SP - 7 Phillips Tackles The Hawking Statement About Creation - God Linkage

First, where else on the internet can you find ON ONE WEBSITE - paranormalish bloggers writing on ONE subject ALL AT THE SAME TIME? Only on TCI as far as I know. The experiment continues; and, before my response - let me say that my response will be independent - and that I haven't read my writers previous offerings (except BD's - and that was days ago) yet - to preserve my own independent approach to this seed post `hot story' about Hawking's statement in the past week or so. So, here goes.

Since we are talking about creation - isn't EVERY second created? Are we - Hawking - really talking about `our universe' or the `real beginning' of `something'? Aren't we really to be considering how a phenomenology might come into being as much as anything? Aren't we really talking about the `potential to be' - a prior - period?

Certainly, we can't be talking about the `religious' Gods - that mankind has created - can we? WE, a race of beings living on a planet that didn't even exist, we are told, until roughly 8+ billion years after `the beginning of time'? A GOD that `resembles humans' we have been told to believe? Sounds just a bit like imagination at play IMO.

God, would be MUCH bigger in every manner than mankind could imagine - and almost certainly would look no more like mankind than looking like any other item that would exist - living or `dead' - `spirit' or `material'. Indeed, if one were strictly to `look' for God - and the concept that would represent such - especially the concept that would represent the `beginning of God' - one could only look to the Now of the Past.

The first Now.

A none existent `potential' - actualized. (And I don't mean the Big Bang.) A phenomenology structure began actualization.

While a phenomenology structure can imply `ethics' and even `morals' - as Existentialism claims - those are mankind ascribed to a blank phenomenology devoid of such IMO - but - a phenomenology not devoid of meaning or definition of what the phenomenology structure IS - is what I believe.

IS - a sum of zero - of negating representations - BEING - NOW.

Representations that we can - roughly - put into human words - as several of the early phenomenology thinkers such as Edmund Husserl have done. Thoughts, really, IMO, that could be ANY humans thoughts - back to the time of thinking humans - they are so fundamental. And, they are that way because they represent the concepts of time-space-and consciousness.

Could something as fundamental as Phenomenology Structure Establishing - BE GOD? ----- If first actions, or events matter - yes.

IMO, - (my Phillips Phenomenology) - `spaces' (all things represented as matter) - have one of the two `negating' representations - as part of it most fundamental `meaning' of being a `space'. To me, the ISness of `spaces' is `not-able-to-be'. (counted once). `Things' occur once - which gives them their realness - for that instant. This ISness, occurs, ONLY within the space itself.

Different `things' have their OWN unique `now-space' - that is NOT (timewise) shared with other spaces - except as `it' `runs off' of the `structure'. (We are `represented' by our lights bounce to `other things' that can perceive us. However, be clear about this, our light image of our now - the representation of us - has already occurred and takes `time' to travel to the perception field of another - our light IS the `set' and determined' PAST.

This Now-Past - is what I call the `Not-Able-To-Not-Be' - the set reality we `see' of the external perception structure. This shared reality of `neighboring spaces' - is what we call real. This is where part of our consciousness lies and where we need to direct our attention for survival.

Now, what NEGATES - the above? ----- The `time' concept - the `able- to- not- be' concept. `Something' that isn't `everything' - something - `that could occur again'! And, with that - the initial structure is set. And, knowledge (an event physics) would grow with a structure.

Perception FROM spaces - can make `sense' of the data - giving some advantage (perhaps) to `living spaces'. (One of my favorite thoughts is - if man can be considered nothing more than a collection of electrons, etc - show me which electrons are alive and which ones aren't.)

So, ultimately, - my comment is - there would be structure before creation `of the universe' (I'm assuming he is only referring to the observable portion - a minor amount of the total) - that defined what characteristics that things-spaces would BE.

Now, is that existence before creation thing God? --- my answer is above - and open to your interpretation. (However, I must render that it is possible that the reality we exist within could be an `artificial' creation.)