I like how your brain works, William. And you have a very good question.
The way I look at it is that all words have their own structure, and God does indeed exist at the all-inclusive level.
I do not deny the existence of God, but I demand of myself that I make God real.
So, when I look at creation, then I can accept God then and there, but I will not accept the notion that God willed creation into existence to start up that second stage of reality. In other words, I do not engage myself into a double-acceptance. I can say yes to God to start out with, but then I do not double that up with a yes to God then willing an outcome out of nothing.
That means that God, the starting point of our story, has to be real. God will have to use something real to create creation.
Since there is nothing else available than God, then the only aspect available is (parts of) God godself.
--
So, I am doing the same thing as what I am trying to declare in the article.
It is okay to start with an all-inclusive word like Universe, accept it as real indeed. Yet, then, to declare anything about the Universe (have something be functional) then we have to delve into the specifics, which means letting go of the all-inclusive word.
That means that I break the all-inclusive word into its specific parts and then we can talk about what happened to some of the specifics, or all of the specifics per each specific part. The functions, the actions, cannot be applied to the all-inclusive word.
--
For God, I have to work with God 1.0 therefore as the all-inclusive word, from whom then subsequently God 2.0 derived, a different God from the original, split off into creation and what is then the remainder of God 1.0.
If you saw my quick words about the creation vs transformation event, then you know that I am not explaining where energy came from. I am not explaining where God came from.
All I am saying is that the original state undermined itself (or sacrificed godself), and the resulting Everything is then Everything 2.0, and not any longer Everything 1.0. We must separate the two distinct states and not meld all into one.
If we do this with God, then we have an original and a current indeed.
Thank you once more, William. Let me know what you think.
