Reply to thread

Thanks Dendraw....(I think)

I think we get confused about the "God question" due to the fact that we aren't really sure about the content of the question.  A question is like a wind moving forward from the questioner and circling a void -- once the void is identified, the answer to the question takes the void for granted.  If this void is large enough, anything can "fit."   Same thing happens when we ask questions about the "nature of the entire universe," or the nature of that which supposedly "created" the entire universe.  The problem is that we assume the universe is "created" as an artifact.  But humans create things from other things--the act of creation when applied to the universe is really our own paradigm of rearranging the existing world of things for our own purposes.   We assume that since we've brought objects into being for our own design, the universe itself must be a "designed thing" and therefore must have a "designer." 

Our universe is not a creation -- it simply is. And some of us have a horrible time accepting that notion, because it is we who bring purpose and therefore the entire meaning behind the world "creation"   For no one speaks of a "creation" without a purpose, since the notion of "purpose" and "design" is built into the notion of "creation" and also includes the "creator" and the "knower" along with the rest of the baggage of these human terms.   No one says a tree "creates" fruit...the fruit is the continuation of the tree inasmuch the tree is a continuation of the ground and the ground the continuation of the earth and the earth the continuation of the solar system...the stars...the galaxies...the supergalactic clusters....the universe and all that exists.   It is all just one thing.  Your best experience of this entire colossal existence occurred in the days before you were born.