third of the three uncreated gods, Brahma creates the Universe (which is still made from the substance of brahman as are the three Gods).
The second of three, Vishnu maintains the Universe through its life and the third, Shiva destroys it when Universe is ready to end.
At the end of the Universe, the three Gods dissolve back into brahman. So now nothing but brahman remains. This cycle of creation and destruction continues endlessly.
Brahman is the basis of All existence/creation and it sounds very similar to what OP is proposing.
However, the three personal Gods and their incarnations can be communicated with by humans.
Only if you believe these persons to be legitimate incarnations of the ultimate divine and not of lesser gods or even simply just men.
So there is only one physical universe in creation and nothing else?
Are there no spiritual realms in this conception of creation?
The Universa includes multiple planes, called lokas - 14 in all . There are 7 higher planes and 7 lower planes. The middle one is the physical Universe.
The 7th plane is the physical plane that we know. The 5th one is the one commonly known as heaven. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loka for the rest
Nothing in Hinduism precludes the possibility of multiple ‘Universes’ each with their own Trinity of Gods.
I have struggled through some of the writings of Paul Tillich. Some passages however “spoke to my condition” concerning God as the Source and Ground of our Being…it Spoke of the Light Within each of us in a “new way”…God IS the very Ground and Preseever of our Beings. Oneness with God can and will occur if we “Speak to That of God” in one another.
I think “Panenthesism”. It’s not so much that God Indwells in us but that We Indwells in Him…The Presence…the Sustainer and Giver of Life…Jesus was the Final Answer to the Question of “Does God love us?” God Spoke the Word and He Spoke Jesus. The One Souce" emptied himself and lived AS one of us.
There is No Place tha God is Not…even in "the lowest hell, You are there…“we exist in Him”
Precisely. The Universe is not God. The Universe is inside God ie the Universe is part of God, We are all in Him too - everything is in Him.
In Him all things exist. Without Him nothing exists that He has not made.
In this hypothesis, the whole universe is the Incarnation, and people like Jesus and Buddha illustrate various aspects of that.
It denies that any revelation is a direct-from-God-in-his-original-form verbatim communication. A person can still experience things as revealing aspects of the universe’s divine heritage.
So who do these people like Jesus communicate with for their own guidance?
Jesus said he talked to the Father. Who is the Father in your hypothesis?
If a Creator Incarnates in His creation, He immediately, by rational reason alone, ceases to be the Creator, and becomes the creation.
No creation can exist without the Creator.
One relies on the other, and the other relies on Him.