It is all ONE and God is everything and NoThing

Below is all about ONE;)

What appeals to me most about this quote is that it was written in 1287. Moses De Leon (who also wrote the Zohar) wrote this, along with some other interesting words.  Stay with me...

"God is unified Oneness. One without two, inestimable. Genuine divine essence engenders the existence of all of creation. The sublime, inner essences secretly constitute a chain linking everything from the highest to the lowest, extending from the upper pool to the edge of the universe. There is nothing-not even the finest thing-that is not fastened to the links of this chain. Everything is linked in its mystery, caught in its oneness. God is one, God's secret is one, all the worlds below and above are mysteriously one. Divine existence is indivisible. The entire chain is one. Down to the last link, everything linked with everything else, so divine essence is below as wells above, in heaven and on Earth. There is nothing else."

He also said, "Everything is mysteriously one and there is nothing not connected to this chain."

What is more interesting is that everything in modern day science is more and more pointing to that exact point, that everything is really one.

When we examine the biggest -Biology, we see evolution shows us everything is one, down to the finest creature, even on the microscopic scale...linked, and there is nothing that is not linked, not related.

When we examine something smaller- Physics, we find that everything is also made up of the same stuff, all linked, from living to non-living. We are all connected through the matter that makes up our physical forms.

When we examine the smallest-Quantum Physics, we find physicists saying very similar things.

"The whole is in every part." 

You would think that the whole would be made up of parts and a part can be taken out of the whole, but it doesn't work like that in nature. In every part Is the Whole. You can't break it up into smaller parts. It is more like a web. 

"Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe." -Erwin Shrodinger (I think his cat agrees.)

"Quantum physics thus...shows us that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units. As we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated "building blocks" but rather appears as a complicated web of relations between various parts of the whole." -Fritjof Copra

"The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine." -Sir James Jeans

When we even look at Time, one of our greatest scientific minds namely Einstein tells us that that the past, present, and future are all one. "Time separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion , although a convincing one."

Many physicists are embracing a once ridiculed notion of timelessness.

In Literature we can find John Steinbeck telling us..."all things are one thing and that one thing is all things. Plankton, a shimmering phosphorescence on the sea and the spinning planets and an expanding universe, all bound together by the elastic string of time."

In Music of course we have Bono. "We are One, but we're not the same. We get to carry each other, carry each other. One love. ;)  

So, then that only leaves consciousness... and as scientists try to unravel the mysteries of consciousness I bet they may very well come to the same conclusions. It is one. 

And maybe that is why Schrodinger's Cat and other quantum experiments like the double slit lead us to contemplate whether our observation really does effect the outcome of the observation itself. But how is where we stumble up.

If consciousness is really one as well, entangled with everything else like a web, just like everything else is a web...then simply observing would effect the outcome of the observation...because consciousness, though an immaterial thing, would be pulling on one of those strings inside the web--changing it.  

How is God Nothing? What is all this talk in about Nothing?

I'd like to clarify what I mean when I say God is everything and nothing.

When one says nothing, often what people think of immediately is when you close your eyes and there is nothing there, complete non-existence. When I say God made everything out of nothing (one might think complete non-existence and as discussed with Ryan once in the details of the Hebrew language that I remember, creation was not made from nothing --as in what people typically think of when one says nothing.

However- my nothing is very different. So, let me explain. 

#1- There is nothing which is of no information. Absolute non-existence. Personally, my view is that this quality is never so, meaning that something is always in existence. 

#2-There is something, which has some information. That is where we exist. EVERYTHING we know is at this level of something, anything really.    (This is what I think Asah in the Genesis 1 Hebrew means)

#3-Then there is NoThing which is infinite (unlimited) information. This is eternal existence (because existence must alway be, it never is not), this is what I mean when I might say God is everything and nothing. God is infinite information. But this does not make God a Thing. (This is what I think Bara in the Genesis 1 Hebrew means)

For God to be a Thing, God would have to reside in the #2 level of something. But God is not something. God is everything and nothing. (#2 and #3)

However that does not make the inverse true. Everything is not God.Because Everything is a finite number, and God is an Infinite One. Everything we can describe and measure and quantify. It is Something, it could have been anything.

However even if you have a zillion bits of information of something....in comparison to an infinite source of information, that tells us very little about what/who it is, because really we are only seeing the fingerprints--not the one who made them.

It tells us some things, but then it really tells us nothing. 

I would say God does not exist. God is existence.  Nothing (#1) would exist without God. We exist, because we are something.  I think it is a very important distinction to understand, for myself anyway. God is not a separate quality, distinct from everything else, but is everything. Understanding God is also NoThing, #3 is also very important in my view as well, because God is out of the bounds of description and definition. 

In researching more about quantum physics, learning more about how 'nothing' in nature works is also very interesting. 

What is also interesting is that in physics they have determined that despite what Stephen Hawking thought to be true, that information would be destroyed into nothing (#1) in the black hole,  is in fact not correct and that information is not destroyed. Information is not destroyed. That is a very significant aspect of nature. Nature doesn't allow information to be destroyed into nothing (#1).

 Because nothing (#1) never happens.

In nature, we see that in quantum physics the popping of 'virtual particles' which we understand to be more like a fluctuating wave are ally popping, they never just stop, they never just let nothing (#1) be, they always pop to try to become something. Virtual particles are almost here, but not quite yet. On the other side of our something, our everything...is not nothing (#1), but NoThing (#3).

It takes far more energy for nothing to exist in our level of existence than for our something to exist. Did you know that? It is true, scientifically. Nothing works very hard to keep itself hidden from our existence. 

That tells us that whatever this nothing is, it has an extremely high level of energy. It is not nothing (#1) of no information. Since, we see that even black holes do not destroy information. That question is resolved. 

Energy may very well be the simplest form of information and as we know, information is not destroyed. So, this nothing from which the virtual particles pop seems more to me like nothing (#3) of infinite information. But as they bind with other particles and conform to this existence and become one with this existence, drawing itself into our existence, they then become something, anything. 

But then they are no longer in the infinite, they are in the finite. But they are still "fastened to the infinite-to the chain above as well as below." 

.................................................................................................................................................................................

Articles like this are fun, but the problem with them is that they always like to say "we got something from nothing." However defining this nothing seems to be the issue. 

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/02/can-you-get-something-for-noth/

If it really is nothing, then the empty box would be just that anempty box. That is nothing (#1). 

But it never is an empty box, it is always popping and spewing with virtual particles of extremely high energies. When time is shorter and shorter, meaning the closer we get to no time...the energy levels get higher and higher. Extremely high. They have done this again and again. We can infer that in no time, the energy would be infinite, but we don't know this. I think it is though. 

This popping energy is energy, not nothing. It is information, not nothing. At least not in the sense that people are accustomed to thinking of nothing and not in the sense that articles like this always use the term nothing, without defining it. 

Now, mathematically I've heard that since the particles annihilate each other, a positive and a negative, they equate to zero. While mathematically that is true...zero, in my view, should not be erroneously equated to be nothing (#1). Zero and infinity have a very interesting relationship. And zero is not nothing, it is a number that helps us to understand what is happening. 

I think this is a injustice, because when people read articles like this they think of nothing (#1), and I don't think that is correct. It is nothing (#3). 

       

Compassion and Evolution-What do you think?

I have seen that compassion is actually taught. For instance my cat naturally if we want to say genetics and evolved traits- was naturally more aggressive. Of course, he is wild like all cats. 

But I am very affectionate and loving and compassionate to him and so in time, he has begun to exhibit these traits in return. The more I kiss him or hug him, the more he reciprocates. But if he is startled outside he reverts back to agrees ion with me for a moment. So, he is capable of both.

But what will he be depends on his environment. 

I have seen a study on television where when you are compassionate to another human being, that part of their brain actually goes on and developes more. You even develop yours more the more you use it. 

So, compassion is defiantly something, in my opinion, something that can be taught and is carried on by living organisms exhibiting this trait to others.

Not just a born with it and so you got it kind of thing.

So, in this very symbiotic sense is where the evolution of compassion takes place, I think.

So- that is why in my opinion religion has played a big part in this evolution of compassion.

Yes, human beings have evolved the capacity to be violent and also to be kind, just like most animals.

But what traits persist and grow and evolve further?

Evolution is a participatory natural process in my opinion. We don't sit on the side lines and everything just happens to us. We are contributing to our own evolution and this is a very important part for people to understand.

What you put in the mixing pot is going to come out of it. 

This is where religion or culture plays a very instrumental part of morals or compassion in my opinion, continuing to evolve and hopefully for the better. 

Any animal can show meanness or kindness. Chicken fights is an environment that supports violence and so the chickens become more violent. Chickens in small spaces even pluck each other to death.
Kinda like children misbehave when in small spaces.

So our environment, the non-living environment as well as the living environment, which includes the consciousness there, effects the evolutional progression. 

Culture is a part of all animals consciousness in my opinion.

Religion is a part of human's consciousness, and is another aspect of culture. 

So, we have to consider both when we consider compassion and the effects both have played. 

Truth, reality, evolution, god, spirit and more

Science still doesn't answer the question of the spirit and while Sam Harris denies the spirit along with many others, I'm not convinced there is not one in all of consciousness. Science tells us about nature, but frankly I think nature is sometimes outside the realm of science and too strange for science and reality is not explained alone by it. 

 

I take the view of truth. I'm interested in truth and while I agree with science and nature is amazing and there are natural explanations for everyThing, I don't want us, as humans, to miss something and personally I feel we are when we close all doors but that which is in the science class. 

Evolved to understand or to have a relationship with God?

Yes, I agree we evolved to eat and survive, and  not to understand quantum mechanics or the universe perfectly, and so doesn't it seem that we would not understand God perfectly either, if God exists? We did not evolve to understand God, but to have relationships....connections. So, our understanding is blocked and so we can't say we know for sure when we ourselves know our understanding is limited.  

God as Originator and Sustainer

God as sustainer and I had mentioned it is like saying, "can the Earth exist without the universe?" To further this inquiry:

To me God is casting a shadow. We can measure this shadow, see this shadow, measure its angel in relation to the sun and the sidewalk it sits on. We can experience this shadow. God casts this shadow. Without God, the shadow would not be there. If God moved, the shadow would move. If God vanished, the shadow would vanish. God casts this shadow and so in a sense God is this shadow. However, the shadow is not God. We can see this shadow and scientists can learn about it, however we cannot see God and measure God in the same scientific manner. God is everything, but everything is not God.

When the sun dies out and the sidewalk eventually erodes away, the shadow will cease to be as well. But God will still remain.

In this sense, the shadow is temporary, the shadow is not real, the shadow is an illusion of what really is. The energy that is forming this shadow is simply a reflection of the absolute energy which is God. Energy takes many forms. Sometimes it looks like a tree, sometimes like the sky, sometimes like an atom. But it is the most fundamental form of this energy which is real, which is spirit to me. All other forms of this energy are not eternal and therefore not real in a sense, because they fade away, they are always changing, they are not permanent. 

What is real is that which is permanent, eternal and everlasting. What is real is this spirit of God. The spiritual energy. 

This is how God is the sustainer to me. This is why the world/physical/material is an illusion. 

So, how is God the sustainer? Because without God breathing, everything would cease. 

Now, God as originator, to me, is like this:

God, the spirit, exists everywhere and every when and is in fact is No Thing. This is why the spirit to me is very much synonymous with nothing. Nothing does not really mean non existence. Non existence does not really exist. 

Science kinda shows this now as well, that true non existence does not exist. What nothing is is simply the place where No Thing exists. Nothing measurable, nothing physical, nothing material. But something is always happening with nothing. It is constantly moving in a sense. 

To me, this is the spirit, God. One might also think of this as another form of energy, where energy takes the form of No Thing, or nothing.  Energy can also take the form of something, or anything, and in fact seems to want to do that all the time. 

Now, before anything was, only Nothing was. Everywhere. Every when. I would say this nothing means where the spirit of God is, however one could look at it as simply meaning the absence of everything measurable that we would call things/physical/material. 

Now for myself, this No Thing, or Spirit, must close itself in order to allow something to be born. It becomes unstable and In doing so, the vacuum from which Big Bang arose was born.  The vacuum is a place devoid of everything. Then this No Thing began to expand, began to pop inside of this vacuum, or "breath" and everything started to take affect. The space-time began to expand and gravity took hold, pulling virtual particles out of the nothing and into the something so that they became real particles. 

As gravity began to do this, particles began to behave in their environment of space-time --conforming and fitting into their environment (fighting for survival in a sense--to persist to exist), because they could not return to the nothing since gravity holds them...and dark energy kept pulling the space time further and further  and as this took place the particles began to not only interact with their new environment, but with each other, establishing "forces' and eventually all this behavior would come to be called what we see as the natural laws. 

 So, how is God the originator? Because without God's closing and subsequent breath, nothing would  still exist. 

   

Complexity and God

Complexity vs Simplicity: 
Explain what electrons do? they seem timeless and all knowing of what other electrons are, and What do virtual particles do? they seem to pop from nothing and have higher energy levels then in our existence of many somethings, and what does Energy do? Perhaps itself is infinite and illimitable? In fact, these are very powerful things and illimitable seemingly and maybe infinite. 

But they are not complex. 

This is the point of simplicity which I think Rowan is trying to explain. 
Before we knew of these things we might think something that is infinite, illimitable, knowing, timeless ---must be complex, but in fact it is very simple, very fundamental aspects of nature. 

The point is God is akin to this. It is the very basic. God is the all pervading fabric -not the structures that come to be out of the material in complexity; therefore limitless forms. BUT- out of the material complex structure we can find the consciousness which is a return to the limitless, boundless, infinite, illimitable God.  

Why does God have to be supernatural? What if nature is simply an aspect of God? What if the Spirit is an aspect of the consciousness which is the result of the brain and evolution which was inevitable?


What if God doesn't twiddle the knobs and is not complex. God is simple, the simplest form. Not bound by space-time and structure. I guess Rowan and the Agnostic have similar ideas.

The function of something does not have to have complex structure to function powerfully. We know this because of our understanding of nature now and so we know that it is in fact possible for something to be all powerful, illimitable, infinite and yet very simple- not complex.


There is the material and there is the immaterial. The immaterial (GodSpirit) gave rise to the material and the material gave rise to the immaterial (consciousness/soul/spirit). 

Is God Supernatural?

Why does God have to be supernatural? What if nature is simply an aspect of God? What if the Spirit is an aspect of the consciousness which is the result of the brain and evolution which was inevitable from the creation point of everything from nothing?


It seems likely that life would have evolved eventually in this universe and this universe would have been born eventually and something would have happened eventually from nothing and so we would be a by product eventually...so if a God exists, then in creating this it would mean we were bound to happen. 

I agree with Rowan in that design is always a bad word because we associate it with our own designs and it depends on your intentions and purposes from where you are judging. My perfect design could be your total mess and vice versus. Further design implies interruptions and my view is 'God' would not have interfered at all. God closed. The immaterial closed and this is how the material formed in my view. 

Intelligence is also a bad word choice because how intelligent is this God? On what scale? 

How did God get there from nothing? I think nothing and everything are the same things, but just in different forms.