What tools or mediums does God use to create the universe?

[tuti9064]

I propose that Creation represents the attributes of God and is eternal with God.

Where'd you find such an idea?

 

[osgart]

It's not my theory. And calling it creationist probably carries too much baggage. Creationism is literal what I am describing is the opposite of literal. That's the whole point.

Also you should know that I've somewhat recently started putting individuals on ignore who have demonstrated a level of ignorance and arrogance about Judaism that prohibits any rational discussion. They are essentially banned from my online experience here. And that's for the best. It is, of course, your choice whom you consider credible. However, if you see that I am not replying to someone, that means that I have had numerous experiences with that individual where their extreme ignorance of the subject matter was equal in magnitude to the extreme arrogance that prohibited them from listening, learning, and adapting their conclusions as a result of accurate information that is presented to them.



What I can offer is the reason that the metaphor of "divine-speech" is used to describe the initial creation events, and the way to understand the metaphor as it exists in Jewish theology. Basically, I can help elaborate on what is written, so that when it is read, a person can better understand it other than a cartoonish "man-in-the-clouds". It's much deeper than that.

I never insinuated any " man in the clouds" type of perception.

My apologies for calling it a creation theory.

I have no experience with theology in Judaism. So I don't really know what my perception or reaction to it will be.

I've only criticized fundamentalist religions. In particular those that I have experienced first hand, or those that propagate doom for the none believers.

My thread was written for those that adhere to a literal creation event. Any definition of God I was willing to entertain.

My notion is that it's very difficult to prove or support any explanation of any specific literal creation event. My notion is that going from any God to the creation of universe and life is going to be difficult to defend as a claim to knowledge.

For me to believe in any God I must travel this road, and I do not think it is a plausible journey from the outset. However if something changed my mind I'd be very grateful.

 

[Heyo]

A lot of intelligent people hold to God's creation. I want to know the thinking behind it.

My suspicion is that there is no thinking behind it, at least no rational, critical thinking.
Once you assume a god out of thin air, you are already in magic territory. So, creation by magic spell is possible.

 

[1213]

I know fundamentalists say it is merely spoken into existence. How can anyone arrive at this conclusion?
...

How humans create, or build things?
1. they develop an idea and plan
2. they manufacture tools to implement the plan
3. they construct the planned thing.

I think it all starts from words or ideas. And for example a skyscraper, no human could lift it by his own hands. Tools are needed and in this case they are for example cranes. But essentially that all comes from minds ability to move atoms, or smaller particles.

For secular humans all seems to be reduced for body's ability to do things. It is easy to understand that moving hand can cause things. But, nowadays we have also technologies to connect mind to machine and move things with thought in a way that looks more like what God's way. In this case obviously there is certain physical connection that is easy to believe for materialistic person.

For example the movement of arm is based on certain impulses. In human it works, because of the direct connection makes it easy to believe it can work. However, direct connection is not necessary always needed. If a machine can be loaded or message send without direct connection, why would God not be able to do similar things and affect matters remotely without direct connection? To influence in this physical world, one needs to be able to things in the level of atoms, or smaller particles. If I can send message by my mind for example to my arm to do something, why could God's mind not do the same in a more advanced level? I believe humans also could possibly do more with their mind than just move their body.

Maybe all that doesn't really lead to anywhere. Yet, I think words are the only way to truly create, the rest is just building things from what exists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The human mind is a great and wonderful tool and medium to create any God of your dreams and beautifuly custom made to your hearts desire.

 

[shunyadragon]

Where'd you find such an idea?

Well, first ALL beliefs concerning God and Creation are subjective at best. Though the ancient tribal beliefs of an anthropomorphic God(s) and Creation are definitely out of touch with what we are able to know today from a more universal perspective.

Actually, this is the belief of the Baha'i Faith that Creation in one sort or another is eternal with God and reflects the attributes of God without the ancient anthropomorphic belief as to what is God. Our current knowledge of our physical existence reflects the modern Quantum Mechanics that our physical existence is boundless even beyond our universe, which includes the singularity that likely expanded to form our universe. We have no evidence that our universe is not potentially infinite and boundless. These concepts go beyond the limited cultural view of ancient tribal religions of the past.

 

[shunyadragon]

How humans create, or build things?
1. they develop an idea and plan
2. they manufacture tools to implement the plan
3. they construct the planned thing.

True

I think it all starts from words or ideas. And for example a skyscraper, no human could lift it by his own hands. Tools are needed and in this case they are for example cranes. But essentially that all comes from minds ability to move atoms, or smaller particles.

True

For secular humans all seems to be reduced for body's ability to do things. It is easy to understand that moving hand can cause things. But, nowadays we have also technologies to connect mind to machine and move things with thought in a way that looks more like what God's way. In this case obviously there is certain physical connection that is easy to believe for materialistic person.

The bold above reflects an ancient assertion of anthropomorphic hands on God(s), which is highly unlikely.

For example the movement of arm is based on certain impulses. In human it works, because of the direct connection makes it easy to believe it can work. However, direct connection is not necessary always needed. If a machine can be loaded or message send without direct connection, why would God not be able to do similar things and affect matters remotely without direct connection? To influence in this physical world, one needs to be able to things in the level of atoms, or smaller particles. If I can send message by my mind for example to my arm to do something, why could God's mind not do the same in a more advanced level? I believe humans also could possibly do more with their mind than just move their body.

True

Maybe all that doesn't really lead to anywhere. Yet, I think words are the only way to truly create, the rest is just building things from what exists.

Only way??? Are you putting fallible human limits on how God possibly Creates if God exists?

 

[dybmh]

I never insinuated any " man in the clouds" type of perception.

I wasn't talking about you or anything you said. I'm sorry, I should have made that clearer.

@shunyadragon is on my ignore-list. Even though they are on ignore, I can see that you repliied to them, and referrred to me. Just in case they reply to something I have written, directly or indirectly, and I don't reply, challenge, correct, refute what they may post, I think it's important for you to know why.

As a Jewish person, who practices the religion, studies it deeply, spends an enormous amount of time and energy pursuing it in detail, I have found @shunyadragon's comments and conclusions about it to be erroneous and fallacious. But, I think, that on its own is OK, IF a person will accept the corrected information when it is presented to them OR they conclude that there are differing ways of looking at the topic, and their position / conclusions become less dogmatic and more agnostic.

Since @shunyadragon has demonstrated repeatedly that this is not what happens. The incorrect dogmatic certainty persists inspite of the repeated corrections. They are on my ignore list, and I think their posts on Judaism and Jewish scripture should be regarded with extreme skepticsm.

@shunyadragon is not the only one on this forum whom I have observed behave this way. And those others are being ignored as well. That's what I intended by my comment. It was not directed to you or about you in any way. I'm sorry, sincerely, that was not stated.

My apologies for calling it a creation theory.

No problem. I thought that you were responding to @shunyadragon. Since I have them on the ignore list, I didn't read it. It's my own fault for being emotionally triggered by arrogance and ignorance in regard to Judaism. I freely admit it. So I didn't even want to read their comments.

I have no experience with theology in Judaism. So I don't really know what my perception or reaction to it will be.

I've only criticized fundamentalist religions. In particular those that I have experienced first hand, or those that propagate doom for the none believers.

My thread was written for those that adhere to a literal creation event. Any definition of God I was willing to entertain.

OK. I misunderstood. If that is the focus of the thread, then Jewish theology is not the topic. I'll go ahead and post this quote from a Rabbi that I think very nicely sums up the Jewish approach to reading Genesis 1. Emphasis mine.

"Torah’s creation story tells us right away not to read it literally. On day one, God says, “Let there be light.” Most readers picture daylight, i.e., sunlight. But then, we read on to the fourth day. Only then does God create sun, moon, and stars---specifically in order to mark time. And then we realize: we completely misunderstood" -- Rabbi Dr. Laura Duhan-Kaplan

My notion is that it's very difficult to prove or support any explanation of any specific literal creation event. My notion is that going from any God to the creation of universe and life is going to be difficult to defend as a claim to knowledge.

Agreed.

For me to believe in any God I must travel this road, and I do not think it is a plausible journey from the outset. However if something changed my mind I'd be very grateful.

When I read the above two quoted sections, they are, with highest respect, disjointed. I see this all. the. time. In the first quote, it desires knowledge and proof. In the second quote, directly above, it changes the subject to belief.

Belief is before knowledge, before proof.

Knowledge and proof replace belief.

Knowledge and proof **demystify** the phenomena no matter what it is. A car starting is a "miracle". Especially the consistency, especially-especially with my old-stupid-truck. Knowing how cars work, demystifies it. Knowing what was happening at Ford in the 1990s with my specific truck, demystifies it. One of the reasons it's so reliable, is because it's stupid. However, understanding that there are near limiteless reasons that my truck won't start at any given moment, recalls some of that mystery.

Jewish Theology attempts to see both sides, or more accurately multiple sides, of every issue that can be imagined. On the one hand, we have a written creation story that is in some ways considered literal. This satisfies the desire for "knowing" and "proof" to a small degree. But one is immediately challenged with the provactive notion, "Wait a minute, wait a minute, there was light before the planets?" This cultivates the mystery to a large degree.

The degree is important to consider. "Knowing" is given a slight "nod", but "Understanding" that it is a mystery is emphasized greatly. This is classic Jewish theology. And classic Jewish story telling. It's reflected time after time after time. If the reader is paying close attention to the details, the plot automatically provokes questions. It doesn't ask the questions directly. The reader is being trained to question everything on their own, to look at events, causes, effects, outcomes, from all possible perspectives. And, most important, there are always unanswerable questions.

And this is why the Rabbi quoted previously writes: "We Jews don’t read our Torah only literally."

Not-Only-Literally.

Not-Only.

^^ That's Jewish theology. ^^

And that, imo, is the proper way to read Genesis 1. But if you are looking for literal, only-literal. I'll bow out of the debate. But I think it's important to consider whether knowing and proof were intended by the source of the story. If it was, I think it would have been written differently, as the Rabbi indicates. If so, belief is precisely what is intended. Belief in a mystery which is always and forever beyond human conception. This mystery cannot, by definition, have been "conceived" / "created" by a human mind. This specific mystery is commonly referred to in english as "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

 

[shunyadragon]

I wasn't talking about you or anything you said. I'm sorry, I should have made that clearer.

@shunyadragon is on my ignore-list. Even though they are on ignore, I can see that you repliied to them, and referrred to me. Just in case they reply to something I have written, directly or indirectly, and I don't reply, challenge, correct, refute what they may post, I think it's important for you to know why.

As a Jewish person, who practices the religion, studies it deeply, spends an enormous amount of time and energy pursuing it in detail, I have found @shunyadragon's comments and conclusions about it to be erroneous and fallacious. But, I think, that on its own is OK, IF a person will accept the corrected information when it is presented to them OR they conclude that there are differing ways of looking at the topic, and their position / conclusions become less dogmatic and more agnostic.

Since @shunyadragon has demonstrated repeatedly that this is not what happens. The incorrect dogmatic certainty persists inspite of the repeated corrections. They are on my ignore list, and I think their posts on Judaism and Jewish scripture should be regarded with extreme skepticsm.

@shunyadragon is not the only one on this forum whom I have observed behave this way. And those others are being ignored as well. That's what I intended by my comment. It was not directed to you or about you in any way. I'm sorry, sincerely, that was not stated.



No problem. I thought that you were responding to @shunyadragon. Since I have them on the ignore list, I didn't read it. It's my own fault for being emotionally triggered by arrogance and ignorance in regard to Judaism. I freely admit it. So I didn't even want to read their comments.



OK. I misunderstood. If that is the focus of the thread, then Jewish theology is not the topic. I'll go ahead and post this quote from a Rabbi that I think very nicely sums up the Jewish approach to reading Genesis 1. Emphasis mine.

"Torah’s creation story tells us right away not to read it literally. On day one, God says, “Let there be light.” Most readers picture daylight, i.e., sunlight. But then, we read on to the fourth day. Only then does God create sun, moon, and stars---specifically in order to mark time. And then we realize: we completely misunderstood" -- Rabbi Dr. Laura Duhan-Kaplan



Agreed.



When I read the above two quoted sections, they are, with highest respect, disjointed. I see this all. the. time. In the first quote, it desires knowledge and proof. In the second quote, directly above, it changes the subject to belief.

Belief is before knowledge, before proof.

Knowledge and proof replace belief.

Knowledge and proof **demystify** the phenomena no matter what it is. A car starting is a "miracle". Especially the consistency, especially-especially with my old-stupid-truck. Knowing how cars work, demystifies it. Knowing what was happening at Ford in the 1990s with my specific truck, demystifies it. One of the reasons it's so reliable, is because it's stupid. However, understanding that there are near limiteless reasons that my truck won't start at any given moment, recalls some of that mystery.

Jewish Theology attempts to see both sides, or more accurately multiple sides, of every issue that can be imagined. On the one hand, we have a written creation story that is in some ways considered literal. This satisfies the desire for "knowing" and "proof" to a small degree. But one is immediately challenged with the provactive notion, "Wait a minute, wait a minute, there was light before the planets?" This cultivates the mystery to a large degree.

The degree is important to consider. "Knowing" is given a slight "nod", but "Understanding" that it is a mystery is emphasized greatly. This is classic Jewish theology. And classic Jewish story telling. It's reflected time after time after time. If the reader is paying close attention to the details, the plot automatically provokes questions. It doesn't ask the questions directly. The reader is being trained to question everything on their own, to look at events, causes, effects, outcomes, from all possible perspectives. And, most important, there are always unanswerable questions.

And this is why the Rabbi quoted previously writes: "We Jews don’t read our Torah only literally."

Not-Only-Literally.

Not-Only.

^^ That's Jewish theology. ^^

And that, imo, is the proper way to read Genesis 1. But if you are looking for literal, only-literal. I'll bow out of the debate. But I think it's important to consider whether knowing and proof were intended by the source of the story. If it was, I think it would have been written differently, as the Rabbi indicates. If so, belief is precisely what is intended. Belief in a mystery which is always and forever beyond human conception. This mystery cannot, by definition, have been "conceived" / "created" by a human mind. This specific mystery is commonly referred to in english as "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

For putting me on your ignore list you sure spent a lot of time trashing me here.

Your religion Judaism is revealing considering your previous aggressive posting concerning Exodus and Joshua. It does not explain your conflicting statements concerning the relationship between Exodus and Joshua.

 

[shunyadragon]

From creation we must arrive at everyday experiential reality. Why consider a creation theory that does not account for everyday experiential reality?

In case you missed my edit

I know fundamentalists say it is merely spoken into existence. How can anyone arrive at this conclusion?

Genesis can be interpreted as there being 'spoken into existence.'

Example: Did any early church fathers view the Creation account in Genesis as being allegorical?
According to this article:

Clement of Alexandria states that "That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: 'This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth' [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression 'when they were created' intimates an indefinite and dateless production" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]). While this might seem like a claim for long ages, other sources indicate that Clement held to instantaneous Creation such that "indefinite and dateless" properly refers to an immeasurably short interval.

 

[Bthoth]

I know fundamentalists say it is merely spoken into existence. How can anyone arrive at this conclusion?

Because in old times, a leader just makes a claim and by culture, it's beyond contestation...uncontestable

If you believe in God then surely God would necessarily have methods of creating the universe?

Mankind has been trying to understand the methods of how and why they exist. It's about universal.

But few observe that mankind (people) created the gods and can still create additional gods at any given moment.

Simply declaring God created the universe invites all kinds of questions as to the definition of God, and then once defined, how does that actually happen?

Many are still seeking that very answer.


What is GOD?

It sounds to me like God's creation is an appeal to the mysterious and unfathomable. It's very reasonable to question how it's actually done though. I can't imagine a believer forbidding such questioning as if it were unacceptable to do so.

Because of accepted norms not to contest accepted dialogue. Each religious group have the authorities and collective followers to appeal too.

I know in my religion consciousness exists in a medium that is abstract and has no known physics.

sounds familiar in the context of the religions exist but consciousness, does exist and the human species is equally capable of the experience.

To me the fact that humans must invent meanings,

All words and defining dialogue is man made, but few keep that fundamental as a principle.

The medium I believe in is non spatial, and non local. It creates space, time, location, energy, matter, and form. Life merely inhabits this intellectual, and spiritual medium. It is spiritual in the sense that values and virtues, such as love, honesty etc. are expressed in this medium.

Consciousness exist from the living process. There is no separation. Just as the living process is a part of the spiritual nature of existence

Even with all my beliefs I don't see a living authority such as a God could ever spawn such a reality as the one in which we all live.

Had you ever considered nature as being all mass, all energy and all time: existence itself? As 'we' all live within it.

IN that scope, mankind is of nature, within nature experiencing being alive; conscious of itself.

The big picture is 'Mankind is defining itself'.

 

[osgart]

I wasn't talking about you or anything you said. I'm sorry, I should have made that clearer.

@shunyadragon is on my ignore-list. Even though they are on ignore, I can see that you repliied to them, and referrred to me. Just in case they reply to something I have written, directly or indirectly, and I don't reply, challenge, correct, refute what they may post, I think it's important for you to know why.

As a Jewish person, who practices the religion, studies it deeply, spends an enormous amount of time and energy pursuing it in detail, I have found @shunyadragon's comments and conclusions about it to be erroneous and fallacious. But, I think, that on its own is OK, IF a person will accept the corrected information when it is presented to them OR they conclude that there are differing ways of looking at the topic, and their position / conclusions become less dogmatic and more agnostic.

Since @shunyadragon has demonstrated repeatedly that this is not what happens. The incorrect dogmatic certainty persists inspite of the repeated corrections. They are on my ignore list, and I think their posts on Judaism and Jewish scripture should be regarded with extreme skepticsm.

@shunyadragon is not the only one on this forum whom I have observed behave this way. And those others are being ignored as well. That's what I intended by my comment. It was not directed to you or about you in any way. I'm sorry, sincerely, that was not stated.



No problem. I thought that you were responding to @shunyadragon. Since I have them on the ignore list, I didn't read it. It's my own fault for being emotionally triggered by arrogance and ignorance in regard to Judaism. I freely admit it. So I didn't even want to read their comments.



OK. I misunderstood. If that is the focus of the thread, then Jewish theology is not the topic. I'll go ahead and post this quote from a Rabbi that I think very nicely sums up the Jewish approach to reading Genesis 1. Emphasis mine.

"Torah’s creation story tells us right away not to read it literally. On day one, God says, “Let there be light.” Most readers picture daylight, i.e., sunlight. But then, we read on to the fourth day. Only then does God create sun, moon, and stars---specifically in order to mark time. And then we realize: we completely misunderstood" -- Rabbi Dr. Laura Duhan-Kaplan



Agreed.



When I read the above two quoted sections, they are, with highest respect, disjointed. I see this all. the. time. In the first quote, it desires knowledge and proof. In the second quote, directly above, it changes the subject to belief.

Belief is before knowledge, before proof.

Knowledge and proof replace belief.

Knowledge and proof **demystify** the phenomena no matter what it is. A car starting is a "miracle". Especially the consistency, especially-especially with my old-stupid-truck. Knowing how cars work, demystifies it. Knowing what was happening at Ford in the 1990s with my specific truck, demystifies it. One of the reasons it's so reliable, is because it's stupid. However, understanding that there are near limiteless reasons that my truck won't start at any given moment, recalls some of that mystery.

Jewish Theology attempts to see both sides, or more accurately multiple sides, of every issue that can be imagined. On the one hand, we have a written creation story that is in some ways considered literal. This satisfies the desire for "knowing" and "proof" to a small degree. But one is immediately challenged with the provactive notion, "Wait a minute, wait a minute, there was light before the planets?" This cultivates the mystery to a large degree.

The degree is important to consider. "Knowing" is given a slight "nod", but "Understanding" that it is a mystery is emphasized greatly. This is classic Jewish theology. And classic Jewish story telling. It's reflected time after time after time. If the reader is paying close attention to the details, the plot automatically provokes questions. It doesn't ask the questions directly. The reader is being trained to question everything on their own, to look at events, causes, effects, outcomes, from all possible perspectives. And, most important, there are always unanswerable questions.

And this is why the Rabbi quoted previously writes: "We Jews don’t read our Torah only literally."

Not-Only-Literally.

Not-Only.

^^ That's Jewish theology. ^^

And that, imo, is the proper way to read Genesis 1. But if you are looking for literal, only-literal. I'll bow out of the debate. But I think it's important to consider whether knowing and proof were intended by the source of the story. If it was, I think it would have been written differently, as the Rabbi indicates. If so, belief is precisely what is intended. Belief in a mystery which is always and forever beyond human conception. This mystery cannot, by definition, have been "conceived" / "created" by a human mind. This specific mystery is commonly referred to in english as "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

When I've read the KJV 1611, and the Old Testament I've found there's so many positive and negative ways of reading it. Since I could never buy into a literal interpretation, I would read it as allegory, and metaphor. My thoughts is that the stories are always teaching a moral, and wisdom to discern from it. My favorite book is Ecclesiastes where I believe Solomon declared vanity, vanity, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. The reason I liked the story is that it rang true to me.

I believe the stories of the Old Testament are about redemption, and reconciliation for the Jews to their God. The overall lesson is that through all their faults, and failures their faith is what brought them closer to God, and carried them through trouble, and travail. That God the giver of life was never to be forgotten, and because of God's grace and through trial, and tribulation God through God's promises to His people was going to reconcile His people unto Him.

I was looking specifically for how God created the universe and life, but I appreciate the thoughtful explanation you put forward.

Regards!

 

[Trailblazer]

If there is a God we may not ever know. We clearly do not know now which makes this thread rather purposeless.

No, I don't think we will ever know, in the sense of being able to prove that God exists, at least not in this earthly life.

There may or may not be a God. If one exists we have currently no idea how he did it and there does not appear to be any light at the end of the tunnel

Even if we could know that God exists, I don't think we could know how the universe came into existence, not unless God revealed that information to us, but I don't think that will ever happen since we could not comprehend it. God does not reveal to us what we cannot comprehend.

 

[Trailblazer]

I know fundamentalists say it is merely spoken into existence. How can anyone arrive at this conclusion?

If you believe in God then surely God would necessarily have methods of creating the universe?

Simply declaring God created the universe invites all kinds of questions as to the definition of God, and then once defined, how does that actually happen?

Baha'is do not believe that God 'created' the universe. We believe that creation has always existed, although not in its present form.

“As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

“God was, and His creation had ever existed beneath His shelter from the beginning that hath no beginning, apart from its being preceded by a Firstness which cannot be regarded as firstness and originated by a Cause inscrutable even unto all men of learning.

That which hath been in existence had existed before, but not in the form thou seest today. The world of existence came into being through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and that which is its recipient.”
Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

 

[osgart]

Baha'is do not believe that God 'created' the universe. We believe that creation has always existed, although not in its present form.

“As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

“God was, and His creation had ever existed beneath His shelter from the beginning that hath no beginning, apart from its being preceded by a Firstness which cannot be regarded as firstness and originated by a Cause inscrutable even unto all men of learning.

That which hath been in existence had existed before, but not in the form thou seest today. The world of existence came into being through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and that which is its recipient.”
Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

I see now where Baha'i stand. That plays into the idea that our universe is cyclical and eternal in cosmology.

 

[dybmh]

I was looking specifically for how God created the universe and life, but I appreciate the thoughtful explanation you put forward.

OK, I typed it all out, basically. It will take 2 replies to get it all posted. I'll put them in spoilers to save people from the scrolling through it, if they don't care. Happy Sukkot, a holiday where Jews and and non-Jews traditionally join together.

Spoiler: Part 1

The metaphor that is used to describe it divine-speech. There's several reasons it's a brilliant metaphor. But to begin with speaking is a creative process. And it's a unique process because of how effortless it is, and the coordiantion that happens without a person realizing what's happening in their mind. It's a mystery, and miraculous, in a lot of ways, how speaking happens. The metaphor is produced when this creative process of speaking is slowed down and examined from start to finish. And then the metaphor is amplified and becomes "glorious" when these steps are considered as they actually occur, in real life, which is nearly instantaneous. All the bits and pieces that contribute, do their work cooperatively and simultaneously. Order is established among all those bits and pieces by default. No work is invested in it at all.

You were asking for something that matches your daily life experiences? This is it. That's why it's a wonderful metaphor. Literally Wonder-full. Full of wonder, and that's the intention of the source of Genesis 1. And just to digress for a moment. Even without this poetic, luxurious, metaphor, isn't that what's happening if the person reads Genesis 1 word-for-word literally? If it's taken seriously, doesn't it produce wonder? Doesn't produce "How? What? Why? I wonder?" Isn't that the whole reason behind this thread? You're wondering? The point I'm trying to make is, the story is operating on multiple levels. The child hears it and it produces wonder on a very basic shallow level. But there's more to it. A lot more. And. All of those levels are producing the same reaction. That's part of whay people like me consider this specific text holy, and from a higher concsiousness. It's the way the story is multi-layered, but all those layers produce the same conclusion, IF, big IF, the words are not changed or reversed in meaning or somehow scrambled.

There's a person here on the forum who is obsessed with flippling the words, changing their spelling, changing the sequence. Yes, I have that person on ignore. Pretty much, once people start rewritting it, I have to put them on ignore, because, I feel so passionately about this text, and I am captivated by these various levels of storytelling that are all happening simultaneously, that I start having fits, uncontrollable fits, when people start making changes to it. In my heart and mind they are erasing those multiple layers of story telling when the words are changed, reordered, flip-flopped, etc. They might as well be bulldozing and the grand-canyon and simultaneously filling it with concrete.

So, The Genesis story, as is, produces awe and wonder even without the divine-speech metaphor. It's extra. But it's needed to answer the questions that are inevitbaly produced my a mature person engaging with the story. And it just works so well. And it fits like a glove, a cinderella fit, with Jewish theology and how it describes this mysterious source of absolutely everything. Like I said, the way the metaphor is produced is by examining this process of speech, slowing it down, examing the components, one by one, leaving nothing out, if possible, then at the end speeding it back up to the true simultaneaity that is occuring every day, all day long, by every almost every verbal person, regardless of their culture or ethnic origin.

Now. Slowing it down, breaking it into steps, this is the divine-speech metaphor.

It begins with silence. The next step is, a person chooses to speak. It's binary. To speak or not. This choice is very simple. Just two choices, that's it. It's "will". It is the "will" to speak. It's completely seperate from the actual process of speaking. But vitally important, and it's vitally important that it is disconnected. "Will" can produce all sorts of actions. This is "expressing-will-power". This is sort of "will" being expressed in speech or action or gesture. But... "will" is not just that, it could be an inward directed "will". It could be the reservering or restraining or "restricting-will-power". "Will" is the beginning of the creative process, which, could be, rejecting ideas, just as much as producing them. Until a person speaks or expresses themself in some sort of action, even if it's a subtle gesture, no one knows what is truly happening behind the veils of their mind.

This disconnect is important in this context. In Jewish theology God is in the majority transcendant. All that can be said, in truth, about God is what God is saying, and what God is doing. That is expressed "will". This expressed "will" could be overt and obvious, speech, action, prophecy, etc... or it could be the most subtle of subtle nuanced signs expressed in the natural world, which are God's subtle "gestures". However, because these are simply the expressions of "will", and it's known that there is also unexpressed "will" behind the scenes, behind a veil that can never be lifted, Jewish theology describes God as beyond, in the majority. There's only so muuch that can be said acccurately. Those are the expressed-will, but there is so much more that is beyond that which is unknown and unknowable. Awe, wonder, magnitutude, mystery... all of that is being produced from the very first little step in examining the metaphor of divine-speech, creation by divine-fiat.

Now, the next things that happen are equally amazing.

A person decides to speak, what happens next? The ideas are produced rapid fire, the 5 vocal instruments, bottom-to-top, diaphram, pallate, jaw, tongue, lips, all work together, in perfect cooperative, harmony, and unison. There is no pausing to think or consider, "diaphram do this" "palette do that" "jaw do this" "tongue do that". Then there's the lips. A glorious miracle is happening with the diversity and power that is employed in the lips to shape the words at that last formation and deliverance of the syllable before it is released into the the "outer-world" beyond towards freedom.

Virrtually no one thinks about this deeply, unless they are prompted to do so. And I just described a single syllable. Can you imagine a word being produced this way? ( set aside the christian concept of "word" in case what I'm saying maybe is reminding of that. we can get to that later if interested )

Now, if one syllable is a miracle, what about a word? Speaking a single word is even more of a miracle. All of the different sounds, effortlessly produced. No gaps, no pauses, no thinking, no consideration, no planning, no instructions are given to the verbal faculties, everything is happening nearly simultaneously from conception of the word in the mind, breaking it apart into it's constituent bits, then commanding the verbal faculties, ( physical apparatus, symbolizing natural laws, forces of nature ) to reconstruct, the word, and project it out? Following the trajectory of the word from the mind to the mouth, it goes down, down, down, first, then rises up, up, up, and then comes out the mouth.

 

[dybmh]

I was looking specifically for how God created the universe and life, but I appreciate the thoughtful explanation you put forward.

Spoiler: Part 2

If a word is a really-really big miracle, all of those bits-and-pieces happening without a single conscious thought, what about a sentence? If the idea in the mind is a sentence, what's happening there? Even the words aren't being considered! Sometimes, yes, a thought is composed in the mind and before speaking there's a pause.. a "wait a minute" moment. Maybe they're not sure of how to say it.. or perhaps a specific word choice is needed which captures the meanining in such a precise nuanced way, that produces this intellectual pause. Once the word is located in the lexicon, it assimilates into the idea. A good story teller doees this seamlessly, effortlessly, without missing a beat, without loosing the rhythim of the story which is being *crafted*. The example that comes to mind would be, instead of "The-End" the speaker chooses "Finis", which is bright sounding. Or perhaps "Denouement" which carries a different tonal quality.

When it is imagined like this, it makes sense, like I said, that primitive story teller, a brilliant, successful story teller would find this metaphor appealing. They themself are creating worlds with words. Story tellers in primitive societies were... let's just say very very special. There's a deep rabbit hole that can be explored when considering the ancient story teller and their station in the primitive culture. They probably would have heard the other pagan creation stories, which involve gods battling, or gods procreating, or gods masturbating in order to create the world. But this? ... divine fiat? Oooh. Oh no, wow. That's a whole different sort of creation, and a whole different sort of god. Going from syllable, to word, to sentence, to paragraph, to story, without the diaphram, pallete, jaw, tongue, lips ever tiring? Maybe they get tripped up a little, but not for the absolute master-storyteller. And it seems there's an endless supply of words. And speaking them, crafting the story, it's a glorious miracle of inifinite magnitude and mystery.

The metaphor continues... the ideas are produced like epiphanies, like lightning striking, the ideas bounce back and forth like in a cloud where both lightning and thunder are bouncing around back and forth. If a word doesn't fit, this is where "will" intervenes, and a new word is selected from the lexicon. When considered in slow motion, this is bouncing an idea back and forth, and the word choices are established, but, in the real world, this happens instantaneously. The bouncing back and forth is simultaneous.

Movning back to the metaphor, eventually ( but actually simultaneously ) the idea begins to be noticed as an idea, but it still hasn't taken shape yet. One knows they have an idea, but they can't say it yet. This is the phenomena "the word is just on the tip of my tongue, but I can't think of it." Or, perhaps, when you go into a room to do something, but when you get there, you can't remember what it was. Or, perhaps, "the words have escaped me", or, "I am without words", or, "I am speechless". Another metaphor here would be feeling like it's going to rain, but the rain has not started falling yet. Humidity. The idea has been created, but it hasn't been formed, hasn't decended yet.

Once it is collected in the the cloud and formed in the cloud like water vapor condensing ( condensing is a good word here ), the idea ( or ideas ) fall like rain. From there, the story, or creation, germinates, breaks out of it's shell, puts down roots and rises up, up, up. Where it takes definite form, where it blossoms. The the idea germinating, taking root, the rising up, blossoming, are like the speech apartus. They just happen. They happen all on their own, in cooperation, once the rain has descended. But they don't have a "will"; they are not choosing to germinate and rise and blossom.

The metaphor can be broken down even further, and it gets more and more awe-inspiring and wonderful at each stage. This creative power of speech is every where if one knows where to look. So, the religious storyteller considers, if I am so small, and I can speak the way I do, how much more is God able to do when it is "speaking". ( speaking is in quotes, because, it's a metaphor. God odes not have human lips, and a human tongue, etc.. ) I, the human, only have these 5 verbal faculites working together effortlessly simultanelously. God must have infinite faculites all working simultaneously, all under the complete effortless control of their master. The other religions have all these different angels, demons, gods, battling with independant wills of their own, personalities of their own. But my jaw does not have a will of its own. My lips do not have a will of their own. My pallette, my diaphram, they obey me, and me alone. And they are not fighting when I speak They are cooperating, by my efffortless command. My mind is mine to control, IF, I excercise my will, MY WILL over it.

And that is Jewish theology. A it's core, at it's root, the firthest back that can be considered, all of it is... The-Will-Of-God. That's it. That is the HOW God is described as creating everything.

That's the medium, or tool, but its not really a medium and it's not really a tool. If I just answered your question this way.... "How is God creating? ... It's the Will-Of-God." That's not satisfying. That's annoying. This, I think, explains it. Its not my metaphor, I didn't come up with it. It's included in the text. It's part of it. Traditionally, it's believed it came from Sinai, brought down, literally, by Moses. But, it can also be imagined a more down-to--earth manner.

The other nations at that time had a totally different paradigm. And even now, other religions lift up certain aspects of this creative power and call it "God" or some other equivlant name. This divine-speech model is polemic to those. It is rejecting those others and doing somethinng new, something that is optimistic. It does not describe a world of chaotic world. It also does not idolize ANY ASPECT of the human psyche. it does not idolize anything, because that can lead to problems.

So.

There is no "medium" or "tools" in Genesis 1. What ever is happening, it's mysterious, wonderful, awe-inspiring, a little scary, and mostly unknowable. It's beyond human conception or apprehension. I have no idea how my mind is able to construct stories into spoken words. Heck, I don't even understand how I can get my big-stupid-truck through the skinny-stupid-crowded city streets without crashing into stuff. If I start to think about it, I'll probably crash. Everytime I get into a parking spot, nice and even, I'm amazed. How did I do that? And it happens every single day. All the infinte little bits and pieces of my body are working in concert, in coopertation, with my mind, and my will, and my heart, simultanesoulsy, consistently, and usually in an orderly fashion. And none of them have a will of their own... Usually.

That's it. That's the metaphor. Divine-speech. Creation by divine-fiat of the mighty forces of nature, the natrual laws, which pre-exist in God, like the word "indubitably" is just there in my mind, in an unformed state, ready and willing to descend and be formed whenever I gosh darn choose to use it. God commands those mighty forces nature, which have zero will of their own, just like a word, has no will of its own, just my jaw and pallete and lips have no will of their own. Those words and those faculites work together simultaneously to produce creation. And that creation is on-going.

Questions?

 

[osgart]

OK, I typed it all out, basically. It will take 2 replies to get it all posted. I'll put them in spoilers to save people from the scrolling through it, if they don't care. Happy Sukkot, a holiday where Jews and and non-Jews traditionally join together.

Spoiler: Part 1

The metaphor that is used to describe it divine-speech. There's several reasons it's a brilliant metaphor. But to begin with speaking is a creative process. And it's a unique process because of how effortless it is, and the coordiantion that happens without a person realizing what's happening in their mind. It's a mystery, and miraculous, in a lot of ways, how speaking happens. The metaphor is produced when this creative process of speaking is slowed down and examined from start to finish. And then the metaphor is amplified and becomes "glorious" when these steps are considered as they actually occur, in real life, which is nearly instantaneous. All the bits and pieces that contribute, do their work cooperatively and simultaneously. Order is established among all those bits and pieces by default. No work is invested in it at all.

You were asking for something that matches your daily life experiences? This is it. That's why it's a wonderful metaphor. Literally Wonder-full. Full of wonder, and that's the intention of the source of Genesis 1. And just to digress for a moment. Even without this poetic, luxurious, metaphor, isn't that what's happening if the person reads Genesis 1 word-for-word literally? If it's taken seriously, doesn't it produce wonder? Doesn't produce "How? What? Why? I wonder?" Isn't that the whole reason behind this thread? You're wondering? The point I'm trying to make is, the story is operating on multiple levels. The child hears it and it produces wonder on a very basic shallow level. But there's more to it. A lot more. And. All of those levels are producing the same reaction. That's part of whay people like me consider this specific text holy, and from a higher concsiousness. It's the way the story is multi-layered, but all those layers produce the same conclusion, IF, big IF, the words are not changed or reversed in meaning or somehow scrambled.

There's a person here on the forum who is obsessed with flippling the words, changing their spelling, changing the sequence. Yes, I have that person on ignore. Pretty much, once people start rewritting it, I have to put them on ignore, because, I feel so passionately about this text, and I am captivated by these various levels of storytelling that are all happening simultaneously, that I start having fits, uncontrollable fits, when people start making changes to it. In my heart and mind they are erasing those multiple layers of story telling when the words are changed, reordered, flip-flopped, etc. They might as well be bulldozing and the grand-canyon and simultaneously filling it with concrete.

So, The Genesis story, as is, produces awe and wonder even without the divine-speech metaphor. It's extra. But it's needed to answer the questions that are inevitbaly produced my a mature person engaging with the story. And it just works so well. And it fits like a glove, a cinderella fit, with Jewish theology and how it describes this mysterious source of absolutely everything. Like I said, the way the metaphor is produced is by examining this process of speech, slowing it down, examing the components, one by one, leaving nothing out, if possible, then at the end speeding it back up to the true simultaneaity that is occuring every day, all day long, by every almost every verbal person, regardless of their culture or ethnic origin.

Now. Slowing it down, breaking it into steps, this is the divine-speech metaphor.

It begins with silence. The next step is, a person chooses to speak. It's binary. To speak or not. This choice is very simple. Just two choices, that's it. It's "will". It is the "will" to speak. It's completely seperate from the actual process of speaking. But vitally important, and it's vitally important that it is disconnected. "Will" can produce all sorts of actions. This is "expressing-will-power". This is sort of "will" being expressed in speech or action or gesture. But... "will" is not just that, it could be an inward directed "will". It could be the reservering or restraining or "restricting-will-power". "Will" is the beginning of the creative process, which, could be, rejecting ideas, just as much as producing them. Until a person speaks or expresses themself in some sort of action, even if it's a subtle gesture, no one knows what is truly happening behind the veils of their mind.

This disconnect is important in this context. In Jewish theology God is in the majority transcendant. All that can be said, in truth, about God is what God is saying, and what God is doing. That is expressed "will". This expressed "will" could be overt and obvious, speech, action, prophecy, etc... or it could be the most subtle of subtle nuanced signs expressed in the natural world, which are God's subtle "gestures". However, because these are simply the expressions of "will", and it's known that there is also unexpressed "will" behind the scenes, behind a veil that can never be lifted, Jewish theology describes God as beyond, in the majority. There's only so muuch that can be said acccurately. Those are the expressed-will, but there is so much more that is beyond that which is unknown and unknowable. Awe, wonder, magnitutude, mystery... all of that is being produced from the very first little step in examining the metaphor of divine-speech, creation by divine-fiat.

Now, the next things that happen are equally amazing.

A person decides to speak, what happens next? The ideas are produced rapid fire, the 5 vocal instruments, bottom-to-top, diaphram, pallate, jaw, tongue, lips, all work together, in perfect cooperative, harmony, and unison. There is no pausing to think or consider, "diaphram do this" "palette do that" "jaw do this" "tongue do that". Then there's the lips. A glorious miracle is happening with the diversity and power that is employed in the lips to shape the words at that last formation and deliverance of the syllable before it is released into the the "outer-world" beyond towards freedom.

Virrtually no one thinks about this deeply, unless they are prompted to do so. And I just described a single syllable. Can you imagine a word being produced this way? ( set aside the christian concept of "word" in case what I'm saying maybe is reminding of that. we can get to that later if interested )

Now, if one syllable is a miracle, what about a word? Speaking a single word is even more of a miracle. All of the different sounds, effortlessly produced. No gaps, no pauses, no thinking, no consideration, no planning, no instructions are given to the verbal faculties, everything is happening nearly simultaneously from conception of the word in the mind, breaking it apart into it's constituent bits, then commanding the verbal faculties, ( physical apparatus, symbolizing natural laws, forces of nature ) to reconstruct, the word, and project it out? Following the trajectory of the word from the mind to the mouth, it goes down, down, down, first, then rises up, up, up, and then comes out the mouth.

It makes me think that the information conveyed produces order at command of will. Words are information produced in sequence and carrying meaning. The meaning flows out as bits of information into the vast expanse and form is produced, and functionality effortlessly obeying natural laws and will in lockstep.

 

[dybmh]

It makes me think that the information conveyed produces order at command of will. Words are information produced in sequence and carrying meaning. The meaning flows out as bits of information into the vast expanse and form is produced, and functionality effortlessly obeying natural laws and will in lockstep.

each idea pre-exists in a formless state; there is a "will" which is binary and disconnected from the process. all it does is on/off. the imagery that is traditionally used is a crown. It is on or off, nothing inbetween. And it is literally disconnected. The crown is above the head.

The words themself have a form that preexists in the absolutely infinite pool. In my mind there is the word "chair", but until I recall it, it's just part of the amorphous lexicon that is in my mind. When I recall it, it bounces around and gets deconstructed, if I choose to say it, those consituent parts, are somehow, articulated by my natural physiological processes, by some kind of, I don't even know what to call it. It just happens. There's a form of the word that pre-exists in my mind, then that form is broken up and reformed, as it is projected into the world.

So, the natural laws all have a place, are all included, all of their properties, all of their mechanisms, everything that makes them operate reliably as a nature law, pre-exists in the this absolutely infinite pool. But, until it is being recalled, it is in a formless state. As soon as it is recalled, it takes a form, and goes through the "sausage-factory" inorder to express it.

And then, to make the metaphor complete, all of that is happening simultaneously. It's not one word, then another word, then another word, in a sentence. That's how people speak. This mysterious source is speaking all of it, simultaneously, all the time. As soon as those words stop... the creation poofs, out of existence, because the "will" to express itself has flipped to the off position.

 

[osgart]

each idea pre-exists in a formless state; there is a "will" which is binary and disconnected from the process. all it does is on/off. the imagery that is traditionally used is a crown. It is on or off, nothing inbetween. And it is literally disconnected. The crown is above the head.

The words themself have a form that preexists in the absolutely infinite pool. In my mind there is the word "chair", but until I recall it, it's just part of the amorphous lexicon that is in my mind. When I recall it, it bounces around and gets deconstructed, if I choose to say it, those consituent parts, are somehow, articulated by my natural physiological processes, by some kind of, I don't even know what to call it. It just happens. There's a form of the word that pre-exists in my mind, then that form is broken up and reformed, as it is projected into the world.

So, the natural laws all have a place, are all included, all of their properties, all of their mechanisms, everything that makes them operate reliably as a nature law, pre-exists in the this absolutely infinite pool. But, until it is being recalled, it is in a formless state. As soon as it is recalled, it takes a form, and goes through the "sausage-factory" inorder to express it.

And then, to make the metaphor complete, all of that is happening simultaneously. It's not one word, then another word, then another word, in a sentence. That's how people speak. This mysterious source is speaking all of it, simultaneously, all the time. As soon as those words stop... the creation poofs, out of existence, because the "will" to express itself has flipped to the off position.

Why do you choose the word crown?

This formless state contains information of form unexpressed until the disconnected will activates it in the on position of recalling to express it thus giving it form in actuality?

The infinite pool is then key. The simultaneity and constant on/off expressions give it existence and actuality. On is expressed form, and off is non expressed form and the infinite pool is the endless available information of form.

The lexicon is representative of the forms and is amorphous until expressed? Or are we talking about the formation of actual words being amorphous in the mind?

The articulation seems to be where the action is that gives existence actuality. An infinite pool of potentialities til will makes them actualities.

What can be said of this mysterious source?

The natural physiological processes would they be forms expressed as well?

The sausage factory is the process of effortless activation of forms?

I hope I'm getting this!