Zero Point Field (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Monday, February 18, 2013, 18:06 (4294 days ago) @ BBella

DAVID (to BBella:) You have much more psychic ability than I do, but I think you are very close to the 'truth'.-I lag way behind both of you, and am fascinated by what is coming out of these discussions. I'll pick up on two of David's comments later, but I'll go delving into BBella's posts first, which contain something that surprised me. In response to Laszlo's suggestion that with an "altered state of consciousness" we might experience "a physical field of fluctuating energies" or "a cosmic field of consciousness", with the latter more likely, I asked: "Would even this...field be a single self-aware being, or an interconnected mass of individual consciousnesses, with different levels of awareness?"-Your response is: "Or could it be both? From my own observation, the field is a single self-aware being. It is me ... I am it." And later you repeat: "I am this cosmic field."-My reference to a single self-aware being was made with an eye on David's belief that this single being is his God, who has designed the universe, life and evolution with the purpose of creating humans. Your own concept is clearly quite different: you are the field, but you go on to say that the field is also other consciousnesses "all interconnected within this web of one field", which may take on whatever subjective form you wish it to have. This is a reflection of the subjectivity that marks all our beliefs. Then you conclude by saying: "...it all comes down to what I choose to hold as my own and what I choose to do with what I choose." This free choice was integral to your ideal afterlife, but here you go one step further in so far as it relates to 'truth' itself perhaps being what you call malleable. It's a very different 'truth' from David's, which is firmly fixed, and this is where I find your whole concept difficult to link with the source of All That Is.-David feels that "the energy is self-aware and thoughtful." If we accept the reality of the universe and life, how do we reconcile their existence with David's conscious designer on the one hand, and a subjectively malleable 'truth' or source on the other? The universe and life are the product either of design or of chance (with certain forms of 'panpsychism' offering a nebulous alternative). There HAS to be an objective 'truth' about how we got here, and about all the things people believe. You can hardly be saying that God is/isn't the creator, the universe and life did/didn't come about by sheer chance, the Dogon Amma and Nommo did/didn't originally exist inside an enormous egg, the field is/is not self-aware, etc. So is this malleable truth (about the nature of the source) in fact no kind of truth at all, but simply your way of saying we'll never KNOW the objective 'truth', and therefore we can believe what we want to believe, both now and in our possible afterlife? -And so to the shock of the day: -DAVID (continuing from the above remark about the energy): Otherwise the universe would not be following the laws it does and we would not have evolved, if anything evolved at all.-David, are you now doubting common descent, and veering towards creationism?