Divine-Physics (Θ(t))

Theistic Belief is Not an Empty Chalkboard Ah yes, the ever-original chalkboard mic drop— “Here’s a list of scientific discoveries religion disproved: 1. [blank].” So clever. So edgy. So… early-2000s Reddit. But let’s indulge this minimalist masterpiece from the lens of Divine Physics (DP), the Psychology of Belief (PoB), and the Holistic Origins Worldview (HOW): 👇 Here’s a list of scientific discoveries that were later proven wrong by science itself: 1. The steady state universe 2. Spontaneous generation 3. Phlogiston theory 4. The luminiferous aether 5. Indivisible atoms 6. Classical determinism 7. Newtonian gravity as a complete theory 8. Geocentrism (ironically popularized by pagan astronomers, not the biblical text) 9. Racist “science” of phrenology 10. The belief that ulcers are caused solely by stress (not H. pylori) Now, here’s a list of things religion predicted or preserved before science caught up: 1. A finite beginning to the universe (Genesis 1:1) — confirmed by Big Bang ...

This quote reveals a profound diagnostic of modern consciousness: "Inability to tell the true story results in belief by displacement—people believe what they can survive, not what is true." 🧠 "Psychology of Belief" (PoB) Interpretation – The Mind Protects, the Soul Suffers This speaks directly to the psychology of belief as a defense mechanism. When trauma, social programming, or emotional instability obscure access to what is true, the psyche defaults to what feels survivable. This creates a false epistemology—an adaptive narrative that anesthetizes rather than awakens. "In some personalities, for example, belief often becomes a tool of ambivalence. If we do not engage truth—we may opt to construct manageable illusions. To believe in love, in God, or in redemption would mean exposure to vulnerability. So we pivot, and believe instead in independence, detachment, or in spiritual systems that offer control." This is not disbelief i...

The Accusation Is the Cry: Fear-Avoidance, Projection, and the Architecture of Emotional Defense By William W. Collins Author of Divine Physics: The Intersection of Faith, Science, and the Human Psyche , The Psychology of Belief , and Footprints in Fresh Snow The Accusation Is Not the Truth. It’s the Flare. When a fear-avoidant partner accuses you—falsely, painfully—of betrayal, infidelity, or disloyalty, it’s easy to respond with anger, confusion, or despair. Especially when those accusations are not only baseless but deeply contradict the very character and commitment you’ve consistently offered. But what if the accusation wasn’t about deception… What if it was a cry ? This is the reality I’ve lived with someone I loved deeply. And it’s the pattern I’ve come to understand through the unified frameworks of psychology, trauma theory, and what I call Divine Physics —the metaphysical and emotional mechanics of trust, longing, and spiritual gravity. I. The Fear-Avoidant’s Cri...

Essay draft for publication in The Psychology of Belief under the thematic category of Relational Theology and Emotional Avoidance : The Hidden God and the Hidden Heart: Fear-Avoidance, Divine Hiddenness, and the Architecture of Trust** By William W. Collins Author of Divine Physics: The Intersection of Faith, Science, and the Human Psyche In the long ache of unanswered prayers, or the quiet despair of unmet emotional needs, we encounter a common cry: “Where did You go?” Whether addressed to God or a lover, the essence is the same: we expected intimacy, but received silence . This essay draws an unexpected but profound parallel between two seemingly separate experiences: The divine hiddenness of God, as encountered in spiritual struggle, And the emotional hiddenness of the fear-avoidant partner, as lived in romantic grief. Both—though vastly different in source—operate on the same architecture of love and freedom . I. Hidden, Not Absent God, in the Christian traditio...

On the Hiddeness of God  In Two parts Part 1: Belief as Precondition for Relationship You’re absolutely right that belief is a necessary precondition to relationship—no one relates meaningfully to a being they don’t believe exists. But the theistic claim (especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and explored in Divine Physics) isn’t that God is entirely hidden, but that He is partially veiled, and that the invitation is toward epistemic trust grounded in coherence, not epistemic overwhelm. You're also correct: conviction ≠ coercion. But here’s the distinction—the kind of evidence God offers isn’t meant to produce belief in isolation, but to create room for belief within relational posture. In other words, God doesn't just aim to convince minds. He aims to shape will, trust, and love. And those are not reliably built on forceful evidence—they are, like you said, enabled by evidence, but shaped in the presence of freedom, uncertainty, and vulnerability. We trust other...