I have rewritten the points I was trying to get across in this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55020) mainly for the benefit of wes, to convert it from a religious topic to a philosophical one.

What do you think?


The Pragmatist's God

I have always felt that the best way to look at anything, my personal life, my political leaning –what have you– when attempting decide the best course I should take, is pragmatically.
I look at the situation and attempt to determine what the results of an action should be, and if those results align with my ideals or take me closer to my goals, that is the right choice to make.
Having this pragmatic outlook on life, whenever I was asked if I believed in God, I would always reply that I was agnostic, because, to me, it seemed the only pragmatic path.

I certainly didn’t believe in the Judeo-Christian version of the white-bearded, cognizant, intelligent, creator and master of the universe, father figure in the sky watching us and judging our actions. I stopped believing in Him at about the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. Abraham’s God, if not wholly allegorical, simply held nothing for me at all.
I didn’t see evidence of him in my everyday life.
I had never seen any evidence of him at all, for that matter.
The concept of Hell was ludicrous, at best, in my mind. What benevolent creator would create a world rife with difficulty and pain; give us no evidence for, or instinct to believe in, his existence; allow us to live here for barely a speck of time; then base our existence – for eternity – on how well we followed the rules he supposedly invented? We are supposed to follow rules that go against the grain of the very human nature he created us with. He didn’t even make these rules known to all mankind - he had only spoken to a select few in ancient history, and we were all supposed to take these fables on faith that they not only happened, but the stories of the occurrences were absolutely accurate and uncorrupted by retelling over and over again. Not to mention purposeful corruption due to corrupt human beings.
"There is a granite mountain so high that a raven can barely fly over it without touching it. In its beak, the raven has a scarf. Once every thousand years, it flies over the mountain, the very tips of the fringes rubbing against the granite. When the entire mountain has been ground into dust; that is one moment in eternity." – Hindu expression
I was not about to base, not only my life, but my future for all eternity on what basically amounts to a Chinese Whisper.

If this God existed, he was playing with a stacked deck and we were all doomed to Hell. If THIS was God, I wanted nothing to do with the sadistic bastard, anyway.

Aside from that, why would this perfect being even create a pre-world for us to live in before going on to either Heaven or Hell for eternity?
Did he give this all to us as a gift? Heaven is a perfect paradise, but earth is a gift? If someone told me that he built my dream house on a tropical paradise in the South Pacific and I could live there forever if I wanted, but first, I have the wonderful privilege of living in a roach and rat infested apartment building in Newark, New Jersey, what kind of gift would that apartment be? No, if Heaven exists, this is no gift.
Did he do it to test us? He, the perfect being, created us - what’s to test?

Besides, I had no reason to believe that this God was anything more than the fantasies of a people puzzling over the same unanswerable questions that people have been asking for all of humanity, and making up gods to answer.

None of it made any sense to me at all, and I simply have never had the capacity, nor did I want the ability, to have faith in something that doesn’t make any sense to me. If God created us, one thing I firmly believe is that the greatest gift he gave us is our intelligence and ability to reason. Not only should he expect us to use that intelligence, but to not use it would be a grave insult to him.

If this God ever existed at all, then, if anything, he would be the deist version of an absentee father who, upon creating everything and setting it into motion, either turned his back, disinterested, or sat back and watched the world.
One thing I was sure of is that if this God did still exist he certainly had a policy of non-interference.
Perhaps, at one time he was involved with human life, but I was convinced that he hadn’t shown his face around here in quite some time.
It doesn’t really matter why he wasn’t around, he simply wasn’t.

Whatever the truth may have been, the laws of nature were already in place whether they were “designed by God” or they were simply inherent in the system.
The rest of it all – morality, our future, our impact on nature, our impact on other living beings – was entirely up to us.
We are a self-determined animal. We have the capacity to determine for ourselves how we will treat others beings. We have the freedom to create our own ideals and morals, and the freedom to either act in accordance with those beliefs or in defiance of them. Whether or not God ever existed, or exists now really has no bearing on the situation. People chose to break “God’s rules” incessantly, and I have yet to see Him come down and smite anyone as a result. Some people choose to take some sort of sordid comfort in believing that the sinners will be punished in Hell. As I already pointed out, I do not believe in Hell. Furthermore, I do not see eternity in Hell as a just punishment for any sin, regardless how atrocious it may have been, so I would not wish that fate upon any human even if it did exist. I refused to follow in God’s sadistic footsteps.
Morality, it seems to me, has nothing to do with what God supposedly wants, rather what actions would produce the best results for the greatest number of people. Morality, simply stated, is what defines the right and proper treatment of others. That can quite easily be determined by anyone who is not a sociopath without the aid of any God. Again, I apply the pragmatic point of view. Only one simple question needs to be asked: Can I reasonably conceive that the results of this action will hurt others?
My definition of morality is roughly equivalent to my idea of how the ideal democratic government should function – the people should be the beneficiaries of their actions and efforts, and those whose efforts work against that intended goal are in the wrong –regardless of whether or not the action is sanctioned by the laws of man or God.
Given that I saw Abraham’s God as absent and unnecessary, it wouldn’t change my life, or how I live it, one bit if I found out tomorrow that He actually does exist. If that’s true, what’s the point of believing in him?

One day, I decided to take that pragmatic lens I relied upon to guide my life and morals and point it at God, or at least popular depictions of God.
There are quite a few different points of view regarding what God is out there, of course, but there are some traits and attributes that are fairly universal, and I focused on those.

Who or what is God?

He is the Alpha and the Omega.
He is Volition, Driven.
He is Desire, Realized.
He is Will, Rendered.
He is Word, Incarnate.
He is Intention, Revealed.
He is Karma, Manifest.

He cannot be seen by human eyes, but people can feel His presence.
He is omnipotent: He can force the hands of people and turn the tides of fate. He cannot be stopped or contained. The sum of all humankind’s power combined cannot compare to Him. No one person can control Him, but everyone can influence Him - He knows the fears, wishes, glories and prayers of every person, and responds accordingly. His power should be recognized, revered, feared and respected - to deny His existence is folly at best. His power reaches into the deepest recesses of every person’s subconscious mind and exercises influence on all, regardless of faith or belief.
He works in mysterious ways. There is none as subtle and graceful as Him. He can wholly control nearly every aspect of a person’s life, without that person even knowing He is present.
He is omniscient: He is greater than the sum of the knowledge, wisdom, experience and emotions of everyone, past and present. There is nothing that happens that He does not know. There is nothing that has happened that He does not remember. His knowledge of and influence over the future is unfathomable. No future, however, is inevitable.
He is omni benevolent: He is greater than the sum all the benevolent influences of all people combined.
He is omnipresent: There is no place anyone can go without being affected by Him.
He is eternal: He has existed since before the dawn of humankind's consciousness. Long after the last human has expired, He will still exist.
He has created, and continues to create, humankind in His own image.
Humankind has created, and continues to create, Him in its own image.

This general definition of what or who God represents was my starting point.

Does something with the traits and attributes of "God" exist?
I think so.
Does that thing affect my life on a regular, even constant basis?
I think so.
Does that thing react to my actions, therefore, in effect, acknowledge my existence?
I think so.
Does that thing have an immense power over people’s lives all around the globe, whether or not they acknowledge its existence?
I think so.
Does this thing deserve to be respected and even praised for its power?
I think so.
Do I benefit from acknowledging this thing as an integral part of my life?
Yes, I think I do.

I determined that there actually IS something that all those attributes could be ascribed to.
It has all the power that the “universal God” has, I could see its effects in my every day life, I can contribute to it, I can learn from it, I am affected by it every moment of every day and it deserves all the praise and worship that is lauded upon the God(s) of different religions.
If I respect the power of it, act with integrity and be mindful of all my actions and what I contribute to it, I could clearly see the results of those actions.
I could see the direct and indirect results of living a virtuous life, while recognizing, acknowledging and revering something bigger than myself that is not distinct and separate from myself.

This thing, for all intents and purposes, is equivalent to common depictions of the “Universal God”.

The Devil and God are indistinguishable.
Both reside in the collective intentions, actions and knowledge of man, and they are in a constant struggle with each other.

Every action you take affects the lives and decisions of countless people around you and each one of those actions that were affected by your action affects many more.
It is an endless collection of ripples interacting in an infinite pool of time.

Any decision you make, regardless of how insignificant it may seem on the surface, could ultimately end up affecting the lives of millions of people that you don’t even know, and many that you do know.
What is most important is being mindful of the contributions you make to it by virtue of simply existing and interacting with other life.
It is important to acknowledge the fact that we and our lives are so intrinsically intertwined and powerfully influenced by this, and that we would do well to keep that in mind when we make the choices we do.
We certainly are self-determined animals, but we are constantly inundated with influences in our lives, and while that is certainly no excuse to absolve yourself of your responsibility and accountability of your actions, not being mindful of such influences will cause you to fall prey to it. The immense power of this is something that should be revered, not blamed, because the source of the blame is placed squarely on individuals and their actions.

Although its existence cannot be seen, heard, measured or quantified, it certainly has very real effects.
It swept through the Deep South many years ago and convinced people that they were justified in lynching human beings based on the color of their skin.
It pulled people together at home to gather their efforts and cooperate while their sons and husbands were off fighting World War II.
It made Michael Jackson a star.
It made Michael Jackson a pitiful laughing stock.

Every attribute of God and the Devil, every bible story, every ideal and ideology can be ascribed to it.
It is Karma, Manifest.

All the major theistic religions have their own specific ideas about the truth of the nature of God.
I think they all have it right, but none of them have the whole picture.
The truth is an immense mirror, large enough to reflect all of humanity. Organized religion, wielded by human self-absorption and fear, is the hammer that humankind took to this mirror.
When the pieces fell, hordes of people ran up to it, stepping over one another, clamoring for a piece of the truth they can possess and call their very own.
Everyone now has a tiny piece of this huge shattered mirror, and they think they own God.
They look deep into their little, personal sliver of truth, searching for God and find him in a reflection of their own selves looking back at them.
This convinces them that their beliefs are correct, and everyone else's must be wrong.
If people were willing to just put all their pieces back together and reform the mirror, when they looked into it they would see the whole of humanity looking back at them.
However, people would rather own a piece of the truth, than give up their piece in search of the whole. They are scared that someone will run off with their precious piece. They would rather die than face the insecurity they fear will descend upon them if they would give up their piece. They would rather kill than give up their piece. Killing in the name of God – how utterly debased and disgusting humans have become in their quest to protect their measly, little piece that really doesn’t even make much of a difference to the whole.
I also suspect they fear what they will see looking back at them when they take a good look at themselves.

I often hear people say "I am God", or "God is within me" what they should be saying is "We are God" or "God is within us".
The further we get away from each other, the further we get from seeing, understanding and knowing the truth for what it is.

My main beef with your analysis is that what you call "god" I call "nature", or sometimes perhaps... "the tao".

IMO, reverence of it renders descriptive speak of it paultry and irreverent - no matter how moving or significant the speech may seem.

It is but a model of the unknowable, and it is all we have to work with.

I do love the models though, however meager they all may be (including my own of course). They are often impressive and inspired, but they are alas, founded in the folly of knowing.

This puzzles me OR.

What you seem to be describing is the interaction of large numbers of basically self-interested agents (people) with wildly varying degrees of tribal affinity, altruism, intelligence, goals, needs, wants, bias, etc.

The relatively stable equilibrium state of this complex interaction is what we call society, yes? IMO your description is one of society. Nevertheless, revering a stable and reasonably free and fair society is not a bad idea. I think associating the idea with the "universal god" or whatever gives it an undeserved mystical quality, not forgetting though, that people like a sense of mystery in their lives.

This puzzles me OR.
I'm not surprised - I'm still trying to figure out how to word it best and work out the kinks.


What you seem to be describing is the interaction of large numbers of basically self-interested agents (people) with wildly varying degrees of tribal affinity, altruism, intelligence, goals, needs, wants, bias, etc.
The relatively stable equilibrium state of this complex interaction is what we call society, yes? IMO your description is one of society.

Not strictly speaking, no.
It is not the interaction of these individual agents that I am attempting to describe.
More the synergistic effect of those interactions - and the effect also being the cause of it (this is where metaphor and allegory comes in real handy :)).
It is a symbiotic cause-effect-cause relationship between society and this “force” that is generated by and influences that same society.
As we interact, the result of that serves to influence and forge our future interactions and all interactions of those who will follow.

A metaphor I used in the other thread was that if Da Vinci’s mother turned left on Maple Street, rather than right, Hitler may have never been born.
I am referring to the Butterfly Effect and its intrinsic, symbiotic relationship with society.
Although no one is capable of seeing every result of their every action, every action they take will have near infinite results, and with the proper mindset we can use that dynamic to effect positive change.
Without the proper mindset, it is a fearsomely powerful, rogue force in our society.
We can guide it, we can be guided by it or we can seek a healthy balance.

Nevertheless, revering a stable and reasonably free and fair society is not a bad idea. I think associating the idea with the "universal god" or whatever gives it an undeserved mystical quality...
Why do you think it is undeserved?
What, if anything, deserves to be thought of as divine and worthy of reverence?

…people like a sense of mystery in their lives.
Exactly!
One thing I have noticed about most people I have interacted with from all different walks of life is that they want to believe, even NEED to believe there is something larger, wiser, more powerful then they are.
They believe in Gods.
They raise people up on pedestals and refer to them as “Holy”.
They look to politicians to tell them what to do.
They crave approval from parents, bosses, teachers, strangers, crowds, etc.
Perhaps it comes from a deep seated (or is that deep seeded? I never could figure that out) lack of self-esteem.
Perhaps it comes from knowledge of their won, individual insignificance.
Perhaps it comes from an inherent need to belong and be accepted evolved from the societal structure required for human survival…
Perhaps a combination of all the above and more.
Who knows?
But the fact remains that people have Gods for a reason, and it is not solely to explain mysterious natural phenomena.
Otherwise they would not create Gods of celebrities and other humans.

The problem, though, is if you raise humans up to that level – be it politicians, celebrities etc – you are bound to be disappointed, oppressed, taken advantage of etc.
Humans are fallible, corruptible and self-absorbed.
It is their nature.

If you create Gods with intentions and personalities, their image will be manipulated and controlled by humans to satisfy their own greedy, selfish desires.
Invented Gods, regardless of the inventor’s intentions, end up being tools of manipulation and oppression. Always!

So, why not fill that need for something to worship with something that not only deserves it, but has no intention, save for the intentions of mankind itself?
Why not a God without its own ideals and agenda that can be manipulated by greedy, self-absorbed humans?
Gods are there because people need to have them.
Either you fill that need with something positive, or it will be filled with something negative.

Aren’t all Gods really just metaphors, anyway?
At least this is a metaphor that would have a positive effect on society. No?

Let me ask you...
Do you agree with Bohr's logic that it doesn't matter if Physicists know the "truth" as long as the model works?
If the numbers add up it can be used to predict phenomena, and that is the pragmatic purpose of science - not to uncover any deeper truth of relaity.
Who cares if time "actually" slows down as you approach the speed of light, what matters the numbers show that, so the model is functional at predicting what will be measured as you approach the speed of light, correct?
If it works, it is "correct".
Do you have that same position as Bohr, Feynman, Hawking and others?

Not only do I believe it, but I believe it indicative of the circumstance of individuality. As I said however, in my model you're discussing "nature" and the god thing is a facet of human abstracts, like everything else about our models.

One raven,
Impressive dialogue.....hmmmm...

Not only do I believe it, but I believe it indicative of the circumstance of individuality. As I said however, in my model you're discussing "nature" and the god thing is a facet of human abstracts, like everything else about our models.
Kinda reminds me of monism and dualism (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1064781#post1064781)...

I've loved reading both this thread and the "agnostic finds god" thread, by the way.

Let me ask you...
Do you agree with Bohr's logic that it doesn't matter if Physicists know the "truth" as long as the model works?
If the numbers add up it can be used to predict phenomena, and that is the pragmatic purpose of science - not to uncover any deeper truth of relaity.
Who cares if time "actually" slows down as you approach the speed of light, what matters the numbers show that, so the model is functional at predicting what will be measured as you approach the speed of light, correct?
If it works, it is "correct".
Do you have that same position as Bohr, Feynman, Hawking and others?
Yes. I'm with Wes on this one. I feel that the most that "truth" can ever be is a continually evolving model of what may really underlie reality. As for science being completely pragmatic in the way you state it, I don't really think people would pursue science if not for a sense of uncovering more and more fundamental "truths" about the cosmos, whether or not there really is an ultimate truth to be found.

Let me ask you...
Do you agree with Bohr's logic that it doesn't matter if Physicists know the "truth" as long as the model works?

Yes, but the I'm making is that it doesn't mater if I agree, because that's the way it is. We have models - period. It's the nature of our relationship with 'reality' (whatever medium it is in which we seem to exist).

If the numbers add up it can be used to predict phenomena, and that is the pragmatic purpose of science - not to uncover any deeper truth of reality.

The "deeper truth of reality" is forever fiction, due to the nature of a perspective and how it relates to its environment. Observational distance is a stark limitation. To me for instance, it seems to be a "deeper truth of reality". I can only however, assert how things seem to me - as that is the natural limit of my authority. (a consequence of observational distance) It could be however, that how things seem to me serve a more or less significant utility to others than how things seem to them.

Who cares if time "actually" slows down as you approach the speed of light, what matters the numbers show that, so the model is functional at predicting what will be measured as you approach the speed of light, correct?
If it works, it is "correct".

If it works, it is utilitarian. Doesn't have to be correct, but yeah.. basically.

Do you have that same position as Bohr, Feynman, Hawking and others?

Close enough I suppose, though I'm not particularly familiar with their positions on the particular matter.

Kinda reminds me of monism and dualism (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1064781#post1064781)...

I've loved reading both this thread and the "agnostic finds god" thread, by the way.

DD's last post there (the one right above mine) was quite well put IMO. It seems to have summarized my opinion much more succinctly than I've every managed.

DD's last post there (the one right above mine) was quite well put IMO. It seems to have summarized my opinion much more succinctly than I've every managed.

Cheers Wes! :D

If you create Gods with intentions and personalities, their image will be manipulated and controlled by humans to satisfy their own greedy, selfish desires.
Invented Gods, regardless of the inventor’s intentions, end up being tools of manipulation and oppression. Always!

So, why not fill that need for something to worship with something that not only deserves it, but has no intention, save for the intentions of mankind itself?
Why not a God without its own ideals and agenda that can be manipulated by greedy, self-absorbed humans?
Gods are there because people need to have them.
Either you fill that need with something positive, or it will be filled with something negative. Aren’t all Gods really just metaphors, anyway?
At least this is a metaphor that would have a positive effect on society. No?

I agree with a lot of what you say One_raven. The "intentionless" God is very much like the Tao (that Wes mentioned) or the Platonist model, which just IS - continuously emanating being into existence.

"The Tao is called the Great Mother: empty yet inexhaustible, it gives birth to infinite worlds. It is always present within you. You can use it any way you want." (Tao Te Ching Ch6)

My understanding is that the "personal" God who acts on the World came very much from Judeism. For me, to attain oneness with the impersonal God by will, feels an almost impossible task. I therefore like the idea that this God is reaching back towards me to help (hence "grace"). However, I agree that the trouble starts when we start attributing personalities, properties (e.g. gender) and likes/dislikes to this God.

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal Name." (Tao Te Ching Ch1)

One Christian theological stance has been the "via negativa", which refuses to attribute anything to "God", only to say what God is not. I would wish to do away with almost all preconceived models and metaphors, and let whatever IS, manifest itself. However, I suppose the metaphors and models, as in science, provide a path to progress.

Let me just add that for instance were there to exist a "creature" or "being" outside of space-time such that it could "create" (with intention) space-time, it would seem to me that notions like "intention" and "creation", being purely human notions - would be necessarily wholly short of applicable by the fact that such notions are bourne of the stuff that was "created".

I posted this response in the Scientific Approach to the Jeus Question (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55229&page=19&pp=20) thread, and realized that it is quite applicable to this thread as well.
So I decided to cross post.
Sue me. :)

================================================== =

A scientific approach to the Jesus question would be remiss without looking at the purpose of science and discovery.
What is the main goal and purpose of science? To observe phenomena and their interactions with each other with the end result of discerning the results of those interactions to gather knowledge that can be used to accurately predict the outcome of said interactions under controlled situations. We gather knowledge in order to use that knowledge to our advantage. Science, then, is wholly pragmatic in its endeavors - it is only interested in results.

History - whether you are discussing rumors of a God-man 2000 years ago, governmental propaganda from World War II or the CNN news broadcast last night – relies almost entirely on anecdotal evidence.
Science, on the other hand, all but rejects anecdotal evidence, due to the fact that it cannot be independently and objectively verified. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence often completely undermines the whole concept of a controlled environment. Finally, anecdotal evidence, by its very nature, is wholly subjective, therefore generally considered fairly useless.

This, along with the scientific tenet that you cannot prove a negative, virtually guarantees that there is no way to prove that Jesus did not exist. Using material evidence is simply out of the question.
That given, there are two approaches you can take…

Most people who claim that Jesus did not exist will use the first one. Weigh the veracity of the anecdotal claims against other wholly subjective anecdotal claims that have as their claim to veracity, grater contemporary corroboration. There are quite a few problems with this approach that I feel are apparent, including the fact that you are simply weighing subjective evidence vs. subjective evidence and the dearth of contemporary history in Jesus’ time.
Corroborating evidence does not make a claim fact.
If it did, one could simply point to the fact that there exists an estimated 2 billion Christians, it is the basic belief of the Muslim religion that Jesus existed and was a prophet of God, many Jews believe that Jesus existed, but simply was not the prophesied savior and countless other people believe that Jesus existed, but simply do not worship him. With even a conservative estimate, likely half the world’s population believes that Jesus did exist. If corroboration of anecdotal evidence determined fact, one could simply point at the more that three billion people who believe he did exist and rest one’s case.

The second approach, I believe is the more pragmatic, therefore scientific, approach.
How can you look at the question pragmatically and objectively? You look at the results of his existence and how that would change if his existence was false.
Given that you cannot disprove the existence of Jesus, there is no need to look at what may happen if someone disproved that he existed, because it simply cannot happen. So, looking at the world today, with all the people that believe that he did exist, what would change if that belief was not based in reality?
Exactly what would happen if it WAS based in reality.
Exactly what would happen if Napoleon never existed, and he was just a product of French propaganda.
Nothing at all.
What would it change? People will still believe he existed. His image would have the same exact impact it does today. He exists as a collective memory right now. He exists as a force within our cultures right now. People’s belief in him right now, has the exact same effect as if he really did exist.

As someone who values little more than truth, this is something that is quite difficult for me to admit and accept, but like it or not, for better or for worse, collective belief DOES determine reality.
Jesus exists in people’s minds because people believe in him, and if that belief is not based on reality at all (which is simply improvable) it makes no difference whatsoever.
And there is nothing you can do about it.

So, if you truly and honestly take the “Scientific Approach” to the question of whether Jesus existed the answer would HAVE to be, “It doesn’t matter, because it has absolutely no bearing on the situation al all.”

That's a very clear analysis, and I would have to agree. Proving the existence of Jesus would also do little to change peoples views.

Which makes either a rather pointless quest!

A better strategy for atheists would be to show Jesus did exist but was in fact called Brian.

"People will still believe he existed. His image would have the same exact impact it does today. He exists as a collective memory right now. He exists as a force within our cultures right now. People’s belief in him right now, has the exact same effect as if he really did exist."

Doe Einstein exist? Does death transform a "he" to an "it"?

The memory of einstein exists. It exists. He doesn't exist. He existed.

Same of Jesus no, if he did actually exist.

I agree though that whether or not "jesus" did exist is pretty much irrelevant.

A better strategy for atheists would be to show Jesus did exist but was in fact called Brian.
But he was not the messiah, he was a very naughty boy!

Then again, if people BELIEVE he was the messiah, then it doesn't really make a difference, does it?

Wes,
Yes, I see your point.

But he was not the messiah, he was a very naughty boy! LOL :D

Something just struck me...

This sounds pretty similar to the Trinitarian ideal of the Holy Ghost.
Or is it just me?

I like it One Raven. A Pragmatist's God. A "God" for all and none. Can we take away his sex too? Just call it AlphaOmegaEverythingandNothing or some such? It goes with my own philosophies very harmoniously.

Can we take away his sex too?

By removing its personification and intention, its sex is removed by default, no?

By removing its personification and intention, its sex is removed by default, no?

I guess, but I thought you refered to "him" a few times...nevermind.

scratch AlphaOmegaEverythingandNothing

AlphaEverythingOmegaNothing = AEON...? Don't mind me i'm just ranting...

From Wiki:

[edit] In Gnosticism
In many Gnostic systems, the various emanations of God, who is also known by such names as the One, the Monad, Aion teleos (The Perfect Aeon), Bythos (Depth or profundity, Greek Βυθός), Proarkhe (Before the Beginning, Greek πρόαρχή), the Arkhe (The Beginning, Greek ή αρχή), are called aeons. This first being is also an æon and has an inner being within itself, known as Ennoea (Thought), Charis (Grace), or Sige (Greek Σιγη, Silence). The split perfect being conceives the second aeon, Caen (Power), within itself. Along with the male Caen comes the female æon Akhana (Truth, Love).

Aeons bear a number of similarities to Judaeo-Christian angels, including their roles as servants and emanations of God, and their existence as beings of light. In fact, certain Gnostic Angels, such as Armozel, also happen to be Aeons[2].

The aeons often came in male/female pairs called syzygies, and were frequently numerous (20-30). Two of the most commonly listed æons were Jesus and Sophia. The aeons constitute the pleroma, the "region of light." The lowest regions of the pleroma are closest to the darkness — that is, the physical world.

When an æon named Sophia emanates without her partner aeon, the result is the Demiurge, or half-creator (Occasionally referred to as 'Yalda Baoth in Gnostic texts), a creature that should never have come into existence. This creature does not belong to the pleroma, and the One emanates two savior æons, Christ and the Holy Spirit, to save humanity from the Demiurge. Christ then took the form of the human Jesus, in order to be able to teach humanity how to achieve gnosis; that is, return to the pleroma.

Myther et al suggests that the whole mechanism can be an allegorical representation of violation of CP symmetry, required to create a universe of matter, by facilitating particles to win over antiparticles. CP symmetry requires emanation of equal amount of matters and antimatters which obviously has been violated somehow in the beginning of the universe; otherwise we would not have a material universe. Æons may denote this conjugation of particles-antiparticles produced in equal number. Somehow the perfect symmetry of Pleroma gets violated and a particle or a number of particles (Sophia) ensued out without its/their antiparticle counterparts, resulting in an increase in number of particles (birth of Demiurge) – a process which ultimately led to the creation of our physical universe.