Part 1: Challenging the conventional idea of God

Introduction

Reimagining the Concept of God

Since the beginning of civilization, man has attempted to comprehend the forces that control life. Through various cultures and centuries, the concept of God has changed, developing myths, religions, and philosophies. From the early animistic religions that believed spirits resided in nature to the advanced theological systems of contemporary religions, the concept of the divine is ever-changing. However, through all this change, one question remains: What, or whom, is God?

Early human societies possessed divine powers closely associated with nature. Early humans revered gods who controlled sun, rain, and crops, and explained natural phenomena as being caused by supernatural powers. Polytheistic societies, such as those of ancient Egypt, Greece, and India, depicted their gods as powerful but very human, with feelings, passions, and weaknesses. Later, the emergence of monotheistic religions turned God into one omnipotent entity who created the world. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam brought the idea of one God—one who hears, judges, and speaks to humans.

As societies were shaped by religious beliefs, scientists and philosophers started questioning the nature of the divine. Scholars such as Aristotle and Avicenna argued that God was not a person but a "Prime Mover"—a necessary entity that initiated the universe. Spinoza argued that God and the universe were one, and deists such as Voltaire envisioned a creator who initiated the cosmos but did not interfere in its processes. Scientific hypotheses such as relativity, quantum mechanics, and string theory in recent times have brought into the arena visions that argue that reality is far greater than what human beings perceive.

Scientific discoveries lead to deep questions regarding the nature of the divine. If the universe consists of greater than one dimension, as postulated by M-theory, might the idea of God be attributed to an unseen power that exists beyond human sight? If quantum theory demonstrates that particles are uncalculable at the very fundamental levels, does this indicate a hidden intelligence or design that is beyond human comprehension? Even Albert Einstein, who denied a personal God existed, accepted the potential for a "cosmic intelligence" that controls nature's laws.

This writing postulates that God is not a human but an unseen force existing in dimensions that are beyond human comprehension. Because a two-dimensional being cannot imagine a three-dimensional world, human beings may not be able to comprehend the world's nature. The ancient scriptures, such as the Bhagavad Gita, depict God as existing everywhere but not accessible—a view that is in harmony with modern theories of unseen dimensions and cosmic structures.

By the incorporation of historical suppositions, philosophical acumen, and scientific conjecture, this book seeks to offer a vision that unites tradition and contemporary discovery. It does not pretend to offer definitive answers but rather encourages readers to question, analyze, and reconsider the reality of God. If the universe is vastly more intricate than we now know, then maybe the divine has existed all along outside of human comprehension.

Why People Believe in the Classical Concept of God?

God has been the center of human society over the centuries. Either as a omnipotent being or a metaphysical cosmic energy, the traditional idea of the divine has shaped cultures, morals, and social structures. So what exactly is this traditional definition, and why has it survived so long?

The most widely accepted conception of God is that of a supernatural being who is the creator, sustainer, and sovereign of the universe. Such a being is commonly characterized as self-existent, all-powerful, absolutely good, and unknowable to man. Most religions share the connotation that God is the final source of existence and morality, although religious traditions vary.

In classical philosophy, God is typically understood to be "the unity of all perfections," omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good). Philosophers such as Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas defended the existence of God, characterizing the divine as necessary, unchanging, and final. The deistic position, held by writers such as Voltaire, is that God created the universe but does not intervene in its operation, such as a builder who builds a building and leaves. Pantheism, however, dissolves the difference between God and the universe, holding that the divine fills all and is the very substance of being.

Religious traditions offer further variations on the theme. Monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam describe God as a single, omnipotent being who acts upon creation—judging, guiding, and delivering salvation. Polytheistic traditions, such as Hinduism and ancient Greek and Norse mythologies, boast a large number of gods, each having charge of specific aspects of life and nature. Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism are less interested in a personal god and more interested in reaching Nirvana—a state of being beyond suffering and illusion.

The name "God" itself is based on Old English "god," which is from Proto-Germanic "gudą" and the Proto-Indo-European "ǵʰʌto."

The etymology is therefore representative of the manner in which the ancient world perceived the divine—i.e., as persons to invoke in times of distress.

In spite of human scientific and intellectual accomplishments, the conventional definition of God continues to exist. Psychological, habitual, and search for meaning are reasons for such persistence.

The human mind is agent-detecting and pattern-detecting, and will find purpose in things. This cognitive bias caused early societies to assign supernatural powers to storms, earthquakes, and other occurrences. Anthropomorphism—projecting human traits on non-human objects—rendered it easy to relate to God as a person with feelings, will, and desires.

Religion has its roots in culture, which determines the beliefs of human beings from birth. The majority of people acquire their religious faith from their society and family, hardly questioning them during their childhood. Religious institutions consolidate these beliefs through scriptures, rituals, and moral teachings, turning them into identity and social bonding. Even in secular culture, the moral and ethical norms determined by religious beliefs continue to influence the conduct of human beings.

Aside from tradition, the concept of a divine entity gives explanations to humanity's most profound questions of existence. Why are we here? What happens when we die? What is the meaning of suffering? Belief in a God who rules life and dispenses justice provides solace in a world full of doubt. The hope of an afterlife, divine retribution, and a greater purpose provides assurance that suffering is not futile. Even those who doubt religious teachings have a hard time abandoning the belief that a higher power is directing their lives.

But the conventional concept of God is challenged when subjected to the test of modern science and philosophy. The universe's size, the hypothesis of higher dimensions, and quantum physics's paradoxes suggest that reality is far more complex than religious teachings illustrate. If higher dimensions than human eyes can see exist, can the divine exist? If quantum physics shows an unpredictable yet orderly pattern at the most fundamental level, can this be a sign of an unseen intelligence woven into the fabric of reality?

This work is not intended to disbelieve in faith but to enlarge the vision of God. If the divine exists, then perhaps our vision of it has to change along with our increasing knowledge of the universe.

Outside of the Orthodox Perception: The main concept of this writing

For centuries, man has envisioned God as an individual, sitting on a divine throne in heaven. But as science unravels the mysteries of the cosmos, this picture becomes increasingly inadequate. If there is a God, could the divine be something infinitely greater—interwoven into the very essence of existence itself? New physics presents us with such theories as String Theory and M-Theory that postulate the existence of more dimensions than the three that we are aware of. If they do, it could account for why we cannot hear or see God as religion does. Just as an animal living in two dimensions will not comprehend a three-dimensional universe, we may not comprehend the divine due to our own dimensional constraints. This writing tries to redefine God—not as a person, but as an energy behind the existence itself. By combining science, philosophy, and spirituality, we will be looking at how higher dimensions, quantum physics, and the essence of consciousness could provide us with new understanding of the divine. If the universe is much more complex than we ever imagined, then perhaps the concept of God must change as well.

Chapter 2 : Limitations of Human perception: Senses and cognition

Human perception is by nature bounded by the biological restrictions of our senses and by cognitive frameworks for understanding sensory input. While our senses give us a sense of the world, they do not provide us with an objective or exhaustive view of reality. Rather, they filter through and allow access to but a small percentage of the outside world to become aware to our minds. Likewise, our brains, while powerful, do not process information with perfect accuracy; they simplify, distort, and sometimes fabricate details to create a coherent experience. These limitations raise fundamental questions about the nature of reality and our ability to perceive it fully.

Sensory Limitations

The human body is equipped with five primary senses—sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell—yet each of these is restricted in its scope. Our eyes only perceive a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is visible light. Outside this limited range are infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, gamma rays, and radio waves, all of which are invisible to us but are sensed or used by other organisms. Snakes, for instance, are capable of perceiving infrared radiation so that they can see heat signatures at night, while bees have a vision of ultraviolet patterns on flowers that lead them to nectar. If our eyes are so constrained, what else is there that lies beyond what we are able to perceive?

Similarly, human hearing is confined to frequencies between roughly 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Sounds above or below this range exist but are inaudible to us. Bats communicate using ultrasonic frequencies that humans cannot hear, and elephants use infrasonic sounds to convey messages over long distances. If sound waves beyond our perception carry meaning for other species, it suggests that an entire world of auditory information exists beyond human experience.

Our olfactory sense is equally feeble compared to many creatures. Dogs have an olfactory sense calculated to be tens of thousands times as sensitive as ours. They can tell if a substance is present at concentrations as low as one part per trillion, so they can see layers of information about their environment that are totally beyond human perception. Similarly, certain fish and insects are able to sense pheromones and chemical signals that guide their interactions beyond our perception.

Even touch, which appears to provide us with direct feedback regarding our surroundings, has limitations in sensitivity and accuracy. We are not able to feel microscopic textures without instruments, or to sense some forces, such as magnetic fields, which other animals, like migratory birds, use to navigate. Some species have electroreception, the ability to sense electrical signals in their surroundings, which allows them to detect prey in murky waters where vision fails. The absence of such abilities in humans suggests that we experience only a fraction of the full range of sensory information available in the natural world.

Cognitive Limitations

Short of the bounds of our senses, human thought even further limits the way we understand and interpret the world. The brain is not a passive cataloger of sensory information but processes and reconstructs information in terms that introduce flaws, biases, and distortions. Perception is influenced by memory, expectation, and experience and causes us to perceive what we expect to happen rather than what actually exists.

A highly documented illustration of this is selective attention. Chabris and Simons' Invisible Gorilla Experiment illustrated how the spotlight of attention can lead individuals to miss important visual information. Passersby asked to count basketball passes thrown among them in a video often didn't see an individual in a gorilla suit strolling through the scene. This implies that our perception is not as comprehensive as we think; even when something is right in front of us, we might not notice it if our focus is elsewhere.

The human brain is also prone to optical and auditory illusions, where sensory data is interpreted incorrectly. These illusions show that our minds "fill in the gaps," making assumptions about reality that are not always objective truth. For example, the brain may see movement where there is none or hear speech in random noise if it is cued with expectations. Such a tendency to build reality as opposed to sensing it directly indicates that what we sense is not an accurate reflection of the world but a reconstruction in the mind based on cognitive shortcuts.

Memory, which we depend on to remember past experience, is also an imperfect system. Contrary to what has been popularly believed, memory does not work in the manner of a recording device. Rather, memory is reconstructive, in that every time we recollect something, we reconstruct the event from bits of information rather than retrieving a duplicate. This mechanism is inherently error-prone since fresh information can change the way old ones are stored and changed in the brain, resulting in distortions or flat-out false memories. This leads to significant questions regarding how much of what we "remember" actually exists and how much is constructed by our brains.

Perception of time is yet another domain where human thought is fallible. Our subjective experience of time varies with emotions, focus of attention, and physiological states. Time slows down under conditions of fear or threat due to enhanced neural activity, but it accelerates during phases of boredom. Such phases of incoherence indicate that time as we understand it is not an objective aspect of existence but a psychological phenomenon determined by the brain.

Most strikingly, however, most of what is processed by our brains never enters our awareness. The mind of man screens and rejects most sensory data, retaining only what is considered necessary for living or that which is currently relevant. This leaves an enormous portion of reality unobserved simply because our brains are not interested enough to process. If we only see a part of what there is, then we need to ask: What are we missing?

The Unseen Reality Beyond Human Perception:

The fact that human perception has limits implies that reality is much richer and more complex than what we can perceive. Just as a blind individual cannot see light, or a two-dimensional creature cannot perceive depth, we might be inherently incapable of sensing certain things in the universe, such as higher dimensions, hidden forces, or even the existence of a deity. Our filters of cognition and sensation limit us to a narrow slice of the real world, and as we develop as scientists, we keep revealing layers of reality that used to be invisible to us. If so much is obscured from our experience, then it stands to reason that even more secrets exist outside the experience of our minds.

CHAPTER II : The analogy of a 2D being and the limits of perception

To put the problem of seeing higher dimensions into perspective, imagine a creature that lives completely in a two-dimensional (2D) reality, a world like a piece of paper, with only width and length. This creature, which we might term a "Flatlander," knows nothing about "up" or "down." All it knows is the flat surface of its reality.

Imagine what would occur, then, if a three-dimensional (3D) sphere could travel through such a 2D world. The Flatlander would never know the sphere all at once, since his ability to perceive exists only in two dimensions. Instead, as the sphere passes through its world, the Flatlander would experience but a varying cross-section of the sphere. Initially, when the sphere only contacts the plane, the Flatlander may observe an infinitesimally small dot. As the sphere penetrates further, the dot would turn into an ever-increasing circle. When the sphere is most expanded, the Flatlander observes the largest circle, then from there the circle would decrease and eventually vanish.

This analogy, so famously developed in Edwin Abbott's Flatland (1884), illustrates a basic limitation of perception when handling higher dimensions. The Flatlander is never able to fully understand what a sphere really is, it can only deduce its existence from indirect observation. Even if the sphere were to attempt to explain itself, the Flatlander's comprehension would be limited by its two-dimensional context.

Extending the Analogy to Three and Higher Dimensions

Now, apply this idea to us. We are three-dimensional creatures, living in a universe of length, width, and height. As the Flatlander cannot understand an object passing through the third dimension, we cannot fully understand objects or entities existing in a fourth spatial dimension or higher. If a four-dimensional (4D) body was to intrude upon our 3D reality, we could only sense it in fractured cross-sections, much as the Flatlander experiences the sphere.

Theoretical physics employs an often-used analogy called the tesseract, or 4D analogue of a cube. Whereas a cube has six square faces, a tesseract has eight cubical faces. But since we are restricted to three-dimensional perception, we can only imagine a tesseract in terms of 3D projections, just as a Flatlander can only conceive of a cube in terms of 2D projections. The human mind has difficulty imagining fully what an actual 4D object would be like, just as a Flatlander would have difficulty imagining a cube.

Richard Feynman's View of Higher Dimensions

Richard Feynman, in his Lectures on Physics, frequently talked about the shortfalls of human intuition when applied to higher-dimensional spaces. He noted that our minds have adapted to operate within a three-dimensional universe, and therefore although we can define higher dimensions mathematically, we cannot perceive them directly. For instance, in physics, additional dimensions are usually required to describe fundamental forces, like in string theory, which proposes the existence of at least ten dimensions. But since these dimensions are compactified or lie outside our sensory experience, they are not accessible to direct human observation.

Feynman likened this limitation to the way our ancestors would have grappled with the idea of a round Earth when they were experiencing it as flat. As new mathematical and observational instruments eventually enabled humans to embrace a spherical Earth, the future could hold revelations that enable us to perceive higher-dimensional realities in new ways.

Implications for Perception and Reality

If there are higher dimensions out there that exist beyond our three-dimensional universe, then our perception of reality is fundamentally incomplete. Just as the Flatlander is unable to grasp the entire existence of a sphere, we could be unaware of entire parts of reality that project out into higher-dimensional space. This has deep implications not just for physics, but also for metaphysics and the philosophy of being. If anything, a higher-dimensional object, force, or even an entity, lies outside of our sensory horizon, we could only feel its impact within our restricted scope, much like the Flatlander perceiving a growing circle but never witnessing the sphere itself.

This analogy raises important questions about the nature of space, consciousness, and even the concept of divinity. If a being existed in a higher-dimensional reality, it might be able to perceive all of our three-dimensional existence at once, just as we can see an entire Flatland world from above. This aligns with many ancient and philosophical descriptions of an omnipresent, all-seeing entity, something that exists outside the constraints of human perception.

Conclusion: The Secret Dimensions of Reality

The analogy between the 2D being and the sphere in 3D space reminds us of the limitations of human perception. Just as the Flatlander cannot understand 3D objects, we cannot be certain that we can understand the nature of space of higher dimension. Modern physics tells us that our reality is much more complicated than what we can actually see, and just because something is outside of our senses does not mean it doesn't exist. The more we venture into dimensions outside of our own, the more we understand that our reality is merely a small cross-section of a much larger and richer universe.

CHAPTER III : Plato’s allegory of the cave: Shadows of a larger reality

Perhaps the most moving metaphor for human vision and its limitations is Plato's Allegory of the Cave, which is found in The Republic (Book VII). By means of this tale, Plato depicts the notion that what we see as reality may be merely a shadow of a deeper, more complex reality. This allegory is a strong metaphor for human experience of the world, one that indicates our sensory experience can give us only a shadowed representation of a higher, multidimensional reality, one to which we have no direct access.

The Cave: A World of Shadows

Plato would have us imagine a dark cave in which prisoners have been bound since they were born and are unable to turn their heads. They are arranged in such a way that they are only able to see a wall before them. Behind them a fire burns, and between the fire and the prisoners are men who pass objects. The objects cast shadows on the wall, and as the prisoners have never seen anything other than shadows, they believe these shadows to be real. They hear echoes off the walls of the cave, believing these echoes to be coming from the shadows themselves.

The shadows, to them, are not illusions and are literally all they know. They know nothing but the two-dimensional images on the wall. There is no sense whatever of the object itself, much less any light which casts the shadows there.

Escape from the Cave: The Road to Deeper Understanding

Now suppose one of the prisoners is released and turns. Initially, the firelight is dazzling, and the actual objects seem bizarre and unintelligible. If the released prisoner was taken outside the cave into the sunlight, it would be even more dramatic. The actual world, with its bright colors, three-dimensional nature, and direct sunlight, would be completely unlike anything the prisoner ever dreamed of. Slowly, their vision would adapt, and they would realize that the cave was only a shadowy imitation of an infinitely more lavish reality.

But if the released prisoner should return to the cave and try to share this higher truth with the others, they would be greeted with disbelief and ridicule. The prisoners, still chained and accustomed to their restricted vision, would repudiate the existence of anything beyond the shadows. The cave is reality to them, and the released prisoner's words would be gibberish.

Human Perception in the Cave

Plato's allegory is that human beings too may be looking at only a shadowed version of reality, a twisted and incomplete image of something much more vast. Our senses and intellect present us with an image of the world but not the entire truth. We are, like the cave prisoners, probably mistaking our incomplete 3D experience for the ultimate nature of reality.

In contemporary physics, this concept finds a resonance in theories that propose reality as so much more than what the senses can perceive. Ideas like higher dimensions, quantum theory, and the holographic universe theory all propose that reality as we know it may be no more than a cross-section or a projection of a far more intricate, higher-dimensional reality. If there are indeed extra dimensions, as proposed by string theory and by M-theory, then our perception of three-dimensional space may be as limited as the cave wall shadows.

Similarly, quantum mechanics shows that reality is the exact opposite of what we perceive in our everyday life. Particles exist in a state of superposition until measured, wave-particle duality contradicts classical ideas about matter, and entanglement contradicts local realism. These strange phenomena suggest that reality may be completely different from what we perceive, just as the cave prisoners were unaware of the outside world.

Implications for the Concept of God

The cave allegory also sheds light on the nature of human perception in relation to the divine. If God or some higher power exists in higher dimensions than our sensory reality, we can only be permitted to experience indirect "shadows" of this presence, reflections of a higher-dimensional reality. Most religious and mystical traditions speak of God as "unseen" or "beyond understanding," just as the real world outside the cave is at first unimaginable to the prisoners.

This is in line with the Bhagavad Gita's presentation of God as imminent and transcendent, beyond human understanding. Likewise, Einstein's vision of a "cosmic intelligence" that underlies the universe is in line with the perception that there might be an underlying order to life, which we can catch sight of only at intervals through science, philosophy, or spiritual insight.

Conclusion: Breaking Free from the Shadows Plato's allegory invites us to ask ourselves if we are merely perceiving shadows of a greater reality. As science progresses, our knowledge of reality increases, just as the released prisoner gradually becomes accustomed to the light outside the cave. But just as the cave prisoners did not want to believe in a greater reality, human beings do not want to believe in ideas that are in conflict with their present sensory experience. If perception has to be limited, then the pursuit of truth requires intellectual and philosophical openness, to be willing to transcend the "shadows" of common understanding. In scientific inquiry, in philosophical inquiry, or in spiritual inquiry, the exit from the cave is a quest for knowledge that transcends the boundaries of human perception.

CHAPTER IV : Why we can’t see,hear or interact with God

From time immemorial, the problem has existed in humanity's mind: Why aren't we able to directly see, hear, or interact with God? It needs to be emphasized that such an inquiry must begin with a dissection of the very limitations pre-posed upon our perception. Life as we know it can be experienced only through biological, cognitive, and dimensional hindrances; it is conceivable that through such paradigms, an alternative truth lies beyond our perception. If God exists in a form beyond these limitations, then our failure to perceive Him is not due to lack of faith or comprehension, but rather a fundamental consequence of our being.

Dimensional limitations serve as a good model to think about the problem. Our immediate reality is organized into the three spatial dimensions of length, width, and height and has one more dimension: the linear perception of time. However, this perception is only a small portion of what really exists, says modern physics. According to string theory and M-theory, there could be extra dimensions that exist beyond the access of human perception. In theory, these dimensions mold the very forces of nature we see, while making their actual observation quite impossible.

A well-known illustration is the Flatland analogy. The analogy allows an appreciation for the difficulty confronting any being trying to fathom worlds beyond a particular dimensional perspective. Picture a world that completely exists in two dimensions, Flatland inhabitants thereof having experienced only length and width without a concept of height. To them, any third dimension is not just invisible, but inconceivable. Suppose, now, that a three-dimensional object, a sphere, is moving through Flatland. The Flatlanders would not see the sphere as a whole; they would see only its changing cross-sections as it intersects their plane, a point at first, then an ever-growing and shrinking circle, and finally, disappearing from their perspective.

To Flatlanders, the coming and going of the sphere would become an event of the most mysterious order. A random event would occur, entering their world with no cause, changing shape in an unpredictable manner, and leaving them with no explanation upon departure. But viewed from our own higher-dimensional perspective, the truth concerning the sphere is as clear as day: it existed all along; the Flatlanders were simply incapable of perceiving it. Extending this analogy into human experience reveals staggering implications. Should God exist in dimensions outside our own, our inability to perceive Him does not concern His nonexistence; the focus is rather upon our inherent limitations as three-dimensional beings. Just as Flatlanders cannot fully comprehend the existence of a sphere, we may also be fundamentally incapable of perceiving God in His true form.

The contemplation is strongly endorsed by Richard Feynman, who perceptively articulated how limited perspectives blind us to higher-dimensional realities. In The Feynman Lectures on Physics, he discusses how beings confined to lower dimensions would struggle to conceptualize higher-dimensional objects. A two-dimensional being would have no framework for understanding a cube, just as a one-dimensional being would be utterly baffled by any aspects of three-dimensionality.