What does God do for fun?

the "infinite regression" I can't overcome because all we can really understand are beginnings and endings.

Can something be created that you don't know anything about?  Certainly that doesn't seem possible from our understanding of things.  Based on that the concepts of "fun" or whatever must be known to have been created.  Unless it's been a "hands off" creation.  Like tossing seeds in the dirt and whatever grows, grows, you do nothing other that put the seeds in.

It's possible this planet was "seeded" I guess.  But who or what planted those seeds and where did they come from etc (infinite regression)

someone/something would also have to create that which created the simulation, which then asks the question as to why, to what ends.  I'm not sure you can have that without a God in the context of what we have been discussing.

Say we have this "god" entity which is a conscious platform. It would be able to jump around, into the future, the past, the present... it doesn't matter, all it would have to do is manifest into an experience. So, there may be infinite earth type realities, but say it wants to be a musician in this reality... then, all it does is manifest into this reality... whether there are infinite before/after it doesn't matter. Bc an infinite conscious platform doesn't have the problem of infinite regression bc it doesn't have to be confined by linear movements. If i were this conscious "god" and i wanted to be on the other side of the universe... i'd just have to imagine i'm there. Time or distance wouldn't matter. Same goes for multiple universe. If there are multiple Harry Potter universes, all i would have to do is imagine in being in one of them and manifest into the experience i wanted to have. 

That is another reason actually why i like a conscious platform idea... it takes care of an infinite regress paradox since consciousness isn't linear in this case. It can be everywhere, somewhere, nowhere... an incorporeal infinite conscious platform wouldn't have a regress paradox. And as to what came before it, there doesn't need to be anything... or quite frankly, it could have been absolute nothing, then something... we would be the something, the "god" platform would be the something... so now there is no such thing as absolute nothing since everything is something. This platform would encompass all of it. 

I get that part but where/when did the "infinite conscious platform" come from/start?  I haven't seen a way to explain that other than, that's just the way it is, it has always been so, which really doesn't answer the questions.

Well, an infinite incorporeal type consciousness just needs to become aware... it doesn't need a cause. Like it was asleep and woke up. The obvious problem with that is from what we know... you need a brain for consciousness... but, that is what we know. Or of course, you're right too... it could just be how it is... there is nothing but existence and there was never absolute nothing. Who knows.. but as to your concern, it simply could have just woke up without a cause bc again, consciousness can do that. 

sure I agree with that, but what was it before it was consciousness?  it had to be something right?  because to our/my understanding it couldn't be nothing, so it had to be something before it was consciousness.

I think of it much like the "big bang" what did matter and what is everything expanding into?  It can't be nothing, it must be something.  And if that's true where did that something come from?

this is very enjoyable btw.

Revelation or apocalypse is the revealing of what always has been, always is, and always will be.

The way i worded what i said in that quote sounds like i was having a conversation with Ebuc ahaha. 

I'm honestly trying to understand so don't misconstrue my questions for anything other. But i still don't get it and i am more confused now that you threw in apocalypse into the mix. Doesn't apocalypse mean end of the world? And how is revelation of what sounds like a past, present, future understanding apart from emotion or feeling? I would def. have a strong feeling towards the implication of my understanding of what you said... or is the trick not to have a feeling towards it? I'm confused. 

I remember watching this movie and this part (at 1 minute where ultron wakes up) gave my goosebumps bc i use to think god evolved in this way. Out of nothing came a question... who am i, where am i, etc., until god evolved to what it is today. Actually, there is really no way for me to know if that isn't what happened. 

But what i am saying is that consciousness (in a different form then what we know) can come up in nothing. First there is nothing, then there is a thought, then that thought becomes everything. Although, it makes more sense to me that there was never absolute nothing... there has always been something and that something is an infinite something... in part conscious, in part not conscious... the idea here is the consciousness can manifest out of nothing. All it would have to do is ask a question... like the video. Who am i? Interestingly, if it happened in this evolved way... maybe that's why creation follows an evolved path too... bc every step of the way in god's evolution there are characters, so these characters are essential to get to the next. 

So idk, god could have evolved, god could have always been, god could be everything... but the interesting thing is if consciousness is eternal, then there are a lot of paradoxes that it would cover, at least to me... makes sense of a lot of things if you correlate such a platform to what we know.  

Yep, it was a good post though...

that was a really good part in the movie

this I guess is the core issue for me.  I forget the gist of it, but there was something about nothing exists without an observer, something like that, but there must be something there to observe.  It's difficult for me to think or change my way of thinking that things are created and destroyed (change forms is probably a better term)  Law of conservation of mass energy.  If it's neither created nor destroyed it still had to come from somewhere.  That is how we think generally speaking.

How was the universe created if physics states matter can neither be created nor destroyed?

this just basically says mass came from energy

but where did the energy come from?

even the subatomic particles are made up of things, that came from where?

Then when God desires to rise from that state it has endless opportunities of experiences to observe. 

For me too. That's why i'm largely agnostic spiritual... well, agnostic atheist spiritual. Atheist being towards religion bc i don't think any one religion knows and/or has the full picture. 

I think the observer thing is a physics phenomena... which, one guy explains well but i forget his name. He was on Joe Rogan's podcast. Basically, he says it's different than what people think it is, but then when he explained it... it sounded like what people say it is lol. Idk, i will gladly admit my ignorance of science. But i think what you're talking about is the "observer problem" in relation to schrodinger's cat experiment. There is one scientist that believes in the many worlds hypothesis to answer this paradox... but the many worlds hypothesis just sounds like a watered down... well, what we are talking about. 

I'm agnostic spiritual bc of your last questions. Ignoring the easiest answer... death = you're gone. If there something other than what could that look like? I think answering the questions of who you are to the platform is more important than trying to understand the platform itself. But it is fun, so i basically have two versions... god evolved or god has always been. God being the platform. Like i mentioned early, if it evolved, then it could just wake up out of nothing and go from there. If it's everything, then simply there never was/is truly "absolute nothing" ..

Interestingly, listening to the same scientist i think it was, even empty space is something. There is something going on everywhere in our universe. So, is it really expanding and outside of its expansion is absolutely nothing? I don't know... but it makes less sense to me. Two things don't make sense... one is all of this being finite, infinite fits better bc then finite you have to describe the "wall" that it all stops at. And, second, there once being nothing. If there ever once was nothing... i think consciousness is the only thing that can emerge from absolute nothing... everything else, to my layman understanding, seems like it needs something. It's a hard question we can only have a hypothesis/speculate on. But we do have powerful brains and are conscious and evolve... so maybe we're just not ready to know these answers yet.    

we think an awful lot alike about this topic, I know I can't really wrap my brain around it, not really, but it is fun to try.  I relate to that saying something about understanding you don't know anything.

I get that, but we are taught, conditioned to think that everything comes from something and there can't be no-thing which can't explain where a consciousness could have come or originated, it can't come from no-thing and if it came from something (energy if you will) then how did that come to be?

even the big bang theory still involves something, mass, energy, whatever, came from somewhere and is expanding into something because it can't expand into no-thing.  Even if someone argues it came from a different dimension then again, that must have some from something/somewhere and on it goes.

Trying to comprehend no beginning is the limit of our understanding and ability to explain or rationalize etc, that is belief, you just have to believe it.  I'm not saying that it's incorrect or anything of the sort but gladly accept it's beyond my level of understanding.

Revelation is often what the word gets translated into.