God is???

Gatekeeper

Shades of Reason
Messages
1,330
Reaction score
41
Points
48
Location
Here! Where else?
Who (What) is God to you? When you think about God, what do you visualize (If anything)? Even among the Christian populace, there are many differing views. Some believe God is a man like us, while others believe He is a spirit. What exactly does God consist of. Does He exist somewhere within existence itself, or does He exist outside of existence (If that's even possible) Maybe He's something else entirely to you?

I read a short book on Hermetic philosophy years ago. In that book, God was referred as "The All". This view resonated with me in a profound way. I simply cannot NOT believe that god is absolutely everything now. Everything we see, touch, feel, smell and even all that is still unknown is a part of Gods entirety. I can't imagine Him existing as a small element of existence. To me it makes sense that He is both the creator and the created. He is both infinite and finite according to my view. We exist as a tiny part of Him, created from God's substance itself.

Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to share our personal views of God, and what we each view Him to consist of.

James
 
To me there is only One Mind.
All who are, who exist, are a part of that.

So what is God.
A word.
A symbol.
It is really not very descriptive as one can then ask, which God.

I think there is One Source for all, from which are many degrees of growth and evolution.

So the God of the bible, the Lord God, distinct from Elohim, could be then a being (or beings) certainly more advanced than us, but not the apex.
More a junior partner in a sense.

We are called children of God, but which God, and who exactly are we referring to.
Nobody really can say.
All the religions are guessing at that one and so is literally everyone who has an opinion on that question.

I have heard so many people who have said with such fervor and authority and conviction just who God is, yet since there is such a lack of agreement amongst all those people and groups, they cannot all be right.
Actually, they could all be completely wrong.

So I strive to keep an open mind on that question.
But I don't for a minute believe that all this just happened by random accident.
 
I prefer Buddhism's take on reality - that there is no Creator God.

Why? If God is self-sufficient, then he/she/it has no need to create the world etc. because there would be no purpose to it. If God is good, then how can there be so much evil in the world? If God is compassionate, how is it that other beings have to die in order for us to live? If God is omniscience, how is it that there is such messiness in the world? etc. etc.

Is it possible for the world to come into existence without a Creator God. According to Buddhism, yes.
 
To me there is only One Mind.
All who are, who exist, are a part of that.

So what is God.
A word.
A symbol.
It is really not very descriptive as one can then ask, which God.

I think there is One Source for all, from which are many degrees of growth and evolution.

So the God of the bible, the Lord God, distinct from Elohim, could be then a being (or beings) certainly more advanced than us, but not the apex.
More a junior partner in a sense.

We are called children of God, but which God, and who exactly are we referring to.
Nobody really can say.
All the religions are guessing at that one and so is literally everyone who has an opinion on that question.

I have heard so many people who have said with such fervor and authority and conviction just who God is, yet since there is such a lack of agreement amongst all those people and groups, they cannot all be right.
Actually, they could all be completely wrong.

So I strive to keep an open mind on that question.
But I don't for a minute believe that all this just happened by random accident.

So you are suggesting that there are many gods under the guidance of a supreme God (One source by which all things originate)? I'm pretty sure each of our individual concepts are flawed to some degree. Then again, perhaps each of our views contain elements of His reality?

I've seen many get very hostile when others view God differently than they do, so I'm with you on keeping an open mind. Although, that in and of itself can be difficult, as we all have our preconceived concepts of what God consists of and who He/She is.

I'm also in agreement that there is one mind, and that each of us collectively make up part of the whole of that mind. In the book i read on Hermetic philosophy, they suggested that "The All" (God) is mind. This one I have trouble conceptualizing. I believe that all existence is conscious, but I'm not sure if all existence has its own individuality.

Thanks for your thoughts
 
I prefer Buddhism's take on reality - that there is no Creator God.

Why? If God is self-sufficient, then he/she/it has no need to create the world etc. because there would be no purpose to it. If God is good, then how can there be so much evil in the world? If God is compassionate, how is it that other beings have to die in order for us to live? If God is omniscience, how is it that there is such messiness in the world? etc. etc.

Is it possible for the world to come into existence without a Creator God. According to Buddhism, yes.

Perhaps God just is, and we are simply finite elements of His reality? I like the Buddhists view as well, but to me there are obviously created elements in existence. Take the birth of a child for instance. It certainly didn't always exist as a child, but was formed (Created) by other parts of existence itself. Perhaps, God IS self sufficient and all the finite elements of existence are simply part of Gods reality? No need for Him to consciously create. All God needs to do is be who He is while we live as a part of him, and within all that He is.
 
Perhaps God just is, and we are simply finite elements of His reality? I like the Buddhists view as well, but to me there are obviously created elements in existence. Take the birth of a child for instance. It certainly didn't always exist as a child, but was formed (Created) by other parts of existence itself. Perhaps, God IS self sufficient and all the finite elements of existence are simply part of Gods reality? No need for Him to consciously create. All God needs to do is be who He is while we live as a part of him, and within all that He is.
If God is just is or if God is the "base" from which all things arise without any intention/motivation, then to label that as God is unnecessary and unnecessarily confusing since the word "God" is so ladened with diverse concepts and connotations. That's how it seemed to me. It would also mean that there is no need to pay any attention to God.
 
I consider myself an atheist, but if I had to wrangle a metaphorical god out of my worldview, I'd go for a form of endotheism (literally, a god within).

Basically, god would be our perfect selves in potential, that which our inner daimon/genius/higher-self would point the way to with a "calling" towards personal growth.

Everyone would have their own god. Note that they wouldn't actually be gods, but could only hope occasionally, through truly excellent behavior, to shine with the light of their gods.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
If God is just is or if God is the "base" from which all things arise without any intention/motivation, then to label that as God is unnecessary and unnecessarily confusing since the word "God" is so ladened with diverse concepts and connotations. That's how it seemed to me. It would also mean that there is no need to pay any attention to God.

I view God to be the Father of all things, and I believe that He is our life force (Physically, spiritually, and mentally). I recognize Him as both father and as the force that sustains me in life.

It is true that the term God is ladened with diverse concepts. We all have a view of what (Who) God is after all, even if one views God to be non existent.

I don't think it is confusing at all to use the term God, however .... Being that we each have our differing views of who and what he is. It tells people that I view there to be a force greater than myself whereby all things originated and are sustained.

We have no choice but to pay attention to God (If He is existence). We live as a part of existence, no? If existence is God then we have no choice but to recognize Him (Even if we do not recognize existence as being God at all)

GK
 
I consider myself an atheist, but if I had to wrangle a metaphorical god out of my worldview, I'd go for a form of endotheism (literally, a god within).

Basically, god would be our perfect selves in potential, that which our inner daimon/genius/higher-self would point the way to with a "calling" towards personal growth.

Everyone would have their own god. Note that they wouldn't actually be gods, but could only hope occasionally, through truly excellent behavior, to shine with the light of their gods.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Interesting view. I think that our perfect selves can be tapped into, but only after we have experienced our fair share of pain and suffering, along with pleasure and happiness. I believe one day humanity will have learned from our history (Both from personal experiences and from our past as a collective species).

I believe there are set realities in place that ultimately govern all things. Rules (Laws) so to speak that when acted contrary to, negative consequences are experienced by the transgressor/s.

It's all natural in my view, Mark. The governing forces are built into existence itself. I don't think it matters whether a person is an Atheist, or a Theist as we all share the same existence, and the goal (For many) is to become a better, more civil, and more peaceful peoples.

GK
 
We have no choice but to pay attention to God (If He is existence). We live as a part of existence, no? If existence is God then we have no choice but to recognize Him (Even if we do not recognize existence as being God at all)

GK
If God is merely the source of all things or base from which all things arise and not an entity, a being, then there is no need to pay attention to it.

If things arise from the base with no intent behind it, then there is no need to pay attention to the base/God.

This was what I meant. Of course, once one start to attribute intent or purpose to creation then by that attribution one has to pay attention.

I think there is no need to attribute intent or purpose to "creation" (see my first response to your post), so I don't think there is a need to pay attention to the base/source/God.
 
Hi James —

Who (What) is God to you?
Love.

When you think about God, what do you visualize (If anything)?
The Divine Names ... Scriptural images ... icons ... certain metaphysical categories: Absolute, Infinite, Perfect, True, Good ...

What exactly does God consist of.
God is beyond 'constituents' ... God ... is ...

Does He exist somewhere within existence itself, or does He exist outside of existence (If that's even possible)
The latter ... God is beyond all contingency.

I read a short book on Hermetic philosophy years ago. In that book, God was referred as "The All". This view resonated with me in a profound way. I simply cannot NOT believe that god is absolutely everything now.
God is 'all in all', but is not the sum of all things, nor are all things God. The idea of God as 'The All' does not necessarily infer pantheism, or panentheism.

It depends whether your system leads you to the 'relative-Absolute', which is God-as-manifest-in-forms, or the 'absolute-Absolute', which is God as such, above and beyond all condition or determination.

I can't imagine Him existing as a small element of existence.
God does not 'exist' in that sense ... and one might say that all of 'existence' is a nano-moment compared to the eternal God.

In one sense, existence is absolutely inconsequential, if one considers eternal. In the Christian Tradition it is a gift.

To me it makes sense that He is both the creator and the created.
I always wonder why, when people say this. If He is the creator, then He is before creation.

He is both infinite and finite according to my view.
The finite is an aspect of the infinite, in mine. The infinite must include the finite within itself, otherwise it would not be infinite.

We exist as a tiny part of Him, created from God's substance itself.
But God has no substance?

Thomas
 
I consider myself an atheist, but if I had to wrangle a metaphorical god out of my worldview, I'd go for a form of endotheism (literally, a god within).

Basically, god would be our perfect selves in potential, that which our inner daimon/genius/higher-self would point the way to with a "calling" towards personal growth.

Everyone would have their own god. Note that they wouldn't actually be gods, but could only hope occasionally, through truly excellent behavior, to shine with the light of their gods.


eudaimonia,

Mark
Namaste all,

I'm addressing some of all of your thoughts or all of some of your thoughts...I just quoted the above for a reference to that inner thinking.

I'm of the realm of G!d is all there is. At our church we teach 'that there is a power within us far greater than anything outside of us.' Sort of your endotheism. But I've grown a little nontheistic. Which confuses folks because what I don't believe in is the entity or the creator...but the all.

And I had real issues with 'power inside each of us greater than anything outside of us' because if each of us had this greater power and you are all outside of us...????

But eventually I got it, that it is only within that I have connection to the all. And we are all the eachness of the allness, all manifestions of and part of and expressions of the I am, right here in 4D.

thanx james for the contemplations...
 
So you are suggesting that there are many gods under the guidance of a supreme God (One source by which all things originate)?
What is the word god anyway?
A supreme being?
That could be a lot of things, depending on who was answering.
Us humans are strange creatures as anyone who has superior qualities is thought of as a god.
Cargo cult, gods of rock, it is clique.
If you would be tossed back in time with a functional harrier jet and some sophisticated technology you could pull off a god charade....at least for a while.
Imagine what a really superior and more than just thousands of years advanced type of being could do with our ancestors of thousands of years ago.
There is just too much evidence of our planet being visited by "others" who came from the heavens with really advanced tech to discount such stories.

Maybe they are "under the guidance", maybe they chose not to be.
That is hard to say.
Case specific.
I have met people who I would say were "under the guidance of a supreme God" and I have met those who I would say are not, based of course on my observation of their actions and the consequences to others.
Although I am limited in awareness (as all us humans are) I am not blind.
But that is hard to call (be careful how you judge...and all that.).
But I am thinking that not all "others" are really benevolent.
It could be an aphid / ant type of thing where we are the aphids, useful, but looked at as cattle.
 
Is it possible for the world to come into existence without a Creator God. According to Buddhism, yes.

I'm not sure Gotama was too concerned with a creator deity; such a notion was not in his vocabulary. He was concerned in the formation of a life-path to address dukkha (insufficiently translated as suffering). Typical Indian cosmology of the time was a cyclic one I believe, rather than a linear beginning (creation) to end view. According to Gotama (in the absence of seattlegal) conjecture on the origin of the world should not be entered into; as it is fruitless and can only lead to...you know the rest...:rolleyes:

Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable (AN 4.77)

s.
 
If God is merely the source of all things or base from which all things arise and not an entity, a being, then there is no need to pay attention to it.

I do believe that God is an entity (Of sorts). Existence itself (in my mind) is a living organism, so if this is true, then how would one be able to set our minds apart from what is/

If things arise from the base with no intent behind it, then there is no need to pay attention to the base/God.
Again, God is not just the 'base' in my view. He consists of all things. Whether God willed the finite into existence, or if the finite simply exists as a part OF existence doesn't matter to me, as we are a tiny part of all that is. Maybe you are suggesting that we need not recognize existence as being a living organism, or as God, which I would agree with. Even so, it would be very difficult to not pay attention to what exist entirely.

This was what I meant. Of course, once one start to attribute intent or purpose to creation then by that attribution one has to pay attention.
Sure, I suppose if one attributes purposeful intent to what is (Creation), than they have already recognized a force behind the formation of existence itself.

I think there is no need to attribute intent or purpose to "creation" (see my first response to your post), so I don't think there is a need to pay attention to the base/source/God.
I don't believe that God desires worship, but I do believe that we have the choice to make life as we know it better by honoring, respecting, and living in a manner that benefits all things on earth .....

Perhaps one day we will venture into space, and co-exist with other life forms as well. My point to you is that IF God is existence itself, we simply cannot NOT pay attention to what we know about him. Every thing we touch, smell, etc is a very tiny part of Gods entirety in my mind (Everything existing is a tiny part of God).
 
Hi James —


Love.


The Divine Names ... Scriptural images ... icons ... certain metaphysical categories: Absolute, Infinite, Perfect, True, Good ...


God is beyond 'constituents' ... God ... is ...


The latter ... God is beyond all contingency.


God is 'all in all', but is not the sum of all things, nor are all things God. The idea of God as 'The All' does not necessarily infer pantheism, or panentheism.

It depends whether your system leads you to the 'relative-Absolute', which is God-as-manifest-in-forms, or the 'absolute-Absolute', which is God as such, above and beyond all condition or determination.


God does not 'exist' in that sense ... and one might say that all of 'existence' is a nano-moment compared to the eternal God.

In one sense, existence is absolutely inconsequential, if one considers eternal. In the Christian Tradition it is a gift.


I always wonder why, when people say this. If He is the creator, then He is before creation.


The finite is an aspect of the infinite, in mine. The infinite must include the finite within itself, otherwise it would not be infinite.


But God has no substance?

Thomas

Thanks for your views, Thomas. I am enjoying the different concepts of God presented thus far. It just goes to show us that we really haven't a clue as to what God's reality is. Who's right and who's wrong? Maybe all of of us to some extent.

BUT, on your last question about God having no substance. I think God is all substance, and all mind. We exist as a part of HIS reality, and make up a very tiny part of who He is.

I suppose one could take the human body, and compare it to God. Only God is infinite and without end. We might be said to be like cells living and existing as a part of that body. This doesn't make us God, but it does mean that we live and move and have our being within Him.

GK
 
BUT, on your last question about God having no substance. I think God is all substance, and all mind. We exist as a part of HIS reality, and make up a very tiny part of who He is.
I could agree as long as one bears in mind that 'HIS reality' is nothing like our reality ... that's the problem with the anthropomorphic argument — it determines the nature of God as a reflection of ourselves.

I could equally answer that we are from eternity in the mind of God, but that does not mean we exist from eternity — we exist in finitude — but the potential for me to exist must 'exist' eternally in the Eternal Infinite ... in the same way that the potential for the paper clip that sits on the lampstand by my left elbow (you can't see it, but take my word thast it's there) was 'there' from the moment of the Big Bang.

I wonder ... is 'HIS reality' composed of absolutely everything that can possibly be, like an infinite cupboard/memory board containing everything ... that HE pulls out and actualises at a time of HIS choosing?

... or is HIS reality composed of something absolutely singular and infinitely limitless ... is HIS reality is no-'thing' at all, but just the unlimited potential to be?

But it seems to me your hypothesis does not answer the question:
What is God before creation?
(Is He incomplete, unfulfilled, unrealised?)

Such a God as you posit is subject to change, growth and decay, increase and decrease, and so on ... which all classical deist spiritual systems deny. Such a system is not Infinite, not Perfect, not Absolute, and so on. Such a God is also conditioned by time and space.

It also obliges one to affirm that God might cease to be ... which sets up something of a problem for everything else ...

A wise man said there are no two things in the Cosmos that come anywhere close to summing up the difference between God and man ...

We are created capax dei — with the capacity for God — but we shall never understand God, nor know God enough to define God, because we would have to be greater than God to do so.

But God is love ... that suffices for everything, and is a gift infinitely beyond the worth of all the knowledge in the Kosmos.

And love belongs to the senses, to the will, not the the intellect ---

That's the way it seems to me, anyway.

Thomas
 
But it seems to me your hypothesis does not answer the question:
What is God before creation?
(Is He incomplete, unfulfilled, unrealised?)

Such a God as you posit is subject to change, growth and decay, increase and decrease, and so on ... which all classical deist spiritual systems deny. Such a system is not Infinite, not Perfect, not Absolute, and so on. Such a God is also conditioned by time and space.

It also obliges one to affirm that God might cease to be ... which sets up something of a problem for everything else ...

My view is that God has always been, Thomas. Ever existing as He is. We exist as finite beings, ever changing from one form to another. This is simply our reality, so even though we go through changes, we (In essence) remain the same. We are finite as humans, but as a part of existence, we are also eternal. We simply change from one form to another x infinity.

There are (Like us) finite elements of existence that are constantly changing, but does this mean that God Himself changes who and what He is? Not at all. God is what (Who) He is. Changes take place within God, but this is simply a part of His reality.

Does He grow and decay? Not exactly. The finite parts existing within God go through constant changes, but this is simply an aspect of God's reality.

God cannot cease to exist, nor is he conditioned by space and time, as He IS space and time. According to my view, there can be no influence outside of who He is to force any changes in His reality. All things take place within him (As an entity).

I myself believe that "The All" is perfect .... A perfect, self sustaining organism (Entity) that we are a tiny part of. I too believe that God is love (In spirit) but not in an emotional sense. He is all giving, just as He sustains all living things (That is love).

GK
 
I found a portion of a book which is applicable and interesting:
With the Earth itself being the Mother of human beings, who is the Father? For the
answer we look to our ancient history again and find indeed that he has a name, and it is
El.
El is the name by which the supreme Canaanite deity is known. This is also a name by
which God is called in the Old Testament - El, the God (Elohim) of Israel (el elohe
yisrael: Gen. 33:20). In most prose it occurs more often with an adjunct: El Elyon (the
most high God, Gen. 14:18), El Shaddai (traditionally, God Almighty, Gen. 17:1), El Hai
(The living God, Josh. 3:10), and very commonly in the plural of majesty, Elohim. In
Hebrew poetry El is much more frequent, where it stands quite often without any adjunct
(Ps. 18:31, 33, 48; 68:21; Job 8:3).
The word El is a generic name for "god" in Northwest Semitic (Hebrew and Ugaritic) and
as such it is also used in the Old Testament for heathen deities or idols (Ex. 34:14; Ps.
81:10; Is. 44:10). The original generic term was 'ilum; dropping the mimation and the
nominative case ending (u) becomes 'el in Hebrew. It was almost certainly an adjectival
formation (intransitive participle) from the root "to be strong, powerful" ('wl), meaning
"The Strong (or Powerful) One."
In Canaanite paganism the el, par excellence, was the head of the pantheon. As the god,
El was, in accordance with the general irrationality and moral grossness of Canaanite
religion, a dim and shadowy figure, who, Philo says, had three wives, who were also his
sisters, and who could readily step down from his eminence and become the hero of
sordid escapades and crimes. The Ugaritic poems add the crime of uncontrolled lust to
his character and the description of his seduction of two unnamed women is the most
sensuous in ANE literature (much of Ugaritic literature is R rated at best).
Despite all this. El was considered the exalted "father of years" (abu shanima), the "father
of man" (abu adami), and "father bull", that is, the progenitor of the gods, tacitly likened
to a bull in the midst of a herd of cows. Like Homer's Zeus, he was "the father of men
and gods."
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters
were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair;
and they took them wives of all which they chose... There were nephilim in the earth in
those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of
renown." Genesis 6:1-4
According to the Sumerian creation epic. El was the leader of the Nephilim, but who are
they?
Nephilim is often translated as "giants", a legitimate and appropriate interpretation, but
one, which may be only partially accurate. A better definition might be "those who came
down", "those who descended", or "those who were cast down." The Anunnaki of ancient
Sumerian texts is similarly defined as "those who from heaven to earth came". Many
researchers have all identified the Nephilim as the Anunnaki, more specifically,
essentially the rank and file.
Remember too that virtually all open-minded historical and theological scholars agree the
Old Testament's book of Genesis was extracted from the older Sumerian records, if only
because of the similarity in their Comparative Religions. The Enuma Elish, the Sumerian
Epic of Creation, and Genesis have a variety of common elements. Stories of a Great
Flood and Deluge, among other stories, are also common to both Sumerian and Biblical
accounts. An inevitable conclusion is that the Anunnaki were as real as Noah, Moses or
Abraham.
Laurence Gardner, a leading Sumerian researcher, has written: "Every item of written and
pictorial attestation confirms that the ancient Sumerians were absolutely sincere about the
existence of the Anunnaki, and those such as Enki, Enlil, Nin-khursag and Inanna
fulfilled earthly functions with designated community duties. They were patrons and
founders; they were teachers and justices; they were technologists and kingmakers. They
were jointly and severally venerated as archons and masters, but they were certainly not
idols of religious worship as the ritualistic gods of subsequent cultures became.
In fact, the word which was eventually translated to become 'worship' was avod, which
meant quite simply, 'work'. The Anunnaki presence may baffle historians, their language
may confuse linguists and their advanced techniques may bewildered scientists, but to
dismiss them is foolish. The Sumerians have themselves told us precisely who the
Anunnaki were, and neither history nor science can prove otherwise."
The Sumerian records recorded in great detail the stories of the Anunnaki, and among
these, that of Enki, Enlil, Ninki, manna Utu, Ningishzida, Marduk, and many others.
Chief among these stories was the continuing conflict between Enki and
Enlil, the sons of the supreme god of the time, Anu, or El Much of ancient human history,
and the Biblical Genesis, can be explained as the militant differences between these two
half- brothers, and how they affected the life of all sentient beings or Earth.
But the Anunnaki were more than just a pair of squabbling half- brothers. They were the
council of Gods and Goddesses, who periodically met to consider their future actions
with respect to each other, and probably as a smaller, nondescript item on their agenda,
the fate of mankind.
The Anunnaki, depending upon the context, were the Nephilim the gods that Abraham's
father, Terah, (according to the book of Joshua) was reputed to have served, the fallen
angels, the lesser individuals of the race from which Anu, Enki, Enlil, Inanna and the
other notables had sprung, and the "judges" over the question of life and death. They
were in fact the bene haelohim, which translates as "the sons of the gods", or equally
likely, "the sons of the goddesses."
For example, from Psalm 82:
"Jehovah takes his stand at the Council of El to deliver judgment among the elohim."
"You too are gods, sons of El Elyon, all of you."
The Anunnaki have also been equated with the "Watchers" (who are also mentioned in
the books of Daniel and Jubilees), i.e. "Behold a watcher and an holy one came down
from heaven." Daniel 4:13
There is more, but I think that is sufficient for now.
 
I'm not sure Gotama was too concerned with a creator deity; such a notion was not in his vocabulary. He was concerned in the formation of a life-path to address dukkha (insufficiently translated as suffering). Typical Indian cosmology of the time was a cyclic one I believe, rather than a linear beginning (creation) to end view. According to Gotama (in the absence of seattlegal) conjecture on the origin of the world should not be entered into; as it is fruitless and can only lead to...you know the rest...:rolleyes:

Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable (AN 4.77)

s.
Sure, Gotama was more concerned with getting us to know the actual reality of things, but that does not mean he did not make any statement regarding a creator god.

I remember reading in a sutta (sorry can't remember which it was), Gotama did mention that there was no creator god. There was also another sutta that explain how Brahma came to think that he was the creator god. Despite this, people still wanted to know whether there was a beginning to the universe.

My own conjecture is that the Buddha felt that no one at that time will be able to understand the actual beginning of the universe/existence and therefore pronounced it to be unconjecturable so that people don't waste time on it. This sat quite well with the cyclic Indian cosmology that would be familiar to the people then.

But I think with modern ideas and knowledge not available to people during Gotama's time, we are now in a better position to speculate about the actual beginning of the universe/existence. Of course, one should not get obsessed with it to the exclusion of the Dharma in one's life.

As for myself, in the process of trying to understand the reality of things/phenomena, I found that I have to deal with the idea that there is a creator god.
 
Back
Top