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). 

       

Are morals independent or absolute or what?

Morality is an independent reality?

Morals don't exist for an individual. They are a Collective. Just like particles interacting with the environment do so as a collective. Then they conform.

 Morality and ethics are a collective. If you take any group you look at you cannot then look at it with you on it from an external force onto an inward one. You have to see how the people in the group feel and think . From the inside to the inside. If those people are feeling oppressed or hurt or they feel pain about this sacrificing of children then for that group it is not good. If no one in the group had any feelings or care about a sacrifice of a child, even the child itself then is it morally wrong for the group? If they were say robots with no care of their death? For them then that would not be immoral. But that is because morality is contingent upon the collective. Nature works as a collective.

I then came across this article which seems to think somewhat like  I mentioned:

"Law instead follows from collective behavior, as do things that flow from it, such as logic and mathematics. The reason our minds can anticipate and master what the physical world does is not because we are geniuses but because nature facilitates understanding by organizing itself and generating law." -http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/laughlin.cfm

I would add this law comes from the collective, how the parts work together and this is really how morals and ethics evolve as well.

Of course this is Laughlin who Kruass criticized, but I agree with Laughlin here. 

I completely disagree that without science you can't have morals or ethics. Compassion and how you feel, empathy and being selfless has nothing to do with science. You might be able to understand better what it is or where it came from...but yes you have to understand consequences to have some judgment of it, but you don't need science for that either. You simply need reason/logic/understanding a sequence of events. This is not science. Again science may help us understand what logic and reason is or where it came from, but it is not science itself. Reason and emotion determine your ethics and morals. Science simply helps us understand how and why of all of it.

As a mother Bonobo looks at her baby, she follows her instincts and her compassion and the level of teaching of care giving from her small community. She knows nothing of science. She is merely following her emotions and level of reason.

As an outside judgment of humans we can look at them and judge, but they are judgers of their own culture and own behavior. What they have deemed acceptable will pass and what is not will not in their group. That is their moral and ethic code.

Fairies, God, Nature, Spirit, Connection

The Argument:

There are actually thousands of scriptures from around the ancient world about unicorns and fairies.
The dominant religions in Europe before Christianity took over were full of fairies. As well as other ancient religions around the world with almost identical myths (although different NAMES for what were essentially fairies).
The same case that is made for the existence of god, could be made for the existence of fairies.

And if god is in reference only to our personal needs, and only dwells within us? Than it's not god, it's just some psychological construct.

The Response:


Frankly, I don't think much of what u r referring to is myth. I call it legend. Most stories are embedded in some form of fact, something that happened and a story emerges from there. There probably were some kind of horses with one horn on their head which is how the stories may have started. There are fossils of one horned horses actually. Even trolls and leprechauns may have an actual link to a real people which was shown on the discovery channel. A very short species. 

Not sure what u mean by only our personnel needs and something within us. I would't agree that if that is all it is then its merely psychological. But to me, "god" is something that is used to describe what is within all living things and even non-living things, that connects everything to itself and manifests in all living things. Is everything and nothing. 

I don't think the material world is real at all, but an illusion.

And I think nature is far more interesting than most of you give it credit for, and doesn't have to make sense to us, or be measured by us or dissected by us to be.

I think a connection to something allows u to understand it in a way mere measurements alone cannot. I can dissect ur brain, but that tells me nothing of how well you spoke English or your mathematical skill. When I am connected to u, get to know u then I learn these things. Scientists in the past failed to see how clever great apes were by mere measurements. It was three women who dared to named their apes and connect to them that learned and showed everyone how amazing they really were. 

 People of the past may not have the sophisticated tools we have today, the computers and fancy gizmos that allow such precise measurements. But they were connected to nature in a way many of us fail today.

Connecting allows for intuitive truth, which is why Einstein rightly understood SR even though no one understood how and why he would come up with it. 

Spinoza and my views

Spinoza is an interesting character. I have to say I agree somewhat with his views of God and Law, but not the Soul.

"What God is, for Spinoza, is Nature itself—the infinite, eternal, and necessarily existing substance of the universe. God or Nature just is; and whatever else is, is “in” or a part of God or Nature. Put another way, there is only Nature and its power; and everything that happens, happens in and by Nature. There is no transcendent or even immanent supernatural deity; there is nothing whatsoever outside of or distinct from Nature and independent of its processes."

http://www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/septemberoctober/feature/why-spinoza-was-excommunicated

I agree with much of this paragraph except that I do think it is transcendent, but that it is all inward, internal. There is no outside force. It is an all pervading force. I also do think the spirit is a very real aspect of nature, an invisible force that does actually connect all things to each other and it is this connection that I would call God. So, while I agree nature is all there is, I think there is more to nature than we realize. 

While Spinoza's God is not one to give worship to or thanks, for myself I think it is important and humbling and does reconnect you to the wholeness of everything. You are connecting than to the spirit that is in all of us, all of nature and is the most fundamental form allowing everything to exist. 

But I do agree with his statement. "Love your fellow human beings and treat them with justice and charity. This is all that is essential to the “true religion.” Everything else is just superstition."

I would say it is Love and Compassion which is true religion and this is what is at the essence or heart of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism and when this is not practiced, it becomes a lie and any religion without Love and Compassion is a lie. 

This is what I think the Buddha meant when asked about those who do not know Buddhism and what would happen to them and he replied, 'there is no other religion.' This is because at the core, all true religions are the same. Love and Compassion. Everything else is just details that often separate us into groups. 

But we are not separate, and even the physical world which we see which looks very separate is not separate, it is all one, in my view. 

I also agree with his views on the Laws. They were written by men and passed down from generation to generation. They were written to keep order, to promote prosperity, unity, happiness, and health. In many ways, at their heart, the laws are good. But when they come into conflict with love and compassion I would have to disagree. 

I do think men are inspired by the spirit that connects all of us and all things to each other and that it is possible to becomes more intuitive about nature and life by listening to this spirit. In that sense, some of the writings which we call spiritual or religious may have come, but I do think that one has to use their good judgment.

I also find it interesting that all four major religions speak of uniting as one. In Christianity Christ says "to become one with Father as I am one."  In Buddhism and Hinduism there is also a sense of becoming one with the nothingness, or one with Nirvana. There is a sense of denying the self and becoming less selfish, less separate to live in harmony, compassion, and love as one. In Christianity we are also taught to deny ourself and We find this common thread of love, compassion and oneness in many writings of religions.

In Kabbalah we also find a writing that says, "Everything is mysteriously one." Kabbalist Lucia may have written that, but I'm not sure. 

To me it seems the essentials are Love, Compassion, and Oneness.

As far as the soul, I obviously have vastly different views from Spinoza. I think there is a spiritual essence to nature at its very fundamental fabric which is invisible much like the quantum physics of things and I think it is at this level where everything is connected and one. 

I also think that consciousness is linked or connected to this oneness, this fundamental fabric. So, we are all one physically by quantum physics, but spiritually as well. Or perhaps this fundamental vibration that pervades all things in a quantum physics sense is also what one might call the spirit, that which continues and had no beginning or end and which is everything and all of us. 

But I do think there is a essence which is you or me which does exist after physical death. Like a vibration of energy or nature's echo left behind. I do think some people are more sensitive to seeing this vibration or echo and this is what people might call a ghost or a spirit. 

How long does it linger? 

I would also say that even Christ spoke about "your body is the temple of God." So, the idea of God dwelling within isn't really a new concept. God for the most part in many teachings is in fact internal. 

Christians have heard of the "All consuming fire." Well, it is consuming ALL. That means everything and everywhere. This idea of everywhere is found in many spiritual teachings, not just Christianity. 

So, I don't think my views differ so much from true teachings actually. I think where my views differ is from what has become mainstream or polar notions which most people can understand. 

But understanding and truth are two different things and I think truth is often beyond our understanding. 

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.  

I don't necessarily see the evolutionary process as luck of the draw. Evolution is random and non random. Very important. Nature is random and non random. 

As xexious said, it doesn't matter whether it was humans or something else that evolved. It doesn't matter if we have two arms or two legs. 

To me, what is important is that higher consciousness evolved, and from our universe and all our random and non random processes... higher consciousness
will evolve.

To me--the immaterial consciousness (energy of our being/awareness/thoughts/emotions) is linked to the immaterial Spirit. To me, that energy is "God". 

For myself, I view this consciousness energy, when the brain goes off (dies), as a natural echo that lingers. That is what I think often people see when they see a Spirit. 

It is possible this echo fades, but I tend to think it becomes interconnected with all things and all that in Nothing. 

I think when people say "God" what that really is, is EveryThing and NoThing. The natural and the spiritual. All our consciousness (this includes animals and aliens) all linked as one with all that is immaterial, and all will return as one in space, time, and energy again. Then, it will all possibly be reborn again and do it all over again, but physically differently.

We've probably been through this so many times it is crazy to think about...

For myself, religions try to understand the spirit while the sciences try to understand nature. But both get it wrong a lot and neither has a perfect model. Reality, in my view, will always be just an echo away which we can never quite grasp...

But perhaps we are getting there. 

God-originator, sustainer, and evil?

God-Originator-Sustainer, and Evil?

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. 

   

And Evil?

I wouldn't view a God as "watching" as many Atheists seem to say. "Watching evil."

I think a God would be in everything. So, where is this God, when the girl is raped? I would say right there with her and maybe the only strength she has at the time. 

I guess the main question is why doesn't this good God intervene and stop all the evil? I would think nothing could even move or even happen if that occurred. 

You would walk out of your house and most everything would be frozen in time, because there would be no more freedom of movement, freedom of choice. 

But I really like this woman and man team (An atheist show) and she asked a very good question-

If you are not moral, how do you know this God is moral? Well, for myself I know what evil looks like and I know what good looks like because I can see both evil and good. I would't know what the one looks like without the other. If I only knew evil and saw evil in the world...how would I know what good even was? or vice versa?

So, I know what evil is and what good is....but what I choose to do is the problem. I might not always choose to do good, because lets be honest we are all selfish sometimes. 

I think science tells us what is God and life experience and philosophical and mystical and spiritual inquiry leads us to understanding who is God. 

Basically - Why didn’t just God create everything perfect? Because to do that he’d have to duplicate himself, and he didn’t want just duplications of himself. He wanted children. This is the best analogy our human minds can have to understand —though it is not exactly like this surely— but something like this.

In order to create children he needed to provide space for them, so he had to remove himself from space- this created a vacuum …some of himself fell into the vacuum (deliberately?) and various universes popped up and out of existence-some interconnecting-until one, our own, through big bang formed fully.

This creation would suffer and frustrate. But in the suffering and frustrating, this creation would grow —evolve— and the spirit would become more like God with each step , closer to becoming one with God —the infinite,  illimitable, eternal conscious source. 

I don’t think this God interferes with the natural process or even intervenes to change the course of history…I think God speaks to us through life experience, music, prayer, meditation, other people, certain events, nature itself, dreams, feelings, intuitions.  This speaking can influence people and change them from inside and change their lives, but then they are taking active participation in this change.

A participation is essential. God is not a tyrant or a dictator or a controller. In a way he wants to guide, but can only do so through the spirit. Nature is set as a self-sustaining system created at the very beginning. It wasn't created such that it would need constant maintenance.

In fact the systems of nature are amazing, not wasteful, resourceful, cyclic, and better than any human systems that could ever be formed. 

So, Im a deist in that I believe in a God of first cause and a theist because I believe this Gods speaks. But I don’t think this God interferes or interrupts or as some call intervenes on the natural processes or the natural course of life or order of things.

I believe God is everything and nothing and that both nothing and everything are the same thing just in different forms, that God is in the plants, the bacteria, all the animals, in you and me, the universe itself. I believe this God has an conscious and creative aspect, I believe this God is infinite and illimitable, and much of its secrets would be found in nature itself —which importantly includes the human —and all animals—minds, the intellect and the intelligence and abilities.

But God is not just all these things. There is much more to this energy which we do not see. 

Th fact that humans and other animals are capable of caring for one another shows me that care/compassion/love must exist within nature itself in order to give rise to it? How can these qualities emerge from something that does not possess these qualities? And if they do not come from nature than from where?

All animals have consciousness, which tells me nature itself has an aspect of consciousness. All animals have thought and emotion which tells me nature itself has an aspect of thought and emotion.

MORALITY-

Many atheists like to say that we don't need the Bible to be moral beings. While I can be a moral person without my parents, I like to have their advice, guidance, experiences, inspiration and encouragement. This is the same with the Bible and God. Yes, we are humans, we make choices and we should exercise morality, but the Bible and God for most people is simply a source of faith, encouragement, inspiration, hope, love and guidance and companionship. It is this relationship which you cannot dissect under a microscope or analyze on a super computer with computations.

I can dissect your brain and learn how big it is and what parts it is made of and this will tell me nothing of how many languages you spoke, your favorite animals, your character or personality, if you lied a lot or who your best friends were. This will tell me nothing of your ability for maths or architectural design. There is a lot that can only be learned through a relationship, a connection and observation of without you are limited in what you can see and learn. Such is it with nature. If you don't have a constant connection with it, a relationship with it or observe it enough then how do you expect to understand it more fully? God is like this for many.

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. 

God is not Complex!

I don't agree "God" is complex as many Atheists (Krauss and Dawkins lectures) propose and so this complicates things and makes its existence highly unlikely. They use the argument that things go from simple to complex and so if God existed, how would this highly complex entity exist as the first source per se...

If "God" exists, it would be the most fundamental and simplest form of reality. A Spirit is essentially Nothing or No Thing. 

Complexity adds limits--

Simplicity brings limitlessness--

We see this with empty space, virtual particles, electrons.

Before we knew of these things, we might think something that can cross the universe in a blink of an eye (electrons), something that is entangled to every other part- knowing what and where it is all the time (electrons), something seemingly timeless (electrons in universe), something seemingly limitless (empty space quantum fluctuations), something eternal (energy), something that pops something out of nothing, seemingly all powerful and limitless (virtual particles)....Would have to be a complicated thing.

But of course it is in nature, the most simplest form of nature.

"God" would be the simplest and most fundamental reality. Not being bound by space, time or matter provides limitlessness in its simplicity.

Complexity comes because of matter, space and time....we are complex humans and so we are also very limited -bound by that which makes us complex.

Electrons are very simple and yet very powerful.

The simplest form of nature we have found is electrons and empty space quantum fluctuations. This is the simplest form of energy we know exists.

I think this is one aspect of this infinite energy.

But much of its true nature is hidden from us and we don't experience it in its true fullness. 

What about Characteristics?

I can’t prove to you God is loving or caring, but I tend to think so. I know love exists. I know care exists and I can’t prove those to you either. 

But I do know our brains are a reflection of nature itself. Our brains perceive random and non-randomness and our brains are mathematical. Nature is those three things as well.

So, how did consciousness evolve? how did language? how did love? 

You can say it is an accident or planned, either way it doesn’t matter for this purpose, because the point is those qualities now exist and how does something without the innate capability of forming such qualities-form those qualities?

It does beg the question whether there is an aspect to this fundamental energy, this fundamental reality, that possess qualities such as these. 

But love and care come in a package of living things. We’ve never seen a non-living thing have those qualities, and so we would think then that those qualities would have to exist in a consciousness at least, if not living in the same form as ourselves.

What about consciousness? Intelligence? 

We find these two qualities in highly complex begins, humans we will use as the example. We find humans with intelligence and consciousness; however, it took a lot of time for them to acquire this and we have no examples of either existing without space or time or a physical body that developed into something complex. But I would argue that our consciousness and intelligence is very limited and in fact is limited because our physical bodies our bound by our space-time. However, HOW do electrons know what other electrons they are entangled with are doing? Because they are not bound by Time. They are not physical like we are, but are on a more simple energy form. 

I think electrons are timeless. 

So, if electrons can be timeless and do this, why couldn't a spiritual energy also know things in a way unfamiliar to us?

In a sense this could be called a consciousness, but that would also limit what it actually is because in fact our ideas of consciousness are limited to our very understanding of it which exist in our minds which have limits. 

This is the same with intelligence. When we say this is intelligent. What does that mean? Does this mean God has an IQ of 200? It is very limiting and in fact our own understanding of intelligence is very limited by our own experiences with it within our own minds.

so- God's intelligence and consciousness would work like nothing we know. It would be boundless consciousness and intelligence. Limitless. 

Because of this, it would also come in a simple form. I propose this simplest form is Spiritual energy. 

However- we could use an argument that is more of a physical (measurable) form. 

The main question is does consciousness or can consciousness exist as a simple, fundamental form of reality? or can it only exist as a side effect of a more complex living thing?

Well, we know from the above God could not be complex. So, whatever this consciousness is it would have to be on the scale of simple and fundamental. We do see the quantum nature of things showing us this possibility. So, God would have to fall toward the quantum sphere. 

Does consciousness have to exist in a living thing. Are computers living? I would say no, because they are not born naturally and while they do die and do need energy as food, they don’t grow. Although, a self learning computer could be argued to be growing. But they still were not born naturally, they were made by man. so, by scientific current definitions of living I would say they are not living. 

Yet, perhaps on another planet there are beings that are fully silicon based and live as “computer people” or hybrids of half-silicon and half-carbon. So, there may actually be examples out there that we don’t have of computer type of entities that are living. 

However living things are not only born, they die, need food, and grow. 

God would do none of those things (except possibly grow)

In fact, you could argue the entire universe is like one big quantum computer that at some fundamental level as not born, won’t die and doesn’t eat. But you could argue it does grow. But then does it ever really change since it always remains fundamentally the same stuff?  

Could that entity possess consciousness?

If computers are found to be able to have consciousness I would argue that for sure a God could have consciousness and in fact it could be like the consciousness of a quantum computer. 

This is how consciousness exists without being a living thing as we are used to seeing consciousness appear. 

HOWEVER, By definition God is infinite and so how would God die? If God couldn’t die, then God is not living by standard definitions either. God doesn’t eat and God doesn’t grow. (Or does he?) 

This doesn’t mean God doesn’t have a consciousness. This simply means by our definitions of what qualifies a living thing, in order to be living you must also be able to die and if you can’t then you are not living. Our Computers then are not truly living either, because they were made, not born. However, one day they may be shown to acquire consciousness.  

I’m not so if our computers can have a true consciousness —following in the work of Hameroff and Penrose— which makes this job much more difficult, but the argument for a consciousness in a computer is sometimes compelling and when looking at the quantum level of nature and the possibilities of quantum computers, one has to wonder if these dreams will one day prove to become reality. 

Then, I’d have to really wonder if the quantum universe truly is conscious on some level. Because if quantum computers can acquire consciousness that does leave the spooky door open for the possibility of our quantum universe itself. 

So- we’ve determined the basic characteristics of God as possible.

We’ve determined consciousness could be possible without a “living thing” and since this consciousness would exist in a quantum level ,this consciousness is not complex either, it is as simple as you get —limitless quantum consciousness so to speak.

But can consciousness exist in a simple —not complex- living thing? Well, by our current definitions of living, no. But then God wouldn’t eat and metabolize and God wasn’t born and won’t die. 

So, the important part here isn’t whether God would be living by our scientific current definitions, but whether God would have consciousness?  

And what if the real definition of being alive was truly broader? What if being alive didn’t have to include the scientific current understanding of “living thing”. What if being alive just meant a conscious entity. This would definitely include our computers—because being born would not be a hang-up. 

In fact, the quantum universe is kinda acting like a mother, giving birth to all kinds of non-living and living things. Except, is this universe alive and conscious?

I would propose that true reality is that which we don’t see, hidden or unseen. I would propose it is in this where energy is alive and acts like a conscious quantum computer. And the moment it is seen by us or by nature, it behaves in accordance to our natural laws.  

Consciousness can do all kinds of things from what we’ve seen in nature and in ourselves. It can communicate. It can understand spacial concepts, mathematical concepts, randomness, non randomness, it can have relationships with other non-living things and living things and even with itself. It enjoys music and create sounds. 

...

So God would be a simple infinite illimitable eternal quantum conscious spirit so to speak. But then I'd also argue every definition we impose on God , limits God and God is limitless...so the definition would not truly suit either. 

But it is also possible this consciousness is not derived from the quantum aspects, but derived from the spirit itself and that the quantum nature of the universe simply facilitates this spiritual consciousness.