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

by BBella , Monday, February 18, 2013, 20:39 (4084 days ago) @ dhw

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 ...[and].. 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.
> 
>...There HAS to be an objective 'truth' about how we got here, and about all the things people believe. -"IF" there is an, or ONE, objective truth about how we got here, then I would think there would also have to be ONE objective observer to the whole process of how we came to be. And if there is only ONE (because TWO observers would mean two different subjective opinions on the process) then that one observer would either have to be be an outside entity that watched it all happen or the God of all creation that David proposes there is, who did it all himself. And if there is just one objective observer, I would think it would have to be as self-aware as we are in order to observe and relate the process it observes. But, I personally am not stuck on the idea there HAS to be one object truth. Why would there HAVE to be? Everything that IS, is because of everything else that IS. One objective truth means to me, one objective observer. How could it be otherwise? And if there is one objective truth, wouldn't we ALL have to first step into the realm of acknowledging there is one self-aware creator/observer to even begin to get the scoop on how the process went down so we could begin to comprehend it?