I'd like to point out a few bits of theosophic wisdom that should be obvious

originally posted by: DpatC

Yeah.. I'll never buy into the idea that there is some 'enemy' of God that tempts us into defying and corrupting his grand design. This is to me childish beyond belief.

Hate is natural. By demonizing hate, we compartmentalize our own emotional body. Hate is a perfectly natural emotion and it is completely unhealthy to suppress it. In this world there are times when all I can feel is hate.

No offense, but being bathed in waves of 'light and love' makes me want to puke and I have zero tolerance for lightsider mind control agendas.

edit: Praise Satan! www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Rhaegar7

originally posted by: DpatC

Yeah.. I'll never buy into the idea that there is some 'enemy' of God that tempts us into defying and corrupting his grand design. This is to me childish beyond belief.

Hate is natural. By demonizing hate, we compartmentalize our own emotional body. Hate is a perfectly natural emotion and it is completely unhealthy to suppress it. In this world there are times when all I can feel is hate.

No offense, but being bathed in waves of 'light and love' makes me want to puke and I have zero tolerance for lightsider mind control agendas.

They say that hardest job is that of the one in the middle trying to balance the whole f""king thing. I could talk on this for hours but i'll digress for now.. Light and love, Light well thats whats it's all about Love well that's been pushed to it's extremities. Define love!

Oh, for Heaven's sake. The L word.. Please tell me what is so special about this thing you call 'love'? I hate the very concept of it. You certainly love chicken, but that doesn't stop you from eating and killing it.

Like the P.S. of one of the posters here - 'In this world kindness is so much more important than love.'

What's with all the glorification of the L word? You people really need to glorify something to the detriment of everything else. One could just as easily glorify any other element. I would rather glorify justice and truth, than this.. 'love'. (puke)

So you think that by expressing perfect selfless love you will suddenly 'fix' the world?! You only perceive it as needing to be fixed, because it doesn't adhere to your own ego.

Love won't 'save' the world. To be fair - this world has an overabundance of love and therefore a problem with letting go and moving on - lightsiders like to cling to everything in a vain attempt to show 'perfect selfless love'. What this world rather needs is a lot more hate, aggression, chaos and destruction.

It is well known in esoteric circles (Matrix V for example) that this kind of 'light' that you glorify is only feeding the dark polarity. Bathing the monsters who own us in love and light does nothing but nurture them. Hate, aggression, merciless resolve - those are things that might change the world..

Love? Don't make me laugh.

Your 'love and light' is a lie and it has never helped anyone, but those who exploit others for their own amusement. This notion of 'light and love' has always been, by design, a mockery towards all of us that are imprisoned in this #hole.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Okay hate, aggression, chaos and destruction, in the greater scheme where is that going to get us?Please don't tell that your a fan of the Luciferian thought of polarity switching and negative dimensional harvests?

a reply to: DpatC

Do you realize that the word 'dirty' is not actually 'dirty'?

In the same way, the word 'hate' is not 'hateful', neither are 'chaos and destruction' inherently 'bad' or 'wrong'.

When there is a misguided glorification of one part of the whole - the balance suffers and everything goes TO HELL. Exactly what we're witnessing. It wouldn't matter if you glorified 'light and love' or 'darkness and hate'. The result will be the same.

This whole notion stems from the fact that 'love' is, strictly speaking, a more linear expression of the mysterious Infinite Creator, while 'hate' is more about Balance.

But precisely because of that, we as finite beings get much better results when we practice hate, aggression and merciless resolve, than when we try to act as if we ourselves are omnipotent and divine.

The glorification of 'love and light' is not different than the old worship of the Sun. When completely inappropriate, as it is right now, it will only produce stagnation and stupidity.

Your 'love and light' will not break down the walls of this prison. They only serve to mock us, while we rage against the hypocrisy inherent to the system and spread by all self-professed 'light-siders'. Light-siders inadvertently serve the dark polarity, the very one that keeps us all in the dirt. Try reading Matrix V for an explanation of this.

What is polarity switching? Sounds interesting.

How do I explain polarity switching - it's basically switching the polarity of a planet from a positive to negative or vise versa. A bit like geiger counter, has to do with ascensions and all that dimensional stuff. If you don't know don't worry about it, aint that important. I have a question for you do you believe that life can exist as Light?

a reply to: DpatC

I'd say that this 'light' you are talking about is not even defined. Einstein said when he was an old man 'I spend my whole life studying the light, and I still don't know what it is.' Being a mathematician, I don't like to throw undefined words around and make conclusions based upon them.

But, yeah, I get what you mean. I've had OBE in which I saw a much lighter world, almost fully devoid of matter. That's what all the OBE reports from all over the world say. Higher densities are much lighter. I myself feel like I am vibrating very differently from 3D material world and that's why I can't stand it.

About polarity switching - right now the alignment of this world is Lawful Evil with prospects of changing to Chaotic Evil. All this talk of 'love and light' is simply hiding a huge sea of hypocrisy underneath. I'd rather live in a good - LG/NG/CG world, or perhaps True Neutral. I basically wither away and die in a LE world.

This world can't suddenly switch to evil, because it's already evil as #. Although it's sort of a lightsider evil. It might change to darksider evil, but that is mostly cosmetic to me.

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
a reply to: DpatC

I'd say that this 'light' you are talking about is not even defined. Einstein said when he was an old man 'I spend my whole life studying the light, and I still don't know what it is.' Being a mathematician, I don't like to throw undefined words around and make conclusions based upon them.

.

I like that quote. I like your thinking. You will go far. Life as Light exists you just got to believe.From your posts your half way there. That's all I did - believe - Believe and one day you will see us.. I love the lyrics of this song.. its been an interesting conversation.
all the best
D
www.youtube.com...

The light has only lied and deceived me for my whole life. I wash my hands of it.

Cheers!

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
The light has only lied and deceived me for my whole life. I wash my hands of it.

Cheers!

www.youtube.com...

I believe you're a mathematician. Masonic tracing boards and the fibonacci sequence - I hope you like this - There's light in darkness, were not all liers
www.freemasons-freemasonry.com...

a reply to: DpatC

Not sure what to make of that. I'm mathematically inclined, but that's numerology, not mathematics.

I don't see much hope for this world. While people are chanting about 'love and light' it has all gone to Hell and imaginary friends won't help us.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

Light can be deceptive, I had a fallout with the so-called "good guys" some years ago.

But really, I know now that they are simply people with agendas. My agenda may or may not fit with their agenda. Where agendas conflict, one can start to see "good and bad".

There is a way to look at the question of good and evil. Just my home grown observation.

The world of Potentials.

There is a world that is here with us, that creates everything that is manifest to us, and any Being that exists.

One can call it the world of potential.

An analogy.

Picture a fully charged car battery.

Attach jumper leeds to the terminals and hold the other ends in your hands.

Now strike the two ends of the jumper leeds together.

A spark manifests.

All of a sudden, a spark, smoke, heat and light are created from the two unmanefest potentials in the battery.

We bring unmanefest potentials together and create things.

So, from the potential, something is created.

Beside the manifest world (including the spiritual worlds) are the potentials from which the manefest is created. We, and every thing that is manefest is the result of potentials working together. That is Creation.

Another example is a human being.

Ovum (egg) and sperm are the potentials that create a living human being. Without each other; sperm and egg cannot manefest a human being. Two potentials are required.

Now let's go back to our original example of creating light.

The moment we short out the jumper leeds we create a spark, light.

By it's very nature, light creates shadow. Shadow cannot exist without light. Thus the light existed before the shadow. It is important to note that when the light disappears, so does the shadow. The "Dweller on the Threshold" of the occultists is one such shadow Being that will disappear when the light goes out.

It is simple really, things only get complicated when human middlemen (priests etc.) get involved. "Complicated" is not the same as "complex" by the way.

Wombs are complex worlds of their own where myriad potentials are organised. Wombs are not just something women have, they are everywhere organising the creation of all sorts of Beings. We just don't see them because we are focusing on the thing being created, not the formative forces surrounding it.

How can we find the Creator when we are surrounded by Creators?

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Nicely put. I basically agree.

This 'potential' that you mention has been universally dubbed 'The Source'. I think it's a fitting name, because this 'Source' has some fundamental properties that can be studied. I do not profess to understanding it very well, except that it's basically an infinite, multidimensional paradox for which nothing is impossible.

I've heard of Cosmic Wombs; supposedly we exist in one such Cosmic Womb right now.. I, for one, hold that we are currently dead, and we are yet to come to life..

Yes, there is an interesting interplay between light and darkness, but on top of that there is a twisted polarity game going on in our world, whose main goal is to destroy our usual perception of the Source and thus bind us into darkness. A false dichotomy of light-side vs dark-side that only serves to confuse us and put us in various experiential loops.

I would not agree that darkness is simply a shadow of the light. This is very light-polarity thinking - glorifying one part of the whole to the detriment of the others.

I'd agree that manifest evil as injustice and suffering is mostly a shadow, yet that's not a complete account of 'darkness'. My notion is that the light is about divine order and harmony, it contains the natural structure of all things - intelligent infinity, while the darkness is basically the undifferentiated absolute.

So you have - light as divine wisdom (or simply enlightenment) manifested as truth, giving rise to the natural order of things and darkness - the undifferentiated absolute that is structured and activated by the light.

So in this sense - the darkness is the Source, while the light is the Creator (not a God).

Worship of one to the detriment of the other is basically a denial of one part of the whole.

So both light-siders and dark-siders have it wrong and are not really doing anything constructive.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

This 'potential' that you mention has been universally dubbed 'The Source'. I think it's a fitting name, because this 'Source' has some fundamental properties that can be studied. I do not profess to understanding it very well, except that it's basically an infinite, multidimensional paradox for which nothing is impossible.

The "source".

. . . . a difficult thing to think about, for me anyway. One can observe with instruments the building of electrical potentials in the thundercloud and see the lightning manefest. One can look at the tunderstorm as a womb for rain, hail, wind and lightning, yet what created the thunderstorm which is the womb for lightning?

Perhaps the question of finding an ultimate "source" in a complex myriad multilayered creations within creations is an impossible quest? It is for me at least. Like the pictures of fractals infinite in zooming in or zooming out.

In practical terms, in tactical terms, does one really need to look beyond our immediate world?

If one does so, does not the world simply resolve into simply a world of Beings with agendas?

We may not like the agendas of others, but that is, in a way, our problem when we are affected.

But that is life . . . .

Worship of one to the detriment of the other is basically a denial of one part of the whole.

So both light-siders and dark-siders have it wrong and are not really doing anything constructive.

Why worship at all?

I've heard of Cosmic Wombs; supposedly we exist in one such Cosmic Womb right now.

Wombs, even a modern factory can be considered a "womb". A place where something is created . . .

of that there is a twisted polarity game going on in our world, whose main goal is to destroy our usual perception of the Source and thus bind us into darkness. A false dichotomy of light-side vs dark-side that only serves to confuse us and put us in various experiential loops.

I would not agree that darkness is simply a shadow of the light. This is very light-polarity thinking - glorifying one part of the whole to the detriment of the others.

I'd agree that manifest evil as injustice and suffering is mostly a shadow, yet that's not a complete account of 'darkness'. My notion is that the light is about divine order and harmony, it contains the natural structure of all things - intelligent infinity, while the darkness is basically the undifferentiated absolute.

So you have - light as divine wisdom (or simply enlightenment) manifested as truth, giving rise to the natural order of things and darkness - the undifferentiated absolute that is structured and activated by the light.

So in this sense - the darkness is the Source, while the light is the Creator (not a God).

My wife once said to me: "forgiveness is crap, understanding is what matters".

She said this in relation to the actions of others. Forgive someone and they will probably do it again. Understand why they did it and one can resolve one's own feelings on the mater and take measures to prevent reoccurrence.

Be they the devil or god, or just people in the street, the common factor is agenda.

In a world of agenda, and we are the same, perhaps the only real freedom we have is to take responsibility for our own position.

Does our agenda conflict with the agendas around us?

We can get sh#tty with others as much as we want to, won't change much.

My own battle with the light was the result of getting involved with the light in the first place and then realising that their agenda was not what I thought it was.

The good guys and bad guys are just people with agendas really.

Well, I've been writing a book that deals with the Source for the last year. I'll paste 2 chapters. I hope somebody appreciates them.

I) What lies beneath

It is the conjecture of this author that at the center of the Universe lies an infinite multidimensional paradox. It is not only a kind of prerequisite for the infinite possibilities of the Universe, but also serves to energize it. It is the ultimate source of energy in and out of existence.

This paradox can often be glimpsed from our ordinary reality. Every time we comprehend something that lies beyond our current framework of reality, we actually get a glimpse of the primordial paradox that is in the center of all things. When we expand our point of view, the paradox is seemingly resolved. This leads people to erroneously conclude that the paradox, was in fact, an illusion and that perhaps all paradox is simply an illusion. There is, however, an alternative explanation.

One very intriguing possibility is that our everyday form of reality is simply the result of the proper alignment of different parts of the underlying infinite paradox. From this perspective, every consecutive unfolding of the fabric of reality, aligns more and more parts of this paradox together to form our common everyday sense of what is real. In this sense, it's not paradox that is explained away by higher logic. It's logic that is explained away by higher paradox.

For example, it is a common human perception to think of time as simple and one dimensional, always going forward. The idea of time flowing backwards or in any non-linear fashion would seem rather nonsensical at first. However, there has been ample progress in theoretical physics that has lead to the invention of a framework which allows for the existence of three-dimensional time. (This theory is simply an extention of Einstein's theory of relativity, which is based on the B-theory of time.) With some effort anyone can succeed in transitioning from the old framework to the new one. What once seemed inconceivable is now suddenly real. The impossible has become fact. A person who had previously thought that nothing exists outside of the present moment, is now ready to believe in time travel. Is it a paradox?

Well, no.. And yes.

The truth is, it depends on the point of view. After we have succeeded in realigning our sense of reality, what previously made no sense, suddenly does make perfect sense. From that point of view, one would be inclined to say that there was no paradox there at all. But.. there was. The old framework clearly indicated that certain things were impossible. Yet.. with the invention of an extended framework, what was previously thought of as impossible is now perfectly feasible.
Thus, one would be tempted to conclude that the old framework, was in fact, wrong and that the new framework is indeed, closer to absolute truth, if not perfectly aligned with it.

But what is this absolute truth that we are trying to align with? The very process of alignment with it seems to involve the infinite expansion of what is considered possible. If that really is the case, wouldn't this absolute truth be precisely the infinite paradox whose existence we conjectured in the first place? If everything that is impossible were to become possible, isn't that an infinite paradox?

Are we getting ahead of ourselves? Perhaps. We haven't conclusively demonstrated that the ultimate theory would allow for all things. But it is a fact, that every successive realignment of our framework will lead to the acceptance of higher and higher possibility, in which the old theories fit as mere variations of the grander design. And the question seems to be whether there is a finite end to our endeavour. Would there ever be a final theory, in which some things shall remain forever impossible? Our human intuitions find this idea very plausible, but let us not forget that our human intuitions tend to cling to what is already established and familiar.

Taking a purely theoretical approach seems best, as the alternative would have to be to wait patiently for an established law of physics to be proven 'wrong'. While that would serve to prove our point, perhaps there is an easier way to acomplish that very same goal. And besides, we've already done that a couple of times and emerged none the wiser. Every time that this happens, we admit our mistake, but assume that it's simply a matter of finding the correct law this time around. The thought that there might be no laws whatsoever does not usually enter our minds. Maybe it should.

The laws of physics are our equivalent of an imposed necessary impossibility. If there were no laws of physics, then we'd have to operate under the presumption that everything is possible. Indeed, the rule seems to be that 'everything is possible until proven otherwise' and not the other way around. (Some like to twist that around.)

So.. we do seem to have these physical laws, which limit the manifestation of our known reality. But where do they come from? What we call a physical law is simply a limitation imposed upon reality. Whence limitations? Really, where do they come from?

Well, there are only two possible answers. One is from other limitations.. But that is not actually a valid answer. And what are we left with? .. The only possible answer to this riddle is that all limitations must ultimately come from .. the inherent lack of limitations.

Now that's a shift in perspective. One that instantly deals with the ambiguity left behind by the apparent lack of metaphysical explanation for the existence of physical laws in the first place. It has always been a perfectly valid question to ask where natural laws come from. There has never been a satisfactory answer. If you were to postulate a deeper framework, of which the simpler one is simply a facet, then you simply repeat the question. On and on, to infinity. And if there is no simpler framework, than it must come from the inherent lack of one.

But wait. Let's give it one last chance. We've learned that infinite regresses sometimes find meaningful mathematical explanations.

Here goes.. What if an infinite set of natural laws emerges naturally? (Forget that we were hoping for an elegant equation as the basis of all things.) Perhaps none of the physical laws could exist without the other, but taken as a whole they serve as their own basis of existence. Well, that sounds like an intriguing idea. But wait a second..

If the basis of reality is an infinite set of impossible things, which creates itself.. Then we've suddenly accomplished what we set out to do in the first place. The infinite set of impossible things, which creates itself is precisely the infinite multidimensional paradox, whose existence we are trying to prove. And furthermore, (!) if this infinite paradox is indeed the basis of all reality, then it would make sense that it is necessarily the only possible basis of reality, which would explain why all other explanations are mimicking its nature. In the case of natural law, we tried to somehow fit the idea in by invoking self-contained ultimate causation. But it does not seem to work, because the infinite set of impossible things does not seem to encode only natural law. It seems to encode the Universe itself.

Admittedly, the infinite set of (natural) laws, should also be equivalent with the Universe itself. It should be equivalent in information and therefore equivalent in principle. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. But even so, the term 'natural law' should be reexamined. Under this ontology, the infinite set encodes an infinite number of elements, comprising the Universe itself, and while perhaps it is true that every element can be considered a little natural law in itself, the term quickly starts to lose its original meaning. Not least because these natural laws, which are supposedly there to explain paradox away, turn out to be paradox itself.

The infinite set that creates itself must be the basis of reality. It mirrors precisely the lack of inherent limitations of the Universe itself. The infinite paradox is simply the other side of nothing. Quite peculiarly, the empty set [] seems to be the basis of all there is. The key to the puzzle seems to be the realization that nothing sets no limits, but rather indicates their absence. Itself seemingly hovering between existence and non-existence, it seems to allow for the existence of everything else. In other words – nothing seems to be equivalent to infinite potential.

So.. Which side of a coin .. is 'the right one'? It's a trick question indeed. While there are two sides, the coin is very much one.

Should we call the ultimate basis of the Universe 'nothingness' or 'infinite potential'? Both of those terms seem to be lacking something. It seems as we are only looking at one part of the coin either way. What is this precious coin that we're trying to find after all? And aren't we simply grasping in the dark and inventing names and logical explanations for what is, in its very essence, beyond even logic and explanation? After all, all logic and explanation must come from somewhere. And there is only one thing that we can conceive of that goes beyond logic and explanation. In our existential pursuit we have used logic in an effort to explain it away, yet we must ultimately realize that it must be the source of logic itself. As infinite potential is the other side of nothing1, paradox must be the other side of logic. Whenever we try to explain paradox with logic, we encounter more paradox. What's left is the realization that it's the other way around. Paradox is the only candidate for ultimate reality as it is the only thing conceivable that goes beyond logic and explanation. This author's conjecture is that ultimate reality is literally an infinite multidimensional paradox that creates logic itself. How can we know that? “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Ironically, the impossible is the only option that remains.

As we expand our frameworks of reality, we turn over new and new pages of its fabric and find ways to explain paradox away with higher and higher logic. Yet logic is finite and definitive, while infinite potential must by definition encode infinite possibility. Logic is simply the language with which we comprehend the underlying code of the Universe, but it cannot by itself limit its expression. Logic is simply the language of the absurd. And perhaps what we thought of as an explanation, is no more than a simple description.

We were quick to assume that the code of the Universe is reason. It turns out it is more akin to insanity.

III) Investigations into the Source This chapter is very light-polarity, but I think it's ok

Another way of looking at the whole infinite paradox thing is to postulate, like the ancient Greeks did, that the source of everything finite is the Infinite. They called it the Aperon.

This serves to turn the question about the origin of the Universe on its head. The Universe did not come from 'nothing', it spawned from the Infinite. It might seem that the Universe came from nothing, but in truth, this nothing, is simply the lack of limitations that allows infinite possibility and it is this infinite possibility that is the Source of all things. And it seems that this infinite possibility is not simply an abstraction, but rather something with a perfectly tangible existence, albeit so beyond us that it defies comprehension. Therefore, instead of talking about infinite possibility, we might as well call it the Infinite or the Source.

Subscribing to the belief that the Infinite is the Source of all things is seemingly rather different than subscribing to the existence of a personal God, and yet it's also as far removed from scientific materialism as possible. It would not be possible to satisfy the requirements of a materialist in this case. We can't seem to touch this Source, and we are not, as of yet, able to measure it. But that is easily explained by the notion that the Source is simply so beyond us, that we can't even begin to fathom it as of yet. Perhaps if we were just a tad more evolved, we'd be able to look at everything in existence as undeniable proof of the Source from whence it came. As of yet, we won't be winning any scientific awards with our conjecture. Which doesn't mean we're not on the right track. On the other hand, scientific materialism has no explanation of where the Universe and everything in it, came from. We're being assured that an explanation is in the making, yet at the same time, the conjecture of an infinite Source is taken to be unscientific. And if it happens to be the truth, it would mean that scientific materialism is simply denied the possibility of transcending its limitations. It's not possible to measure the Source, precisely because it is all-encompassing and beyond limit, and materialism deals only with its finite expressions. In a way, materialism is the belief that the finite is the source of the Infinite and not the other way around. A curious case of reversing the natural order of things, which we have gone so far as to implement into our very way of thinking. A new, more logical paradigm is required of us.
A very important distinction when talking about the Infinite or the Source, is that it is uniquely complete in itself. If we were to use a mathematical example, there may be infinitely many sets and infinite sets, yet there is only one (infinite) set that contains all sets. There is only one truly infinite set. Therefore, it would seem that an important facet of the Source is its oneness. What is truly infinite, must be truly one. Whatever can or cannot exist must be part of the one Source. Indeed, there must be no limit to the Source. While we tend to make distinctions about what is possible and what isn't, the Source would make no such distinction. In fact, it would contain not only the impossible, but also the abstract, the unimaginable, the absurd and the meaningless. It is when we go beyond pure abstraction, beyond meaning and absurdity, and discover that there is in fact, no end and no limit, it is then when we begin to get a glimpse of what the Source must really be about. It's truly unlimited. The Source has no boundary, it is as if it exists even outside of itself.

The existence of anything can be shown as proof for the existence of the Source. It is a remarkable human capability to instead presume that one individual element of existence can explain everything else. The search towards such a theory peculiarly resembles addiction. It leads perpetually into repetition and reward-seeking behavior. It needs fuel to sustain itself. Perhaps the truth of the Universe can be found in each of its individual elements, but that is not the point.

'Fish do not have a word for the ocean that they swim in.'

The Source would provide everything in Creation. Even thought itself. And is it not peculiar that for whatever question we put forward, we expect there to be an answer? Isn't this by itself proof for the existence of the Source?

The Source is a mathematician's kind of God and a mathematician's kind of God might be somewhat different than that of popular religion. For starters, we take the Source to be basically equivalent to the Infinite. The Source is the Infinite and the Infinite is the Source. So, a logical question to ask would be whether this actually leads us to be atheist concerning the world's religions. After all – if we were to believe that Infinity is God, wouldn't that dismiss the reality of the Christian or Muslim God? I don't see why it should.
To be honest, I find it just the opposite. While I am neither Christian nor Muslim, I do believe that this understanding of the Source is a great basis for understanding all the world's religions. And to be precise, it would seem that the idea of the Source fits nicely with the monotheistic religions of the world. In all fairness, all of the world's religions are somewhat monotheistic and point towards a certain absolute being as the basis of ultimate reality. In Islam, this being is described as having no distinctive features, except for having infinite perfection. Now that is a great stepping stone towards a better understanding.

We can talk about the Source of all things, being the Infinite itself, but when we talk about God, we have to postulate an additional facet and that is infinite perfection. Would that lead us to a definition of God that is different than that of the Source? Perhaps not. After all, an infinite, infinitely perfect God would still have to be equivalent to the Infinite. It's just that now what we called the Infinite includes infinite perfection. It's simply another way of looking at God, but we're still looking at the same thing. In a way, infinite perfection seems to provide life and beauty to what looks otherwise lifeless and devoid of meaning.

Yet, the Source, the Infinite and God are still simply different perspectives of the same thing. We started by proving (!) that the basis of reality must be a special kind of infinite paradox and that lead us to the idea of the Source and the Infinite being one and the same and ultimate reality. From there, it's just a small jump towards God, by realizing that the unlimited source of all things must necessarily include the Supreme Being itself. Which leads us to a curious redefinition of causality, because as we've now established the Supreme Being must be omnipotent. Therefore it does not need a reason or specific explanation for its existence. An omnipotent being is perfectly capable of 'creating' itself and it does not even need a reason for its omnipotence. After we've proven that it exists, it turns out that it needs no explanation for its existence. It exists just because it can. And it might even choose not to. Funny, isn't it?

See.. This speculation upon the nature of God is quite fruitful as it expands our understanding of what miracles lay hidden inside this Source of ours. We seem to have established the existence of a being that needs no reason for its existence. We've thus entered, by definition, into the realm of the Supernatural.

As a side note, I am often baffled by how arguments about First Cause fall on deaf ears. If we look at God, from a natural point of view, we are looking at the Infinite Source, for which we have a complex, yet intriguing, explanation. It exists, by virtue of its infinite, unbridled complexity and the unity of its infinite elements. It rests on a paradox, yet a seemingly meaningful one. Yet, if we look at it from the point of God, he exists just because. And the whole Universe exists as an expression of Himself. And we would be hard pressed to prove his existence by ordinary means. Only a clever investigation into reality lead us to conclude he must be there somewhere. And we have stumbled upon the apparent truth, that there is one element of Infinity that is uncaused, and that is God.

So, we are dealing with the Supernatural. God has lent his mysterious nature onto the whole Universe, transforming it into a real, living miracle. And we should not be so surprised, as if we are diligent enough in shedding the layers of reality, after we have passed through complete abstraction, absurdity and paradox, it would be only logical to expect a close encounter with the Supernatural. That which is beyond reason, cause and explanation.

And here it is. The whole infinite Universe turns out to be simply an extension of a Supernatural Being. It follows that each of its individual expressions is a miracle, in itself.
Quite poetically and perfectly true – God creates in Miracles.

The book was originally intended to be a case for Deism, but it has since changed somewhat.

The thing about the polarity games is that they diminish our intuitive perception of the Source. When our perception of the Source is clouded, we fall into a dream-world - something akin to Samsara.. We lose touch with reality and are completely unaware that we have. And we have to wake up sooner or later.

a reply to: Rhaegar7

:Well, well, there is more to Rhaegar7 then meets the eye.

Okay, I gotta read and understand these chapters properly and comprehend.