Today, we will finish with this particular subject. More detail will be provided as part of the Study Course for the Institute. A donation site via PayPal was initiated today to accept donations of any size. The Institute is a nonprofit entity organized by an exempt Church.
As I noted yesterday, most of the idiosyncratic nuances of the known theological philosophies, being no more than imaginary figments, ‘fall to the wayside’ after diligent study of the clay tablets in our metaphorical Library of Babel.
The more pressing issues remaining for study are:  does a God exist,  if so, can God be experienced personally,  what is meant by an impersonal God,  rather than a God is there a Foundation Principle, FP, underlying the physical, and  is God or the FP finite or infinite?
Our objective today is not to finalize objective answers to such questions, rather, we are interested in discerning the relationship between these questions and mankind’s evolutionary psychology? In other words, why do such questions even arise?
Herein, I will briefly address these questions and provide guidance as to how one can resolve such apparent oppositions. The final work needs to be done by our readers–as such is typical of Institute school exercises.
In a future blog series, I will present a parsimonious explanation as to how the notion of the aphysical world with its ancestor spirits and god(s) arose (most likely with the advent of H. sapiens, and perhaps, H. neanderthalensis). Today, I am interested solely in current concepts and posited relationships existing between individuals and God as perceived. I recommend you review the Vedic school theologies presented earlier.
Remaining within the Vedic fold, the theistic schools posit that God exists, and such God may be experienced personally (Isvara), impersonally (Brahman), or ineffably. Analysis of the experiential differences in experiencing the Godhead suggests that its source lies within the psychological belief system of the individual alone. Though, people tend to accept the validity of his or her individual experience, the experience does little to validate the belief that God exists as an independent Being, independent of an individual’s mind-brain. The best we can say is that a purported experience of the Godhead is necessarily subsumed under our expanded logical system:
The experience of God is personal,
The experience of God is impersonal,
The experience of God is both personal and impersonal,
The experience of God is neither personal nor impersonal.
Moving onward, we consider the significance of positing a God versus a foundational principle (FP) to explain all of the creation. Implicit in the concept of God is the notion that God is a Being (Atman) regardless of whether God is thought of as meta-finite or trans-finite, both terms implying that God is beyond mankind in every conceivable attribute. Some proponents claim that ‘God as a Being’ is an actual infinity, but, to apply such a term to a discrete being is nonsensical.
Later, I will explain the rationale underlying the Institute’s psychophilosophical position. At that time, I will expound, develop, and expand the several variant concepts of infinity, i.e., the physical, mathematical, and the theological. The three concepts being inconsistent with each other.
The concept of God as a Being is not compatible with a foundational principle (FP) model unless God is presumed to exist outside the totality of the physical universe. If God as Being (Atman) remains inside of creation there is no necessity for independent FP.
Still, we see that thinking in terms of the 4 line logic model is conducive to help you come to a personal resolution. Later, we will come back to the concept of God and look at such through brighter eyes.
Good luck. I am not sure what we shall discuss during the next series of blogs.