In part one, I talked about how the term God may take on many different meanings, but how it is still a helpful term, as it is universally used to describe a direction of looking, namely towards whatever is ultimate - or at least what is ultimate from our perspective. A “next layer of ultimate-ness”, perhaps?
I think most people would agree that there is some sort of explanation for things that is more ultimate that what we know. It does not require an “outside the cosmos” way of thinking, although it could. It could be a deeper level right here inside the cosmos. The question of whether there is a more ultimate level that we can have access to in any meaningful way is another issue. But that has to do with leaps of faith - another subject.
In this next short part, I want to introduce a simple idea that follows from the idea that God is ultimate. God, whatever we mean by that, cannot be truly separate from creation.
If there were truly God and a created “other”, then surely this duality would imply another layer of reduction, another layer of explanation. And therefore, from our perspective, God could not be an ultimate explanation for all things in any meaningful sense.
In other words, if we see God as being separate from something, then how can He be the underlying source of everything?
So what is creation then? If God is the ultimate source, then creation reflects His intentions, His character, His desires. So then creation must be seen as an expansion or reinvention of God Himself.
I can make a painting, but I am reconfiguring things that already exist in a new way. If God creates something with intention that is completely new, then this new creation, in the most ultimate sense, is a re-imagining of Himself.
So what is existence? Is it to be a part of God.
In the next part, I will talk about how it can still be meaningful to talk about God even if He (or “It” or “She” or whatever we mean) is the animating force underlying all things. I will also write soon about whether we can consider God a person or not.