A question for experts on the Big Bang theory

[White Crane Feather 5,745]

Yeah I think it's important to remember that dark energy is the dominant thing in the universe. All the galaxies and stars we see are just a bit of fluff in a universe dominated by dark energy and dark matter. It's almost like we were a side effect of creation rather than what was created. A bit humbling

Yes... A fluctuation. Though im not totally convinced dark energy is really energy. It might simply be the nature of space to expand continuously appearing to be energetic. I often wonder what infinity looks like up close, and the closest thing I can come up with is an ever moving target. Space might expand because it simply is space and has infinity to expand into essentially being constrained by nothing. Outward pressure from quantum fields does have an outward pressur ( casimir effect), and it may be that virtual particles carry the information of existence itself therefore riding along with quantum fields. There are some papers that show quantum pressure can be responsible for the expansion. dark energy is probably an intergalactic casimier effect. Which of course makes sense. But it's still just speculation non of it is prooven.

http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=15&sessionId=3&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=199008

[spacecowboy342 2,327]

Yes... A fluctuation. Though im not totally convinced dark energy is really energy. It might simply be the nature of space to expand continuously appearing to be energetic. I often wonder what infinity looks like up close, and the closest thing I can come up with is an ever moving target. Space might expand because it simply is space and has infinity to expand into essentially being constrained by nothing. Outward pressure from quantum fields does have an outward pressur ( casimir effect), and it may be that virtual particles carry the information of existence itself therefore riding along with quantum fields. There are some papers that show quantum pressure can be responsible for the expansion. dark energy is probably an intergalactic casimier effect. Which of course makes sense. But it's still just speculation non of it is prooven.

http://indico.cern.c...s&confId=199008

I don't know but the way I see it to do work requires energy and so to expand space energy would be required. Also the figure that is given for dark energy is exactly what is required according to Krauss to make the sum total of energy in the universe 0 which also gives us flat space, which has been confirmed experimentally and is required for the BB not to collapse on itself before inflation could occur. I am taking Dr. Krauss' word for this but it make sense to me and seems to all fit together elegantly.

[Rolci 336]

I've posted these questions in another topic as well but actually they are more relevant here so I'll just ask them here as well. I believe we do not have true understanding until we can answer these.

Energy has properties, and matter, being a condensed form of energy, has properties, if you break it down further down they all have different properties. But there is a certain set of these properties, like mass, charge, spin, etc. We keep chasing the source of these, which is how we have arrived at discovering the Higgs boson. But why is it that the Higgs boson exists, why is it necessarily so, why is it inevitably so? More generally, what determines how many of these properties stuff should have, what exactly these properties should be, and most importantly, where do they come from? And how does each particle know when they formed for the first time in the universe which should have what property, had it been all programmed into the system at the time of the Big Bang? What does it even mean that it was all programmed?

You can say it's the result of the laws of physics. But then we're back to square one again. Where did the laws come from? Why are there laws even? How did the Universe know it was supposed to have laws? And what determined what the laws would be? Was it all an accident that all the constants were exactly what they needed to be for the Universe to be stable? Why are there so many constants in the Universe and not more or less. There must have been something that determined how many laws there would be, what their properties would be, what their values would be, etc. Same for laws. Like a kind of ultimate blueprint, but where did that come from and why is it what it is?

And to re-iterate Terence McKenna's novelty theory here is well, it almost seems like the whole lifetime of the Universe had been planned, it was all set so there would be matter and life etc. Especially if you consider that time itself is an illusion ( http://www.newscient...ed-it-back.html and http://www.newscient...ml#.UpfnqMRdXCZ ) and the whole lifetime of the Universe exists as one still picture from beginning to end. Reminds me of this: http://unveiledsecre...ion-eon-90.html (press space or "page down" four times and start reading). Thought-provoking ideas there, even if looked at as entertainment.

Anyway, McKenna's novelty theory says that the Universe conserves novelty, and increasingly complex structures appear, always building on the previous development. First after the Big Bang you have a soup of initially uniform energy, then you have matter with thousands of different particles (because laws of the Universe say so and it's inevitable), then these particles bond and form atoms (because laws of the Universe say so and it's inevitable), which then become building blocks for even more complex structures called molecules (for which you need laws for bonding, but why did laws for molecular bonding exist, unless the Universe knew that there would be matter and molecules). But that isn't enough for life, you need heavier elements for that. So it happens that stars and galaxies form, and the stars will produce heavier elements. Now imagine the Universe being born just to create stars and galaxies, and then die either in a Big Crunch, or in a thermal death of infinite expansion and increasing entropy. No, my friends, the Universe had a different plan than this pointless one. Now you have heavy elements which, in the form of long-chain polymers will turn into non-nucleated primitive DNA containing life, later complex life, multi-cellular life, and this is a principle that reaches right up to our dear selves. All of which possible because there were laws to make them possible. But things don't stop there of course. More and more exotic stuff keeps appearing, always building on everything that has been. You have life that is self-aware, capable of questioning, reasoning, understanding, communicating and many more things matter can't do and ordinary life can do. Consciousness enters the scene, whatever it is. Do we have a reason to believe that it's an end product of the Universe and there is no more? I do not believe that there is any indication either way, but once you understand the pattern it's not hard to guess. To say it stops here and now for no reason would be like saying the Universe can stop expanding by certain laws "changing their mind", like the gravitational constant increasing tenfold spontaneously for example. Do we have evidence it won't? No, all we have is a pattern in the past.

I will stop there. Does the Universe have some kind of a plan? Did the concept of intelligence exist on some level before there was even consciousness? I will let everyone draw their own conclusions.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Rolci

[Frank Merton 17,411]

That consciousness exists I think therefore it must exist.

The Greek Miracle was when the Greeks stopped saying, "The gods did it" and started saying "Natural processes did it," meaning no consciousness involved. It would be ironic if in the end we go back to the first proposition.

[spacecowboy342 2,327]

Many of the questions you ask are as yet unanswered and perhaps unanswerable. You ask of the universe has a plan. A plan is only possible if there was a planner so, in effect you are asking if God exists. I think personally this question is meaningless and irrelevant. I can't see how any form of concept could exist before there was some form of consciousness to form a concept. As far as why physical laws are what they are or if they had to be this way, I think scientists are still working on that. Whether they will figure it out or not, who knows?

[Rolci 336]

If I had to make one logical conclusion about the Universe, or rather it would be an observation, it would be that there is one theme here that's constant and all-pervading, for which all the creation of the Universe, the existence of all the laws and constants and their properties being what they are seems to be in support, and that is a stable Universe in which a never-ending process of evolution is possible. Even the stability is just for the evolution. It's all about the evolution. That's the plan. Is it for a purpose? Has the whole course of this evolution been planned? I don't know. I'd rather say known. So why play it out in actuality? Maybe for the experience itself. Who's playing the game? That's the ultimate question. I do not expect this to be anyone else's conclusion, but it sure is mine.

Since science hasn't managed to answer all these questions just yet, so far this is my all-time favourite explanation for all these questions:

In the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet All That Is could not know itself—because All That Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so, All That Is.. .was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not. This is the great Is/Not Is to which mystics have referred from the beginning of time.

Now All That Is knew it was all there was—but this was not enough, for it could only know its utter magnificence conceptually, not experientially. Yet the experience of itself is that for which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be so magnificent. Still, this was impossible, because the very term “magnificent” is a relative term. All That Is could not know what it felt like to be magnificent unless that which is not showed up. In the absence of that which is not, that which IS, is not. Do you understand this?

I think so. Keep going.

Al right.

The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was nothing else. And so It could, and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside of Itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. The “Is-Not Is.” The Am-Not Am. Still, the All of Everything chose to know Itself experientially.

This energy—this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-by-anyone-else energy—chose to experience Itself as the utter magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use a reference point within. It reasoned, quite correctly, that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if It thus simply divided Itself into portions, each portion, being less than the whole, could look back on the rest of Itself and see magnificence.

And so All That Is divided Itself—becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither.

Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there—but which must exist for here and there to exist.

It is the nothing which holds the everything. It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which holds the parts.

Can you understand this? Are you following this?

I think I am, actually. Believe it or not, you have used such a clear illustration that I think I’m actually understanding this.

I’m going to go further. Now this nothing which holds the everything is what some people call God. Yet that is not accurate, either, for it suggests that there is something God is not—namely, everything that is not “nothing.” But I am All Things—seen and unseen—so this description of Me as the Great Unseen—the No-Thing, or the Space Between, an essentially Eastern mystical definition of God, is no more accurate than the essentially Western practical description of God as all that is seen. Those who believe that God is All That Is and All That Is Not, are those whose understanding is correct.

Now in creating that which is “here” and that which is “there,” God made it possible for God to know Itself. In the moment of this great explosion from within, God created relativity—the greatest gift God ever gave to Itself. Thus, relationship is the greatest gift God ever gave to you, a point to be discussed in detail later.

From the No-Thing thus sprang the Everything—a spiritual event entirely consistent, incidentally, with what your scientists call The Big Bang theory. As the elements of all raced forth, time was created, for a thing was first here, then it was there—and the period it took to get from here to there was measurable.

just as the parts of Itself which are seen began to define themselves, “relative” to each other, so, too, did the parts which are unseen. God knew that for love to exist—and to know itself as pure love—its exact opposite had to exist as well. So God voluntarily created the great polarity—the absolute opposite of love—everything that love is not—what is now called fear. In

the moment fear existed, love could exist as a thing that could be experienced. It is this creation of duality between love and its opposite which humans refer to in their various mythologies as the birth of evil, the fall of Adam, the rebellion of Satan, and so forth.

Just as you have chosen to personify pure love as the character you call God, so have you chosen to personify abject fear as the character you call the devil. Some on Earth have established rather elaborate mythologies around this event, complete with scenarios of battles and war, angelic soldiers and devilish warriors, the forces of good and evil, of light and dark.

This mythology has been mankind’s early attempt to understand, and tell others in a way they could understand, a cosmic occurrence of which the human soul is deeply aware, but of which the mind can barely conceive. In rendering the universe as a divided version of Itself, God produced, from pure energy, all that now exists—both seen and unseen.

In other words, not only was the physical universe thus created, but the metaphysical universe as well. The part of God which forms the second half of the Am/Not Am equation also exploded into an infinite number of units smaller than the whole. These energy units you would call spirits.

In some of your religious mythologies it is stated that “God the Father” had many spirit children. This parallel to the human experiences of life multiplying itself seems to be the only way the masses could be made to hold in reality the idea of the sudden appearance—the sudden existence—of countless spirits in the “Kingdom of Heaven.

In this instance, your mythical tales and stories are not so far from ultimate reality—for the endless spirits comprising the totality of Me are, in a cosmic sense, My offspring.

My divine purpose in dividing Me was to create sufficient parts of Me so that I could know Myself experientially. There is only one way for the Creator to know Itself experientially as the Creator, and that is to create. And so I gave to each of the countless parts of Me (to all of My spirit children) the same power to create which I have as the whole.

This is what your religions mean when they say that you were created in the “image and likeness of God.” This doesn’t mean, as some have suggested, that our physical bodies look alike (although God can adopt whatever physical form God chooses for a particular purpose). It does mean that our essence is the same. We are composed of the same stuff. We ARE the “same stuff”! With all the same properties and abilities—including the ability to create physical reality out of thin air.

My purpose in creating you, My spiritual offspring, was for Me to know Myself as God. I have no way to do that save through you. Thus it can be said (and has been, many times) that My purpose for you is that you should know yourself as Me.

This seems so amazingly simple, yet it becomes very complex—because there is only one way for you to know yourself as Me, and that is for you first to know yourself as not Me.

Now try to follow this—fight to keep up—because this gets very subtle here. Are you ready?

I think so.

Good. Remember, you’ve asked for this explanation. You’ve waited for it for years. You’ve asked for it in layman’s terms, not theological doctrines or scientific theories.

Yes—I know what I’ve asked.

And having asked, so shall you receive.

Now, to keep things simple, I’m going to use your children of God mythological model as a basis for discussion, because it is a model with which you are familiar—and in many ways it is not that far off.

So let’s go back to how this process of self-knowing must work. There is one way I could have caused all of My spiritual children to know themselves as parts of Me—and that was simply to tell them. This I did. But you see, it was not enough for Spirit to simply know Itself as God, or part of God, or children of God, or inheritors of the kingdom (or whatever mythology you want to use).

As I’ve already explained, knowing something, and experiencing it, are two different things. Spirit longed to know Itself experientially (just as I did!). Conceptual awareness was not enough for you. So I devised a plan. It is the most extraordinary idea in all the universe—and the most spectacular collaboration. I say collaboration because all of you are in it with Me.

Under the plan, you as pure spirit would enter the physical universe just created. This is because physicality is the only way to know experientially what you know conceptually. It is, in fact, the reason I created the physical cosmos to begin with —and the system of relativity which governs it, and all creation.

Once in the physical universe, you, My spirit children, could experience what you know of yourself—but first, you had to come to know the opposite. To explain this simplistically, you cannot know yourself as tall unless and until you become aware of short. You cannot experience the part of yourself that you call fat unless you also come to know thin.

Taken to ultimate logic, you cannot experience yourself as what you are until you’ve encountered what you are not. This is the purpose of the theory of relativity, and all physical life. It is by that which you are not that you yourself are defined.

Now in the case of the ultimate knowing—in the case of knowing yourself as the Creator—you cannot experience your Self as creator unless and until you create. And you cannot create yourself until you Un-create yourself. In a sense, you have to first “not be” in order to be. Do you follow?

I think...

Stay with it.

Of course, there is no way for you to not be who and what you are-you simply are that (pure, creative spirit), have been always, and always will be. So, you did the next best thing. You caused yourself to forget Who You Really Are.

Upon entering the physical universe, you relinquished your remembrance of yourself. This allows you to choose to be Who You Are, rather than simply wake up in the castle, so to speak.

It is in the act of choosing to be, rather than simply being told that you are, a part of God that you experience yourself as being at total choice, which is what, by definition, God is. Yet how can you have a choice about something over which there is no choice? You cannot not be My offspring no matter how hard you try—but you can forget.

You are, have always been, and will always be, a divine part of the divine whole, a member of the body. That is why the act of rejoining the whole, of returning to God, is called remembrance. You actually choose to re-member Who You Really Are, or to join together with the various parts of you to experience the all of you—which is to say, the All of Me.

Your job on Earth, therefore, is not to learn (because you already know), but to remember Who You Are. And to re-member who everyone else is. That is why a big part of your job is to remind others (that is, to re-mind them), so that they can remember also.

All the wonderful spiritual teachers have been doing just that. It is your sole purpose. That is to say, your soul purpose.

And the other one is a more well-known one, also perfect for little kids:

There once was a soul who knew itself to be the light. This was a new soul, and so, anxious for experience. “I am the light,” it said. “I am the light.” Yet all the knowing of it and all the saying of it could not substitute for the experience of it. And in the realm from which this soul emerged, there was nothing but the light. Every soul was grand, every soul was magnificent, and every soul shone with the brilliance of My awesome light. And so the little soul in question was as a candle in the sun. In the midst of the grandest light—of which it was a part—it could not see itself, nor experience itself as Who and What it Really Is.

Now it came to pass that this soul yearned and yearned to know itself. And so great was its yearning that I one day said, “Do you know, Little One, what you must do to satisfy this yearning of yours?”

“Oh, what, God? What? I’ll do anything!” The little soul said.

“You must separate yourself from the rest of us,” I answered, “and then you must call upon yourself the darkness.

“What is the darkness, o Holy One?” the little soul asked.

“That which you are not,” I replied, and the soul understood.

And so this the soul did, removing itself from the All, yea, going even unto another realm. And in this realm the soul had the power to call into its experience all sorts of darkness. And this it did.

Yet in the midst of all the darkness did it cry out, “Father, Father, why hast Thou forsaken me?” Even as have you in your blackest times. Yet I have never forsaken you, but stand by you always, ready to remind you of Who You Really Are; ready, always ready, to call you home.

Therefore, be a light unto the darkness, and curse it not. And forget not Who You Are in the moment of your encirclement by that which you are not. But do you praise to the creation, even as you seek to change it.

And know that what you do in the time of your greatest trial can be your greatest

triumph. For the experience you create is a statement of Who You Are-and Who You Want to Be.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Rolci

[spacecowboy342 2,327]

If I had to make one logical conclusion about the Universe, or rather it would be an observation, it would be that there is one theme here that's constant and all-pervading, for which all the creation of the Universe, the existence of all the laws and constants and their properties being what they are seems to be in support, and that is a stable Universe in which a never-ending process of evolution is possible. Even the stability is just for the evolution. It's all about the evolution. That's the plan. I do not expect this to be anyone else's conclusion, but it sure is mine.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by stable but it appears just the opposite to me. Were it stable there would be no evolution. And I see no plan to evolution just a trend toward diversity. The universe is a dangerous place with super novae and gamma ray bursts. Were it not for the earths magnetic field the earth would be probably lifeless and several times in earth's history life was nearly extinguished. It seems all is ruled by random chance. At least this is the way it seems to me

[Frank Merton 17,411]

Yea -- it seems to me life is damn lucky to have made it this far on the earth without one of the numerous possible disasters; we have missed destruction just by our whiskers several times.

[Rolci 336]

By stable I meant it didn't collapse right away, on the constants of physics are not volatile but, as the name suggests, constants. They could be subject to random change or a steady shift in value disrupting the stability of matter or the integrity if structures composed of it, chemical bonds could disappear for good and all molecules fall apart to atoms again. But they don't, that's what I meant by stable.

Of course there are supernovae, without them there would be no life as we know it. But even if we didn't know why they important wouldn't mean they're now. We don't understand many things but are quick to judge and condemn. If it weren't for the demise of the dinos we wouldn't be here, they were an evolutionary dead end allowing no competition to evolve. They hadn't been able to evolve consciousness in what, 200 million years? Sometimes you need a fresh start, with only the fittest surviving.

But like I said, even if we didn't understand these processes fully, that only tells us about ourselves, and what we do know goes to show there's an underlying wisdom in nature. The mechanism of natural selection itself could be non-existent. But it's not. It's all there, everything we need for a steady evolution, often in mysterious ways.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Rolci

[spacecowboy342 2,327]

By stable I meant it didn't collapse right away, on the constants of physics are not volatile but, as the name suggests, constants. They could be subject to random change or a steady shift in value disrupting the stability of matter or the integrity if structures composed of it, chemical bonds could disappear for good and all molecules fall apart to atoms again. But they don't, that's what I meant by stable.

Of course there are supernovae, without them there would be no life as we know it. But even if we didn't know why they important wouldn't mean they're now. We don't understand many things but are quick to judge and condemn. If it weren't for the demise of the dinos we wouldn't be here, they were an evolutionary dead end allowing no competition to evolve. They hadn't been able to evolve consciousness in what, 200 million years? Sometimes you need a fresh start, with only the fittest surviving.

But like I said, even if we didn't understand these processes fully, that only tells us about ourselves, and what we do know goes to show there's an underlying wisdom in nature. The mechanism of natural selection itself could be non-existent. But it's not. It's all there, everything we need for a steady evolution, often in mysterious ways.

It still isn't evidence of any plan. It only seems so looking backwards. Evolution is only a random trend toward diversity. Species that randomly develop traits that give advantage survive better. There is no plan to this. It is non-random survival of random mutation.

[Frank Merton 17,411]

The universe's cosmic plan was to bring me into existence. Calculate the odds against the right pairs coupling all through the eons of time just to be sure I was born. Surely I have to be part of some cosmic plan.

[Sir Smoke aLot 3,653]

The fact that we have the 'observable universe' and the rest of it which is unknown ( it might be billion times larger then observable universe or it might be infinite or it might be double the size of observable universe...

How can we say that it all has started somewhere when our observable universe could be just a tiny dot in the eyes of a distant observer? We know too little about the universe to be able to say that we know how it begin. Arrogant i would say.

[Frank Merton 17,411]

The fact that we have the 'observable universe' and the rest of it which is unknown ( it might be billion times larger then observable universe or it might be infinite or it might be double the size of observable universe...

How can we say that it all has started somewhere when our observable universe could be just a tiny dot in the eyes of a distant observer? We know too little about the universe to be able to say that we know how it begin. Arrogant i would say.

Yes, and the fact that we know now to four decimal places exactly when it happened can seem arrogant to those who don't understand.

[Frank Merton 17,411]

By the way, for the record, the age of the universe we know is 13.798±0.037 billion years.

[third_eye 52,244]

Till the next equations that offers a new '±'

What does '±0.037' billion years means in non decimal numbers ?

~

[Frank Merton 17,411]

It means give or take 37 million years.

[Sir Smoke aLot 3,653]

Yes, and the fact that we know now to four decimal places exactly when it happened can seem arrogant to those who don't understand.

So u know the size of the universe so good that u can make such measurements of an event that maybe didnt even happen at all?

'the signs', facts that proove big bang theory are all maybe just a part of something that is alot bigger and changes in harmony with the rest of space that is unknown to us.

To have measurements of something that is a product of arrogant thinking - such act just brings arrogance on the new, higher level

There are alot of unknown things for me to believe that big bang is the answer for creation. Multiverses - as bubbles and interferences between them are more likely to cause expansion or even explosions and warming up - just as an effect of their interaction. It sounds more viable then some big bang theory.

[spacecowboy342 2,327]

The fact that we have the 'observable universe' and the rest of it which is unknown ( it might be billion times larger then observable universe or it might be infinite or it might be double the size of observable universe...

How can we say that it all has started somewhere when our observable universe could be just a tiny dot in the eyes of a distant observer? We know too little about the universe to be able to say that we know how it begin. Arrogant i would say.

The entire universe could be infinite as you say but the observable universe is the only part science can study and this is the part that the BB theory proposes a beginning for.

[spacecowboy342 2,327]

So u know the size of the universe so good that u can make such measurements of an event that maybe didnt even happen at all?

'the signs', facts that proove big bang theory are all maybe just a part of something that is alot bigger and changes in harmony with the rest of space that is unknown to us.

To have measurements of something that is a product of arrogant thinking - such act just brings arrogance on the new, higher level

There are alot of unknown things for me to believe that big bang is the answer for creation. Multiverses - as bubbles and interferences between them are more likely to cause expansion or even explosions and warming up - just as an effect of their interaction. It sounds more viable then some big bang theory.

There is good evidence the the BB happened. Whether it is just part of a larger reality is an open question and may never be solved. Science deals with what can be observed. Beyond that you get into metaphysics, although there may be ways of getting clues about this from observation

[third_eye 52,244]

It means give or take 37 million years.

Exactly Frank ... 37 million ... the human civilization could be here and gone in one ...

~

[spacecowboy342 2,327]

Exactly Frank ... 37 million ... the human civilization could be here and gone in one ...

~

But 37 million years is an eye blink in the age of the universe

[Frank Merton 17,411]

Exactly Frank ... 37 million ... the human civilization could be here and gone in one ...

~

Damn good accuracy for the order of magnitude being measured. Comparing astronomical events to human events ain't fair to humans.

[third_eye 52,244]

But 37 million years is an eye blink in the age of the universe

relative ... who is blinking where ? or where is it that the one is when one blinked ?

there is no absolute blinks anywhere in 'reality'

~

Damn good accuracy for the order of magnitude being measured. Comparing astronomical events to human events ain't fair to humans.

'good' based on availability Frank ... comparing is exactly was is being done to provide the evidence ... the kind of fairness you are getting at tilts both ways ....

~edit : double post bypass

~

Edited November 29, 2013 by third_eye

[spacecowboy342 2,327]

relative ... who is blinking where ? or where is it that the one is when one blinked ?

there is no absolute blinks anywhere in 'reality'

~

'good' based on availability Frank ... comparing is exactly was is being done to provide the evidence ... the kind of fairness you are getting at tilts both ways ....

~edit : double post bypass

~

I was talking metaphorically

[White Crane Feather 5,745]

If I had to make one logical conclusion about the Universe, or rather it would be an observation, it would be that there is one theme here that's constant and all-pervading, for which all the creation of the Universe, the existence of all the laws and constants and their properties being what they are seems to be in support, and that is a stable Universe in which a never-ending process of evolution is possible. Even the stability is just for the evolution. It's all about the evolution. That's the plan. Is it for a purpose? Has the whole course of this evolution been planned? I don't know. I'd rather say known. So why play it out in actuality? Maybe for the experience itself. Who's playing the game? That's the ultimate question. I do not expect this to be anyone else's conclusion, but it sure is mine.

Since science hasn't managed to answer all these questions just yet, so far this is my all-time favourite explanation for all these questions:

In the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet All That Is could not know itself—because All That Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so, All That Is.. .was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not. This is the great Is/Not Is to which mystics have referred from the beginning of time.

Now All That Is knew it was all there was—but this was not enough, for it could only know its utter magnificence conceptually, not experientially. Yet the experience of itself is that for which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be so magnificent. Still, this was impossible, because the very term “magnificent” is a relative term. All That Is could not know what it felt like to be magnificent unless that which is not showed up. In the absence of that which is not, that which IS, is not. Do you understand this?

I think so. Keep going.

Al right.

The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was nothing else. And so It could, and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside of Itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. The “Is-Not Is.” The Am-Not Am. Still, the All of Everything chose to know Itself experientially.

This energy—this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-by-anyone-else energy—chose to experience Itself as the utter magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use a reference point within. It reasoned, quite correctly, that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if It thus simply divided Itself into portions, each portion, being less than the whole, could look back on the rest of Itself and see magnificence.

And so All That Is divided Itself—becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither.

Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there—but which must exist for here and there to exist.

It is the nothing which holds the everything. It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which holds the parts.

Can you understand this? Are you following this?

I think I am, actually. Believe it or not, you have used such a clear illustration that I think I’m actually understanding this.

I’m going to go further. Now this nothing which holds the everything is what some people call God. Yet that is not accurate, either, for it suggests that there is something God is not—namely, everything that is not “nothing.” But I am All Things—seen and unseen—so this description of Me as the Great Unseen—the No-Thing, or the Space Between, an essentially Eastern mystical definition of God, is no more accurate than the essentially Western practical description of God as all that is seen. Those who believe that God is All That Is and All That Is Not, are those whose understanding is correct.

Now in creating that which is “here” and that which is “there,” God made it possible for God to know Itself. In the moment of this great explosion from within, God created relativity—the greatest gift God ever gave to Itself. Thus, relationship is the greatest gift God ever gave to you, a point to be discussed in detail later.

From the No-Thing thus sprang the Everything—a spiritual event entirely consistent, incidentally, with what your scientists call The Big Bang theory. As the elements of all raced forth, time was created, for a thing was first here, then it was there—and the period it took to get from here to there was measurable.

just as the parts of Itself which are seen began to define themselves, “relative” to each other, so, too, did the parts which are unseen. God knew that for love to exist—and to know itself as pure love—its exact opposite had to exist as well. So God voluntarily created the great polarity—the absolute opposite of love—everything that love is not—what is now called fear. In

the moment fear existed, love could exist as a thing that could be experienced. It is this creation of duality between love and its opposite which humans refer to in their various mythologies as the birth of evil, the fall of Adam, the rebellion of Satan, and so forth.

Just as you have chosen to personify pure love as the character you call God, so have you chosen to personify abject fear as the character you call the devil. Some on Earth have established rather elaborate mythologies around this event, complete with scenarios of battles and war, angelic soldiers and devilish warriors, the forces of good and evil, of light and dark.

This mythology has been mankind’s early attempt to understand, and tell others in a way they could understand, a cosmic occurrence of which the human soul is deeply aware, but of which the mind can barely conceive. In rendering the universe as a divided version of Itself, God produced, from pure energy, all that now exists—both seen and unseen.

In other words, not only was the physical universe thus created, but the metaphysical universe as well. The part of God which forms the second half of the Am/Not Am equation also exploded into an infinite number of units smaller than the whole. These energy units you would call spirits.

In some of your religious mythologies it is stated that “God the Father” had many spirit children. This parallel to the human experiences of life multiplying itself seems to be the only way the masses could be made to hold in reality the idea of the sudden appearance—the sudden existence—of countless spirits in the “Kingdom of Heaven.

In this instance, your mythical tales and stories are not so far from ultimate reality—for the endless spirits comprising the totality of Me are, in a cosmic sense, My offspring.

My divine purpose in dividing Me was to create sufficient parts of Me so that I could know Myself experientially. There is only one way for the Creator to know Itself experientially as the Creator, and that is to create. And so I gave to each of the countless parts of Me (to all of My spirit children) the same power to create which I have as the whole.

This is what your religions mean when they say that you were created in the “image and likeness of God.” This doesn’t mean, as some have suggested, that our physical bodies look alike (although God can adopt whatever physical form God chooses for a particular purpose). It does mean that our essence is the same. We are composed of the same stuff. We ARE the “same stuff”! With all the same properties and abilities—including the ability to create physical reality out of thin air.

My purpose in creating you, My spiritual offspring, was for Me to know Myself as God. I have no way to do that save through you. Thus it can be said (and has been, many times) that My purpose for you is that you should know yourself as Me.

This seems so amazingly simple, yet it becomes very complex—because there is only one way for you to know yourself as Me, and that is for you first to know yourself as not Me.

Now try to follow this—fight to keep up—because this gets very subtle here. Are you ready?

I think so.

Good. Remember, you’ve asked for this explanation. You’ve waited for it for years. You’ve asked for it in layman’s terms, not theological doctrines or scientific theories.

Yes—I know what I’ve asked.

And having asked, so shall you receive.

Now, to keep things simple, I’m going to use your children of God mythological model as a basis for discussion, because it is a model with which you are familiar—and in many ways it is not that far off.

So let’s go back to how this process of self-knowing must work. There is one way I could have caused all of My spiritual children to know themselves as parts of Me—and that was simply to tell them. This I did. But you see, it was not enough for Spirit to simply know Itself as God, or part of God, or children of God, or inheritors of the kingdom (or whatever mythology you want to use).

As I’ve already explained, knowing something, and experiencing it, are two different things. Spirit longed to know Itself experientially (just as I did!). Conceptual awareness was not enough for you. So I devised a plan. It is the most extraordinary idea in all the universe—and the most spectacular collaboration. I say collaboration because all of you are in it with Me.

Under the plan, you as pure spirit would enter the physical universe just created. This is because physicality is the only way to know experientially what you know conceptually. It is, in fact, the reason I created the physical cosmos to begin with —and the system of relativity which governs it, and all creation.

Once in the physical universe, you, My spirit children, could experience what you know of yourself—but first, you had to come to know the opposite. To explain this simplistically, you cannot know yourself as tall unless and until you become aware of short. You cannot experience the part of yourself that you call fat unless you also come to know thin.

Taken to ultimate logic, you cannot experience yourself as what you are until you’ve encountered what you are not. This is the purpose of the theory of relativity, and all physical life. It is by that which you are not that you yourself are defined.

Now in the case of the ultimate knowing—in the case of knowing yourself as the Creator—you cannot experience your Self as creator unless and until you create. And you cannot create yourself until you Un-create yourself. In a sense, you have to first “not be” in order to be. Do you follow?

I think...

Stay with it.

Of course, there is no way for you to not be who and what you are-you simply are that (pure, creative spirit), have been always, and always will be. So, you did the next best thing. You caused yourself to forget Who You Really Are.

Upon entering the physical universe, you relinquished your remembrance of yourself. This allows you to choose to be Who You Are, rather than simply wake up in the castle, so to speak.

It is in the act of choosing to be, rather than simply being told that you are, a part of God that you experience yourself as being at total choice, which is what, by definition, God is. Yet how can you have a choice about something over which there is no choice? You cannot not be My offspring no matter how hard you try—but you can forget.

You are, have always been, and will always be, a divine part of the divine whole, a member of the body. That is why the act of rejoining the whole, of returning to God, is called remembrance. You actually choose to re-member Who You Really Are, or to join together with the various parts of you to experience the all of you—which is to say, the All of Me.

Your job on Earth, therefore, is not to learn (because you already know), but to remember Who You Are. And to re-member who everyone else is. That is why a big part of your job is to remind others (that is, to re-mind them), so that they can remember also.

All the wonderful spiritual teachers have been doing just that. It is your sole purpose. That is to say, your soul purpose.

And the other one is a more well-known one, also perfect for little kids:

There once was a soul who knew itself to be the light. This was a new soul, and so, anxious for experience. “I am the light,” it said. “I am the light.” Yet all the knowing of it and all the saying of it could not substitute for the experience of it. And in the realm from which this soul emerged, there was nothing but the light. Every soul was grand, every soul was magnificent, and every soul shone with the brilliance of My awesome light. And so the little soul in question was as a candle in the sun. In the midst of the grandest light—of which it was a part—it could not see itself, nor experience itself as Who and What it Really Is.

Now it came to pass that this soul yearned and yearned to know itself. And so great was its yearning that I one day said, “Do you know, Little One, what you must do to satisfy this yearning of yours?”

“Oh, what, God? What? I’ll do anything!” The little soul said.

“You must separate yourself from the rest of us,” I answered, “and then you must call upon yourself the darkness.

“What is the darkness, o Holy One?” the little soul asked.

“That which you are not,” I replied, and the soul understood.

And so this the soul did, removing itself from the All, yea, going even unto another realm. And in this realm the soul had the power to call into its experience all sorts of darkness. And this it did.

Yet in the midst of all the darkness did it cry out, “Father, Father, why hast Thou forsaken me?” Even as have you in your blackest times. Yet I have never forsaken you, but stand by you always, ready to remind you of Who You Really Are; ready, always ready, to call you home.

Therefore, be a light unto the darkness, and curse it not. And forget not Who You Are in the moment of your encirclement by that which you are not. But do you praise to the creation, even as you seek to change it.

And know that what you do in the time of your greatest trial can be your greatest

triumph. For the experience you create is a statement of Who You Are-and Who You Want to Be.

If you are quoting Neal Donold Walche,, there you should put quotes and site his book. My memory isn't perfect but that seems like its straight out of "conversations with god".