Can Energism fit in a nutshell?

I've been threatening for a while to try to explain my concept of Energism. There's so much to it, so many little side topics that are intertwined with it, that I'm not sure I can explain it all in one blog post. I could probably write a book about it. I'm too impatient to do that though :) I want to explain it now, to everyone, any chance I get. It sounds so preachy and fundy when put that way, but I'm not here to shove it down your throat. I just want to share my P.O.V., on the off chance someone else might agree with me, (which I think is the original intention behind the reason Christians are supposed to "Spread the Word," but that's a whole other ramble.)

So let's see, how to start...

First, why I call it Energism. I think everything  is made of energy. In my mind, I picture energy as the ultimately infinitesimal particle that makes up the building blocks of mass. To me, energy isn't a separate entity from mass, as theorized behind the idea of conversion in E = mc²  but just a part of mass's whole.

From here, my idea wanders from something that seems more reasonably scientific, to a realm that seems more science fantasy. The thing is, I also believe that energy has consciousnesses. for each individual particle of energy, that consciousness might be very simplistic, but gather together groups of energy, and the scope of that group of energy's ability to reason expands. It's like a hive mind, really.

These simple energy particles come together out of the desire to understand their reason for being. Energy particles coming together are like any other group or organization. Together, they have a goal, to share their ideas on what it means to be a particle of energy, and how they can work together to create something greater than they would be as individuals. Let me compare it to a family. A family has different parts that perform different actions to function as a whole. In the same vein, energy particles come together to for the building blocks of atoms. Of course, there are many kinds of families. While some are very similar, some are very different, but in the end, they are all have the same end goal. So, too, energy particles coming together may all form the building blocks of atoms, but they are not all alike. Thus, we end up with similar sized bits, such as nucleons and quarks. Now, when multiple families come together, they form communities. Like communities, the energy bits come together to form neutrons, protons and electrons. Again, different combinations, and different end goals, dictate what form those combinations become. Different communities can be very similar, or very different, in how they come together and the rules the follow, but in the end, they are still a community, and the same goes for the parts of an atom.

Now we get more complex. if you gather more and more communities together in one place, you varying complexities of towns and cities. I see this as a great analogy for atoms. A city needs many things to be able to work together in balance to have harmony. Atoms are stable when they have neutrality. Ions, atoms that aren't neutral, are communities with conflict. There are also atoms that just have a lack that needs filled. Something needs to change.

Now we have the comparison of complex elements to cities that interact with each other. Humans have communities that are perfectly capable of being self-sufficient, but there are others that have needs, or conflicts. Ions are cities that have some sort of strife, because there's an imbalance in their charge. So they either need to get rid of that particle that is knocking things off balance, or they need to bring in a balancing force to bring peace, ie. neutrality. Neutral atoms that have needs are peaceful cities that trade with other atoms for the things they need, just as we humans need to trade with other communities for food, clothing, manufactured goods, services, etc..

This is all common science, put in the form of analogy, but what if it isn't an analogy, so much as life on a different scale of complexity? If sentience exists all the way down to the simplest of particles, then what atoms and compounds are doing is not just some lifeless action performed by soulless things. Atoms and compounds are living, thinking communities, working together and communicating, or even warring and stealing on a smaller scale!

All things are sentient, now matter how small you break it down. From here, we can branch out into pretty much any aspect of Life, the Universe, Everything. In my mind, this concept explains everything from science and the occult. It even gives us the meaning of life. If everything is sentient in some way, then all things are alive. The smallest particles of energy are alive, and must have some motivation for gathering together to form complex groups. On a human and animal scale, existence revolves around attempting to survive, to create new life to replace the old as they wear out and die, and to evolve and adapt. So, to me this suggests that all things are driven by the need to live and evolve. The meaning of life is to live and evolve, to become something greater and more complex than our current form. This is the core of Energism.

Can God make a rock too heavy for Him to lift?

A friend asked this question.

Could God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?

Here's my reply.

According to my theory of energism, it would depend on a number of factors.

Gods and rocks are formed of the same thing. Energy. Rocks are just densely packed balls of energy, with a defined purpose of being a rock. God is a being comprised of free floating energy, given form by the belief of people who believe in a god. So, in a way, God created all rocks, though rocks are, in a way, God.

Planets are just really large rocks. But would energy moving a planet be considered lifting? The center of our solar system is exerting an infinitesimal pull of gravity on it's orbiting satellites. Would an energetic force moving a planet away from the center of the solar system count? How much would it have to move, in order to count as a lift?

Of course, you'd have to have something giving energy the impetus to perform this action. Enough people would have to be visualizing energy lifting the heaviest rock in existence. Are there enough people who could work together to visualize this outcome?

Then you have to take into consideration the amount of available energy. Is there enough around us to do that? There might be enough in the Universe as a whole, but how long would it take for all of that energy to get here? It may be that it would take multiple generations of people visualizing that common goal to have enough energy coalesce here.

Then there is the “jinx” factor. Would there be enough people, with enough will, to overcome the inevitable people who would thoroughly believe that this outcome is impossible?

Now, we must also think of the possible consequences of this. What would happen if this planet were a central nexus of that much energy? Energy creates heat. The amount of energy needed could incinerate the planet. Also, what if some of the energy was pulled from our sun? If enough of the sun's energy was convinced to abandon it's purpose in being a sun, and joined in the “rock lifting” project, our sun might become unstable. It might not have enough energy to be the kind of star that provides our planet with the heat and light it needs to be a life sustaining planet.

Then again, since all things are made of energy, an asteroid is, in part, God. An asteroid hitting our planet would move it. It might not be much, but it would move.

So, while it might be possible, it's not probable. It depends on what you consider lifting, and whether you consider something like an asteroid shifting a planet 'lifting.'