Rambelings

[Rosie]

Everybody seems so caught up in understanding how God created the world, and life. The world is just physical. It's just matter, and atoms, and all that scientific stuff. What we should really be asking is who or what created consciousness. God couldn't have created consciousness since he is already conscious himself. How did anything come in to existence at all?

Who created God? Lets say we were created by God, and some even superior God created him. Now lets call the first God - God 1, and the second God, God 2. Now wouldn't it make sense that an even more superior God would have to create God 2? We'll call this God, God 3. So God 3 created God 2, and God 2 created God 1, and God 1 created us. And then, as you probably guessed, we would need another superior God to account for the creation of the third one. So, in a sense, we would require an endless amount of infinitely superior Gods to account for each of their creation, and ultimately our creation. IF we rejected that idea, we could come to the conclusion that some where along the line, a primitive consciousness arose from nothing. Perhaps we are that primitive consciousness?

Anyways, that was just a collection of some random rambelings. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[Allison James]

I think God is suppose to be all that is.God is a name to given so we'd have a concept of him. he was alone.. and got to thinking here is some of my dust you can be dust and go out to learn or stay here and influence talk amongts yourselves and just be enjoy each other. the dust or whatever you call it went out and together thought as one to make matter the matter had bit of them in it and that matter takes a form of its own and so forth until out of the muck came subatomic matter? something like that when we die we go back with our experences and that enturn enlighten others. there is no begain or end and yet there is.....a line that doubles back on itself and that why im crazy.

[Calisto]

Many people believe that we create our own reality and therefore we are our own god.

[SuperManny]

It's hard to explain something infinite in finite terms.
I personally subscribe to the theory of the Law of One, where we are simply different aspects of the All-That-Is, God, or Infinite Intelligence. Kinda like all the different cells it takes to form the body, or like all the stars it takes to form a galaxy and all the galaxies it takes to form a universe, etc.

[Calisto]

I feel that. Like we are ants, all working together for the common good but we don't realise it. Most of us still think of ourselves as individuals.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Rosie

Everybody seems so caught up in understanding how God created the world, and life. The world is just physical. It's just matter, and atoms, and all that scientific stuff. What we should really be asking is who or what created consciousness. God couldn't have created consciousness since he is already conscious himself. How did anything come in to existence at all?

Who created God? Lets say we were created by God, and some even superior God created him. Now lets call the first God - God 1, and the second God, God 2. Now wouldn't it make sense that an even more superior God would have to create God 2? We'll call this God, God 3. So God 3 created God 2, and God 2 created God 1, and God 1 created us. And then, as you probably guessed, we would need another superior God to account for the creation of the third one. So, in a sense, we would require an endless amount of infinitely superior Gods to account for each of their creation, and ultimately our creation. IF we rejected that idea, we could come to the conclusion that some where along the line, a primitive consciousness arose from nothing. Perhaps we are that primitive consciousness?

Anyways, that was just a collection of some random rambelings. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Perhaps we are not creation at all but have the power to create. If we are not created then there would be no creator. Maybe we are just as is, without judgment, but ever changing.
Then again maybe god has a mother who is and always has been?

[Spiritual]

The question to your answer is given by an "enlightened" dutch person. He is also known in the USA and in Asia aswell I even think. His name is Han Marie Stiekema.

He says that also God is a creation that comes from "The Great Vacuum" where all existence gets created from, moment to moment. How it exactly works I can not tell ofcourse, but I think it's interesting to ponder about, even though it is futile .

Maybe God is "All that is" and the Vacuum is "All that is not"?

[Mato Kinze]

Originally Posted by Spiritual

The question to your answer is given by an "enlightened" dutch person. He is also known in the USA and in Asia aswell I even think. His name is Han Marie Stiekema.

He says that also God is a creation that comes from "The Great Vacuum" where all existence gets created from, moment to moment. How it exactly works I can not tell ofcourse, but I think it's interesting to ponder about, even though it is futile .

Maybe God is "All that is" and the Vacuum is "All that is not"?

Some Native Americans call this the "Great Mystery" which is that which is beyond Wakan Tanka. If, as you say, God/Wakan Tanka is "everything" then The Great Mystery is the rest - that which cannot be known or understood (thus the name I s'pose).

[Calisto]

Spiritual,

"God is a creation that comes from "The Great Vacuum" where all existence gets created from, moment to moment."

I am of the belief that we create our own reality moment to moment from the thoughts we entertain. So when I read your post the first thing I though of was that "The Great Vacuum" is our minds or the one mind (Consciousness) that we are all a part of. We each live in a world of our own creation. Some of us have chosen to create God within our world and some of us have not.

[Spiritual]

Originally Posted by Calisto

Spiritual,

"God is a creation that comes from "The Great Vacuum" where all existence gets created from, moment to moment."

I am of the belief that we create our own reality moment to moment from the thoughts we entertain. So when I read your post the first thing I though of was that "The Great Vacuum" is our minds or the one mind (Consciousness) that we are all a part of. We each live in a world of our own creation. Some of us have chosen to create God within our world and some of us have not.

The question is: are you your thoughts or your mind?

[Jasper Solomon]

Originally Posted by Rosie

Everybody seems so caught up in understanding how God created the world, and life. The world is just physical. It's just matter, and atoms, and all that scientific stuff. What we should really be asking is who or what created consciousness. God couldn't have created consciousness since he is already conscious himself. How did anything come in to existence at all?

Who created God? Lets say we were created by God, and some even superior God created him. Now lets call the first God - God 1, and the second God, God 2. Now wouldn't it make sense that an even more superior God would have to create God 2? We'll call this God, God 3. So God 3 created God 2, and God 2 created God 1, and God 1 created us. And then, as you probably guessed, we would need another superior God to account for the creation of the third one. So, in a sense, we would require an endless amount of infinitely superior Gods to account for each of their creation, and ultimately our creation. IF we rejected that idea, we could come to the conclusion that some where along the line, a primitive consciousness arose from nothing. Perhaps we are that primitive consciousness?

Anyways, that was just a collection of some random rambelings. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

If you believe that the world is physical, you will get into all sorts of questions that Science can't answer - like who or what is doing the perceiving, thinking, acting? Scientists are very good at giving the impression they are on the verge of solving everything, just give them a bit more time and money. But scientists can only study the objective. Every time you see, hear, smell, touch or taste, you create an object and objects can be studied, analysed and done all sorts of things with. But you are not an object. You are SUBJECT, i.e. what is doing the perceiving. And because you are Subject and not Object, the real you can't be seen (or even thought about) without turning it into an object. So what we really are, as opposed to what we appear to be (i.e. phenomena) can never be accessed. This can be called God but the trouble with that is that God becomes an object which is not what we are. Religions had to pretend God is an object to distance "Him' from us and so create a hierarchy that had exclusive access to 'Him'. The separated 'me' could then be exploited which is what the Churches have done for centuries (and made a lot of money in the process!) This is what the Buddha referred to as Ignorance.
I could go on but have a look at my web site: Home which is an attempt to summarise what Eastern Philosophy has known for millenia but we have somehow missed in the West. It goes by the name of Non-duality, was called The Perennial Philosophy by Huxley and encapsulates the 'truths' that Science and Religion have been groping for for centuries.

Good luck.

[Jennihul]

Because we think and perceive all things in a linear fashion, (ie: I exist, who made me? God. God exists. Who made God? Something bigger than God...) we expect the universal infinite God consciousness to be formed along a linear continuum. I don't believe it actually is that simple. Nor should it be just because that is our preferred way of perceiving our world.

I like the Kabbalistic way of answering these questions. We are in a place where we have the capacity to ask these grand questions. A gift of our own God-consciousness. But we are in a place where we can never see the answers to them.

Jennifer

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Rosie

Who created God? Lets say we were created by God, and some even superior God created him. Now lets call the first God - God 1, and the second God, God 2. Now wouldn't it make sense that an even more superior God would have to create God 2? We'll call this God, God 3. So God 3 created God 2, and God 2 created God 1, and God 1 created us. And then, as you probably guessed, we would need another superior God to account for the creation of the third one. So, in a sense, we would require an endless amount of infinitely superior Gods to account for each of their creation, and ultimately our creation. IF we rejected that idea, we could come to the conclusion that some where along the line, a primitive consciousness arose from nothing. Perhaps we are that primitive consciousness?

Jennihul is right, the linear string of events you are imagining took place to create this world didn't happen that way at all. Do you know why light banishes darkness? It is because darkness can only exist relative to the light. It is subject to the light. You turn on the light and the darkness dissolves. In a way, you could sort of say the darkness is not real because of that. Now darkness has a purpose too -- it enhances our perception of the light. A light in a dark place is very noticeable.

Now the reason I go on and on about light and darkness is because our world is composed of dualities. An endless string of dualities, or dimensions, stretching in so many different or perpendicular directions it boggles the human mind. Time is also a dualist creation. Time flows forward -- that is, you percieve a linear sequence of events, with a beginning and an ending. But if you keep recognizing the dualities for the illusions they are, you will find the mysterious answer to your mysterious question. It might make sense to your conscious mind...or it might not.

The answer is this: nothingness does not exist. It is like darkness. It appears to exist, until light is present, and then it disappears. If nothingness DID exist, it would breach its own defined boundary and no longer be nothingness. The idea that nothingness can exist, is the basis for the idea that "beginnings" can happen. After all, how can something "begin" unless there was a state of potential, followed by a state of being? Consciousness is, for all rights and reasonable purposes, arguments, and conclusions, EXISTENCE. No reality exists that is not observed by consciousness. Observation gives validity to the world of form. Form could not exist without a witness. Because nothingness does not and cannot exist, all that exists is...........yeah ....EXISTENCE. Pretty basic, but there are subtleties involved that have profound implications.

You see, because nonexistence is not possible, there is no boundary placed on what exists and what does not exist. Because of this, all probabilities exist in consciousness. Nothing was ever created, and nothing can be destroyed completely, because existence cannot become less than what it is. What we term creation might better be termed "selective perception". It is like carving a face out of a block of wood. The face was already "in there", we just forgot everything that WASN'T the face. Get my drift? In the world we currently exist in, involving perceptions of portions, rather than wholes, we see what appears to be "lack" incarnate in the world of form. This sort of reality can only appear when you inhabit a reality where everything is relative to everything else. This world and all objects, forms, buildings, and art are all "cross-sections" through this higher continuum. They already existed, and we created an instance of them in specific/relative reality.

Were you to become fully aware of the light that you are, the darkness would simply vanish. It would no longer appear to exist. You would trascend the relative world of subject/object relationships and enter the absolute reality of oneness or existence. You would exist in omnipresence. You actually never left that reality. The reality you perceive now is an experience derived from intelligent infinity apprehending the concept of duality or separation. All this takes place outside of time as we know it. It has/is/will be "happening" forever. But as I said earlier, the darkness enhances and enriches the light, thus serving a valuable purpose. Also, there is joy to be found in growth, which is only possible in an dualist existence.

Questions are welcome.

[Calisto]

Spiritual,

"The question is: are you your thoughts or your mind?"

I'm not sure. I know thought came before the spoken word therefore my internal dialogue might be messing things up. I meditate to quieten it to a certain degree but it's a struggle sometimes. I have thoughts, I don't always understand then and I can't always claim them as my own. What I do though is I allow my perception to make of them what it will. And it is my perception that is creating the reality I experience. I am not my thoughts I am my perception of my thoughts, where ever they come from - Consciousness?

[Spiritual]

Originally Posted by Calisto

Spiritual,

"The question is: are you your thoughts or your mind?"

I'm not sure. I know thought came before the spoken word therefore my internal dialogue might be messing things up. I meditate to quieten it to a certain degree but it's a struggle sometimes. I have thoughts, I don't always understand then and I can't always claim them as my own. What I do though is I allow my perception to make of them what it will. And it is my perception that is creating the reality I experience. I am not my thoughts I am my perception of my thoughts, where ever they come from - Consciousness?

Can you ever claim your thoughts your own? Do you know beforehand what you are going to think next? Or do they just pop in?

[Calisto]

Let me see, if I'm sitting with a pad and a pen and planning some activities this I believe is mostly internal dialogue. I have never really thought about it much but I would have to say for the most part thoughts pop into my head.

[Maguru]

Anagogy, I love your post and am looking forward to more. I would love to know how you came by all this information?
I have no problems understanding anything you have said. I looked for questions and, unusually for me, I can't find any. I would just like to add that I feel the light is also subject to darkness in the same relative manner so, although darkness dssappears, it is always there when the light goes out. I would think they are both real and mutually dependent.

I also believe nothingness and potential are the same thing, as nothingness, as you say, cannot exist. It has to be something even if it is total darkness or total brightness. What are your feelings on potentiality?

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Anagogy, I love your post and am looking forward to more. I would love to know how you came by all this information?

I could say I channeled it, but at the end of the day, that doesn't add or subtract to it's validity or falseness. So I call it inspiration brought forth from personal meditation. I've always intended to know truth, and have been guided to circumstances, books, ideas, and experiences that I feel have helped facilitate that. However, I don't claim to know anything. Like Socrates said, if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know. I don't care what the answers to existence end up being, I just want to learn them regardless.

Originally Posted by Maguru

I have no problems understanding anything you have said. I looked for questions and, unusually for me, I can't find any. I would just like to add that I feel the light is also subject to darkness in the same relative manner so, although darkness dssappears, it is always there when the light goes out. I would think they are both real and mutually dependent.

Darkness is the absence of light. Light is the absence of darkness. While both statements appear to be accurate, you don't walk into a room and turn on the "dark switch". Coldness is the absence of warmth. Lies are the absence of truth. It may appear to be a matter of semantics, but the main point is: one exists as "substance" the other exists as "lack of substance". I'm maintaining that the world of lack is a thoughtform made possible by the idea of nothingness. Nothingness can only ever exist as an idea which can be represented. It has no reality above and beyond that. All expressions of duality which involve "lack of substance" are reflections of that original false idea.

Dualities cannot mutually exist in full strength at the same place and time, for they are opposites. They exist because we "chose" to conceptualize an opposite to existence. In reality, there isn't any. This gave a "beginning" to beginnings and, ironically enough, endings too. Not to mention form, limitation, and sensory perception.

Now why was an opposite conceptualized? I could say that god/consciousness is a very curious force, but it would be more accurate to say, that the infinity of realities contained in the field of existence also included paradoxical realities, or relative worlds. Duality implies separation. So relative worlds involve a battle between opposites: light/dark, good/evil, love/hate. Before this (and I must note that all temporal references are folly which makes this all the more confusing), there was only oneness and there were no paradoxes to resolve. The non-relative world, or absolute reality is formless -- a place of pure existence/potentiality. Now, existence/consciousness is always being cycled through the relative frame, but the consciousness in the relative frame cannot see the roots connecting it to the larger whole, until it transcends duality. Such is the plight of relative consciousness, which only perceives portions of reality at a time.

Originally Posted by Maguru

I also believe nothingness and potential are the same thing, as nothingness, as you say, cannot exist. It has to be something even if it is total darkness or total brightness. What are your feelings on potentiality?

From the absolute reality standpoint, where there are no opposites, the difference between potentiality and actuality is moot, but rather than a void, it is better thought of as a kind of plenum of actuality, rather than a vacuum of nothingness. Or, in Abraham speak, a kind of delicious awareness of ALL possibilities -- an awareness so complete that these possibilities already exist and always have.

Please question me further, if none of this makes sense.

[The Cloud]

Occam's Razor states that, all things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the correct one, because the answer with the fewest parameters that could contradict it is the least likely to be proven incorrect. Following this, there is no God and the universe has been in existence forever. Something has to be infinite, whether it is a single God that created the universe and has been around forever, or whether it's an infinite number of Gods that created an infinite number of Gods that eventually created the universe. Either that or something came from nothing. Since something coming from nothing is inconceivable from my human perspective, I must believe that something has existed forever, that thing being the universe because that is the simplest possible explanation, involving no Gods or Gods of Gods. Of course, this doesn't explain the gradual increase of entropy in the universe, which could be used as an argument for a creator, but that's another story.

As for consciousness, I believe that it is a result of objective reality. I believe that consciousness is simply an artifact created out of the laws of the universe, just like we use the laws of the universe to create computers that perform thought processes based on various input. In the end, I am no more than a more complicated computer, with no true objective existence beyond the matter and energy that my brain and body are composed of. You may find that idea repulsive, but if you truly think about it it becomes more freedom than pointlessness.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

As for consciousness, I believe that it is a result of objective reality. I believe that consciousness is simply an artifact created out of the laws of the universe, just like we use the laws of the universe to create computers that perform thought processes based on various input. In the end, I am no more than a more complicated computer, with no true objective existence beyond the matter and energy that my brain and body are composed of. You may find that idea repulsive, but if you truly think about it it becomes more freedom than pointlessness.

I'm curious, in what manner do you find the idea of consciousness being an artifact of neurology liberating? It would seem that this version of consciousness, having been created out of matter, would inherently be imprisoned by the conditions placed upon it by space and time. Or do you conceptualize a non-physically based consciousness necessarily involving a judgmental god figure, in which case dispensing with that god figure with a material explanation of reality is what gives you your sense of freedom?

Would appreciate your perspective on these questions.