Theories one and two

When I speak of god, I mean a form of higher being and not any theological images that our species has created. I say “god” only in it’s ease to illustrate this concept. I am not a religious man. But it’s naïve to think that we are the pinnacle of being and consciousness. In the infinite sea of the universe, and even the incomprehensible nothingness beyond, the only being that is, is merely us? I refuse to believe so. In theory number one, I try to imagine this greater being, and seriously question whether I am anthropomorphizing cosmic entities, as I did in one of my earlier notebooks.

Theory One
This higher being that shows itself to us unknowingly in the form of the universe as whole. The universe, as we call it, is the being itself. It may be sentient, but I think at that level of being, it becomes something else, passed the point of our earthly comprehension. Where sentience is puny and irrelevant.

i)A being of such consciousness would need an incredible amount of space to hold all its neural networks. Just in the same fashion as bacteria, small organisms, have smaller cognitive capabilities because of their size. There is [unfinished]
ii)It would be incredibly difficult if not impossible to understand and perceive this being in its full form. It would simply be too monumental for a being of human stature to see. In all cases with trying to understand phenomenon of higher origin, like higher dimensions and higher beings, it’s helpful to imagine us as the higher phenomenon, and how a lower plane of being would seek to understand us. We desperately try to grasp the fourth dimension. Our attempts to do so lead us to study the increase from the second dimension to the third. These are both concepts we understand. In using concepts and ideas we understand, we can formulate an abstract, complex notion of those ideas which we cannot understand. To illustrate the monumental complexity of a god, we must use the same practices. We must put ourselves in the eyes of an organism which may hold properties to understand us. Take cells for example; an miniscule organism with a basic neural network. These cells do not comprehend their part in the function of the human body and universe. Humans do not comprehend their part in the universe either. This is not to say that we are some small interdependent structure within a larger being. I do not deny this possibility either, however. Imagine for a moment you wished to communicate with an individual cell. You would have the capabilities to isolate the cell. The cell, if it had sentience, would perceive you as a god, naturally. If you wanted the cell to understand the world where you live. You may want to explain to them literature, or art, or political systems. But you first have to explain the objects on which those idea are build. So you show them a building, but they would not know what bricks are. You simplify. You show the cell, carbon in the form of coal. Simple matter indeed. Now in your ignorance, you have forgotten the cell has not the neural networks complex enough to understand the coal, nor does it have the optical senses to see the light coming from the lump of coal. So to could you show it a bench, but not matter how hard it tried, it would still fail to even see the bench in its entirety. This is why god does not speak to us. The god realizes the futility of attempting communication, and is more concerned with its own issues. Just as we do not care for the issues in a cells life and they cannot comprehend us, a god does not care for our issues nor can we understand it.
iii) [thoughts exist. Not on paper, however.]

Theory Two
God in this theory is looked upon in a much more philosophical and spiritual sense. God is the absolute good; god is the perfect being; god is the higher possible being. What form of god exists in this sense?