Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

[Spectrum]

However 'a presence wandering through all reality' [if independent of the living person] even after physical death would be a Transcendent I and illusory as I had argued above.

Here we come to transmigration. The being of the presence is always presence for an individual self, but according to my hypothesis there is a temporal connection between those individual subjects. This may or may not be illusory and it is based on an insight that may or may not be illusory.

I can understand your cognition of this concept and once upon a time I believed in such a concept. But upon very deep and serious reflections I have given up believing in such a concept.

The range of belief in a deeper connection between independent individuals can range from temporal [bonding] to permanently [pantheistic].
It is because all humans shared the same generic DNA and is driven by an existential drive to seek communion with some larger entity. [physical, community, divine, etc.]
The bottom line is this belief of connection is fundamentally neural, mental and psychological.

I often used the analogy of the floating iceberg in the ocean. The iceberg is apparently independent of the water when perceived by someone who is ignorant and naive of physics. However from a deeper perspective the seemingly independent iceberg is part and parcel of the whole world's large connected ocean, i.e. in term of H20.

Two rhizome plants can appear to be two standalone individual plants but in reality they are connected by underground roots as one single plant system.

Hinduism [advaita vedanta] believe all seemingly individuals [atman] are part an wholeness i.e. Brahman, just as all physical things are reducible to one great bundle of 'energy'.

As I had mentioned this somewhere, Schopenhauer argued this concept very well with his 'will [individual] and WILL [the underlying absolute Whole].

Even in many Buddhist schools the individual[s] are reduced to Buddha Nature [but this is more conditional than the absolute of other beliefs].

However at the highest level of Buddhist philosophy, the ultimate reality is 'nothingness' [emptiness] and something_ness is conditioned by the neurons, mental and the psychological.

Both something_ness and nothing_ness has its pro and cons. This is why we need to understand how
'something_ness is nothing_ness' and
'nothing_ness is something_ness' and
they work complementarily [note Yin and Yang].

The default of the majority is they are conditioned by 'somethingness' and the idea of 'nothingness' is a contradiction and dissonance to their normal life. Being stuck to 'something_ness' is a pro but it has its cons. To counterbalance the cons of 'something_ness' to maintain optimality, there is need to understand the underlying 'nothingness' within that 'something_ness.'

'something_ness is nothing_ness' is not a contradiction because they are not viewed in the SAME SENSE rather they are perceived in different perspective like how we reconcile the independent iceberg with the great ocean of water as the common denominator of H2O.

What I want to say is you [and the majority] by default are naturally conditioned to 'something_ness' and that is why you are insisting there is a deeper connection to the whole [illusory].
I agree we as individual[s] are ultimately reducible to stardust and a bundle of energy which will dissipate upon physical death. If there is a connection with another bundle of stardust and energy, it is due to a subjective psychological emotion and feeling.

The solution here is a psychological one beside the philosophical as presented above.

[Londoner]

1. Causality exits based upon empirical observation

I have never observed 'causality'.

I can describe a causal relationship, but I do so by first distinguishing two states as separate. For example, I might distinguish 'chicken' and 'egg'. Then I point out that although I have distinguished them, they remain connected; 'chickens cause eggs, eggs cause chickens'. But I do not observe this third thing;'causality' that is neither the chicken or the egg.

If I chose to look at it another way, chickens and eggs are the same thing, so causality does not come into it. And if we chose to look at the universe as a whole, then causality does not come into that; the universe is always the universe.

[Fan of Science]

There is no "proof" for the existence of any god, because the question is not one of logic, or mathematics, but an entirely empirical one, and there is absolutely nothing in modern science that shows a god existing. Anyone care to cite to any textbook in science used at any major western university that states a god exists?

Krauss did do a bait and switch --- his "nothing" is actually something, and this was pointed out as being a con-job by a person who was both a Ph.D. in physics and in philosophy, David Albert. Krauss went off on the guy claiming he was just a philosopher and did not know anything, completely overlooking the fact that David was also a physicist, just like Krauss. It's entirely possible something always existed and no act of creation took place, and it's entirely possible that an act of "creation" took place. However, even if something started it all, that does not mean it was god, as opposed to some blunt physical process. No one is even sure what we are asking. We know of cause and effect in terms of one thing leading to a certain outcome, but what would it even mean to make something out of nothing? The terms cause and effect have never been used in such a way, so they don't seem to apply to such questions. We don't even know the parameters for having such a discussion.

By the way, if Krauss was such a great physicist, then why has he spent the majority of his career writing pop-science books? It's because he's not a great physicist, so his opportunity cost in writing such books is slight. There is no way a young Albert Einstein would have spent his time writing pop-science books and giving lectures on atheism, as opposed to working on science itself. Krauss is simply a guy looking for attention, and he makes some really foolish arguments in doing so.

[Don Schneider]

There is no "proof" for the existence of any god, because the question is not one of logic, or mathematics, but an entirely empirical one, and there is absolutely nothing in modern science that shows a god existing. Anyone care to cite to any textbook in science used at any major western university that states a god exists?

Krauss did do a bait and switch --- his "nothing" is actually something, and this was pointed out as being a con-job by a person who was both a Ph.D. in physics and in philosophy, David Albert. Krauss went off on the guy claiming he was just a philosopher and did not know anything, completely overlooking the fact that David was also a physicist, just like Krauss. It's entirely possible something always existed and no act of creation took place, and it's entirely possible that an act of "creation" took place. However, even if something started it all, that does not mean it was god, as opposed to some blunt physical process. No one is even sure what we are asking. We know of cause and effect in terms of one thing leading to a certain outcome, but what would it even mean to make something out of nothing? The terms cause and effect have never been used in such a way, so they don't seem to apply to such questions. We don't even know the parameters for having such a discussion.

By the way, if Krauss was such a great physicist, then why has he spent the majority of his career writing pop-science books? It's because he's not a great physicist, so his opportunity cost in writing such books is slight. There is no way a young Albert Einstein would have spent his time writing pop-science books and giving lectures on atheism, as opposed to working on science itself. Krauss is simply a guy looking for attention, and he makes some really foolish arguments in doing so.

Thank you for that reply. It is one of the most lucid and coherent I’ve yet encountered here. Although you didn’t quote it, I presume that it was prompted by my response to Greta (bottom of page one) regarding Dr. Krauss. Although I agree with the general tenor of your remarks regarding Dr. Krauss, I’m not in a position to judge his professional career. Perhaps you are a bit harsh. I simply don’t know. As I stated previously, I cannot understand this seemingly unending debate as to what is “nothing.” What is wrong with defining it as nonexistence?

My OP, which is a philosophical proof of a creator, only purports to prove a creator of some kind, not necessarily God in the conventional sense. It could be an extra-dimensional computer programmers as in the SF movie The Thirteenth Floor. As you acknowledge within your reply, our universe was either created or something within it always just existed and gave birth to all else. My proof takes the former position. However, aside from the two overt assumptions it is based upon (the validity of relativity and the eternalism it implies), it also has a tacit assumption: the validity of material realism. Since I now lean towards idealism, I no longer have faith in my own proof; though if material realism is valid, then I maintain so is my proof.

If there must be some underlying fundamental basis of reality that cannot be further sublated (“I am who am”), then it just seems to me to be more logical that that something or someone is more likely sentient and intelligent than not. If it is not, then it seems it is destined to be an eternal mystery as to how it can exist timelessly and eternally without any antecedent cause. (“Oh great quantum vacuum (or whatever), pray tell me the secret of your mysterious eternal existence.”) If that fundamental basis of reality is sentient and intelligent, then perhaps a route is available to understanding its nature; a route unapproachable by the human intellect: mysticism, an empirical as opposed to an intellectual understanding; an understanding that cannot be adequately expressed in words and linear logic as mystics from time immemorial have told us. They can only point to the road they traveled to such an understanding. My favorite analogy: One does not learn to ride a bike by studying the aerodynamic principles of the proposition beforehand. Rather, it is an empirical endeavor.

Here is the bottom line in my opinion. The human intellect is simply incapable of comprehending the concept of “no beginning.” However, there must be an answer to this seemingly ultimate mystery of existence. Since that answer seems incomprehensible under the logic that we exist within, then it must by default lie elsewhere.

[Fan of Science]

I think I understand where you are coming from, but, I still think it is a question that is not capable of proof through an argument and remains as an empirical question. For example, although somewhat trivial, I suppose I could come up with an argument to "prove" the planet Earth exists, but, at the end of the day, it's either empirically true or not, and not something that is subject to a deductive proof. Part of the problem is that we cannot even state in advance what are the relevant parameters for a deductive proof type of argument.

It may be true that people cannot comprehend an infinite past, as I'm not sure what that would mean either. It's impossible to complete an infinite series of events, provided they do not converge on a finite number, within a finite amount of time, so, this causes me to be skeptical that the universe always existed. But, it still may have. I just don't know.

As far as being hateful toward Krauss, I was trying to make a point based on economic analysis. When dealing with public intellectuals, there are a number of reasons one should exercise caution, purely from an economic standpoint: 1. A public intellectual is not writing for a professional audience, nor subject to peer-review, so is at liberty to state things that he or she would never try to get away with before a professional audience. 2. A younger public intellectual does have a huge opportunity cost -- for every hour spent writing a popular book, or debating someone in a public forum, that is an hour not spent on doing actual research in their discipline. That cost, however, is lower for those public intellectuals who aren't very good at their disciplines or for those who are older and whose best productive years are likely to be behind them. Hence, I'm very skeptical at people who while young make it basically a full-time job engaging in the general public. Purely from an economic standpoint, it stands to reason that they are not very good at what they do otherwise they would have given up too much to be a public intellectual. So, while I was attacking him personally, I was also making a more general point that one can use in evaluating other public intellectuals.

[Don Schneider]

I think I understand where you are coming from, but, I still think it is a question that is not capable of proof through an argument and remains as an empirical question.

Good. I've converted you! I'd recommend the Upanishads if you haven't yet read them.

[Tamminen]

Spectrum:

The range of belief in a deeper connection between independent individuals can range from temporal [bonding] to permanently [pantheistic].

The key is the impossibility of foreign experiences. In the pantheistic scenario there are experiences that are foreign to me although all individuals are "the same" in some way. The temporal connection makes this sameness concrete so that all experiences are mine, only at different moments of subjective time as the present flows on. This also guarantees the symmetry and equality between the existence of all individuals. So this is the rational basis of ethics.

The Eastern concept of transmigration with 'karma' etc. is not satisfactory as I see it, because it presupposes a memory of some kind between individuals, which I think is impossible. I think memory defines an individual. So the concept of transmigration must be modified somehow, but that is another story.

As to 'somethingness' and 'nothingness', I would say that the contents of experience are somethingness and the metaphysical subject that goes through all experiences even beyond an individual subject's experiences is what can be called nothingness. In fact I think there is nothing between two successive experiences and nothing between two successive individuals except the temporal succession. And I think this is the origin time and its original meaning: a succession of "nows".

[Don Schneider]

Spectrum:

The range of belief in a deeper connection between independent individuals can range from temporal [bonding] to permanently [pantheistic].

The key is the impossibility of foreign experiences. In the pantheistic scenario there are experiences that are foreign to me although all individuals are "the same" in some way. The temporal connection makes this sameness concrete so that all experiences are mine, only at different moments of subjective time as the present flows on. This also guarantees the symmetry and equality between the existence of all individuals. So this is the rational basis of ethics.

The Eastern concept of transmigration with 'karma' etc. is not satisfactory as I see it, because it presupposes a memory of some kind between individuals, which I think is impossible. I think memory defines an individual. So the concept of transmigration must be modified somehow, but that is another story.

As to 'somethingness' and 'nothingness', I would say that the contents of experience are somethingness and the metaphysical subject that goes through all experiences even beyond an individual subject's experiences is what can be called nothingness. In fact I think there is nothing between two successive experiences and nothing between two successive individuals except the temporal succession. And I think this is the origin time and its original meaning: a succession of "nows".

What you (and most others) refer to as “pantheism” is actually monotheism in that all is a manifestation of the one underlying reality, universal consciousness, just as all within a dream is a manifestation of one undivided mind. Although I agree with you that the concept of an individual being reborn as another is a dubious proposition, karma (works) still has its place. The illusion of material reality unfolds according to a metaphorical algorithm, just like a software program: If this, then that. Therefore, the works performed by an individual influences how the metaphorical program unfolds (what Consciousness perceives and experiences) long after the individual’s death. An individual need not to have been Hitler, for example, in order to learn from that particular manifestation of the ultimate reality; but there is no inherent difference between any two individuals. We are all Hitler; we are all Jesus.

Regarding your final paragraph/thought, here is my favorite Zen anecdote:

Two students were arguing about a flag blowing in the wind. One argued that the flag was moving, the other the wind. The master happened along and stated: “Mind moves.”

Another one along the same lines:

A Zen master and his student were watching a flock of geese. When the geese were no longer in sight, the master asked the student: “Where have the geese gone?” The student replied: “They’ve flown away.” The master abruptly grabbed his student’s nose, twisted it and retorted: “How could they have flown away?!”

The succession of “nows” that your refer to are but myriad manifestations of the one eternal “now.” A Rubik’s cube in perpetual motion constantly changes its outer faces to form new patterns, but all the while retains its essential integrity as one.

The Rubik’s cube of the analogy is the entirety of existence. There is nothing without, no pair of hands turning its faces, and there is no outside time measuring its various manifestations. It is all the space, time, matter and energy that is. It is: “I am who am.” How that can be cannot be fathomed on an intellectual basis because as Zen states: “A sword cannot cut itself.” The sword of Zen is the logic wielded by the absolute, an illusion that cannot comprehend itself.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum:

The range of belief in a deeper connection between independent individuals can range from temporal [bonding] to permanently [pantheistic].

The key is the impossibility of foreign experiences. In the pantheistic scenario there are experiences that are foreign to me although all individuals are "the same" in some way. The temporal connection makes this sameness concrete so that all experiences are mine, only at different moments of subjective time as the present flows on. This also guarantees the symmetry and equality between the existence of all individuals. So this is the rational basis of ethics.

You analogy is like an individual bunches of H20 molecules rising from the ocean toward the sky but it is nevertheless still part of the water cycle to return to the ocean eventually. You are transposing this analogy to your individual self.
But the fact [empirical] remain it is all in the individual mind and brain.

The Eastern concept of transmigration with 'karma' etc. is not satisfactory as I see it, because it presupposes a memory of some kind between individuals, which I think is impossible. I think memory defines an individual. So the concept of transmigration must be modified somehow, but that is another story.

The concepts of reincarnation [Hinduism] and rebirth [some Buddhists] presuppose some degree of memory or traces of impression which is transfer to the next lot of 'energy.' I believe this is an impossibility.
Here is the possible modification:
Some Buddhists do not believe in memory [whole or traces] but that only energy waves reverberate throughout the Earth and Universe [dependent origination]. It is like chaos theory where a flap of a butterfly wing in China caused a hurricane in the Atlantic ocean.

As to 'somethingness' and 'nothingness', I would say that the contents of experience are somethingness and the metaphysical subject that goes through all experiences even beyond an individual subject's experiences is what can be called nothingness. In fact I think there is nothing between two successive experiences and nothing between two successive individuals except the temporal succession. And I think this is the origin time and its original meaning: a succession of "nows".

As with Buddhism it does not see "nothingness" as beyond the individual subject's experience. If "nothingness" is beyond the individual subject's experience, then this 'nothingness' is still 'something.'
The experience of somethingness is always conditioned, upon past experience, space, time, mental elements concepts, ideas, context, etc.
"Nothingness" meant the individual is still engaged with reality but without any clinging to the upon past experienced, mental elements, concepts, ideas, context, etc. As the saying goes, it is actions without acting.
The problem with a state of somethingness is it leads to possessiveness [activated selfish ego] and this possessiveness contribute to clinging, sufferings, evils and violence.

There is no 'nothingness' or 'somethingness' beyond the individual's experiences. You will note no human[s] has ever been able to prove that such a 'thing' exists as real.

What is fact is a very strong primal impulse for closure, e.g. for every effect there is a cause and the mind just cannot accept infinite regression so it jump to a first cause. For everything there is, there must be something of oneness beyond it.
This is actually an evolutionary adaption, e.g. our ancestors are the ones who had the greater chance of survival because they assumed [jumped to conclusion with no evidence] every sound of a twig in the bushes lies a saber-toothed tiger and they ran every time.
This 'jumping to conclusion with no evidence' is embedded in all human beings including yours, mine and everyone.

I have uncovered this instinct and thus in ordinary intellectual situations do not accept whatever conclusion that comes to mind except when there is evidence.
But if I am in the jungle bushes and hear the sound of a broken twig [e.g. stepped on by something], I will definitely assumed there is something dangerous and run from that place.

The point is, on this issue of something beyond experience, you need to understand human and your own psychology.

-- Updated Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:00 pm to add the following --

@ Don Schneider

An individual need not to have been Hitler, for example, in order to learn from that particular manifestation of the ultimate reality; but there is no inherent difference between any two individuals. We are all Hitler; we are all Jesus.

We are NOT all Hitler; we are NOT all Jesus.
At the most basic DNA levels without any differences and distinctions, all humans would be zombies.
It is the additional programs that are added to the basic DNA inherited from our different ancestors that give each individual a separate identity.
In addition nurturing factors also contribute to make individuals different.

Thus as Hitler and Jesus, we share the same general physical structures as a human being. But there is no way I want to be associated with Hitler or Jesus in terms of their psychology and personality.

[Tamminen]

Ron Schneider:

The succession of “nows” that your refer to are but myriad manifestations of the one eternal “now.” A Rubik’s cube in perpetual motion constantly changes its outer faces to form new patterns, but all the while retains its essential integrity as one.

The Rubik’s cube of the analogy is the entirety of existence. There is nothing without, no pair of hands turning its faces, and there is no outside time measuring its various manifestations. It is all the space, time, matter and energy that is. It is: “I am who am.” How that can be cannot be fathomed on an intellectual basis because as Zen states: “A sword cannot cut itself.” The sword of Zen is the logic wielded by the absolute, an illusion that cannot comprehend itself.

This is exactly what I mean, but I think a modified concept of transmigration is needed to complete the picture, to make it concrete. The 'I am' cannot be present for everyone without a temporal connection between individual subjects. And the Absolute is not transcendent, it is the metaphysical subject which is the 'I am' in the deepest sense. This is how I see things at the moment.

[Londoner]

The succession of “nows” that your refer to are but myriad manifestations of the one eternal “now.” A Rubik’s cube in perpetual motion constantly changes its outer faces to form new patterns, but all the while retains its essential integrity as one.

You weight that statement rhetorically by using the words 'eternal' and 'essential'. But why should it go that way round? Why can't the 'succession of nows' be 'essential' etc. and the notion of them making up a 'one' be illusory? A desire to sum up discrete experiences or events under one abstract term is a tendency of human thought, but that doesn't make it right.

The Rubik’s cube of the analogy is the entirety of existence. There is nothing without, no pair of hands turning its faces, and there is no outside time measuring its various manifestations. It is all the space, time, matter and energy that is. It is: “I am who am.” How that can be cannot be fathomed on an intellectual basis because as Zen states: “A sword cannot cut itself.” The sword of Zen is the logic wielded by the absolute, an illusion that cannot comprehend itself.

If there is nothing outside a term then that doesn't make the term all-embracing, it makes it meaningless. As you rightly say, this cannot be fathomed on an intellectual basis, but I would say this is not because it is too deep, rather it is because there is nothing there to fathom.

'A sword cannot cut itself' is a false analogy. There is nothing to cut, so I would argue that the closer analogy is the more obvious; 'A sword cannot cut nothing'.

Here is the bottom line in my opinion. The human intellect is simply incapable of comprehending the concept of “no beginning.” However, there must be an answer to this seemingly ultimate mystery of existence. Since that answer seems incomprehensible under the logic that we exist within, then it must by default lie elsewhere...

The human intellect cannot comprehend either 'beginning' or 'no beginning' in the abstract. It is not how those words work; they have to be linked to some particular to have meaning. There is nothing special about that, we can create similar paradoxes around any attribute; 'What does something sound like if nobody hears it?'. To which the answer is 'You do not understand how we use the word 'sound''. Or, more simply, 'what is time?', 'what is 'twenty-eight'?'. The answer is 'they are abstractions'. Something we create.

All words have some abstract content. The word 'chair' can be linked to certain physical experiences (that chair, there), but it is also understood to refer to 'all chairs'. We have the paradox that although we are not clear whether X counts as a chair, if we call X a chair then we are saying it is not a table...although we simultaneously accept X might be used as a table...

So my point is that we can generate mysterious paradoxes around any word. When we do so, we are not doing metaphysics, rather pointing out something which is necessarily true of language.

I do not think we can get a proof of a creator out of it.

[Don Schneider]

1. Causality exits based upon empirical observation

I have never observed 'causality'.

I can describe a causal relationship, but I do so by first distinguishing two states as separate. For example, I might distinguish 'chicken' and 'egg'. Then I point out that although I have distinguished them, they remain connected; 'chickens cause eggs, eggs cause chickens'. But I do not observe this third thing;'causality' that is neither the chicken or the egg.

If I chose to look at it another way, chickens and eggs are the same thing, so causality does not come into it. And if we chose to look at the universe as a whole, then causality does not come into that; the universe is always the universe.

My OP proof is, as I said, also based upon the implicit assumption therein of the validity of material realism. Your reply seems to point to an acceptance of idealism. If you adhere to material realism, than you have witnessed causality myriad times. If you ever saw (personally or by video) a person being decapitated, then you observed that person’s death and its cause. Your bit about the chicken and the egg being the same thing is classic idealism, so welcome aboard. Since I now lean towards idealism, I no longer hold that my own proof is valid, though I still do if I am wrong and material realism is after all valid.

-- Updated July 6th, 2017, 12:20 pm to add the following --

I think I understand where you are coming from, but, I still think it is a question that is not capable of proof through an argument and remains as an empirical question. For example, although somewhat trivial, I suppose I could come up with an argument to "prove" the planet Earth exists, but, at the end of the day, it's either empirically true or not, and not something that is subject to a deductive proof. Part of the problem is that we cannot even state in advance what are the relevant parameters for a deductive proof type of argument.

It may be true that people cannot comprehend an infinite past, as I'm not sure what that would mean either. It's impossible to complete an infinite series of events, provided they do not converge on a finite number, within a finite amount of time, so, this causes me to be skeptical that the universe always existed. But, it still may have. I just don't know.

.

Indeed, one of the aspects of idealism, particularly of the form which is exhibited by Eastern metaphysics based upon the Upanishads, is that it seems to nicely resolve all seeming paradoxes inherent within a paradigm of material realism; for example, Zeno’s renown dichotomy paradox. If material realism is a mere illusion, a manifestation of universal Consciousness, then nothing actually moves within it, so no problem. (Then again, so does my OP proof which assumes the validity of material realism.)

Regarding deduction, I agree—as I have stated time and again—that the realization of ultimate reality can only be had on an empirical basis. Until such is achieved, we only have considerations that point to ultimate truth. Another reason why I now lean towards idealism is by simple default. There are simply too many philosophical obstacles to overcome to validate material realism. Therefore, what remains must be true, no matter how seemingly counterintuitive such might be.

Indeed, as the proposition that matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness as opposed to the typical seemingly common sense Western view of the opposite seems so counterintuitive that one wonders how the Eastern sages who wrote the Upanishads ever could have come up with the idea in the absence of some empirical proof at the time now either lost to us or unrealized by us.

-- Updated July 6th, 2017, 2:54 pm to add the following --

I wrote:

An individual need not to have been Hitler, for example, in order to learn from that particular manifestation of the ultimate reality; but there is no inherent difference between any two individuals. We are all Hitler; we are all Jesus.[/quote]

Spectrum replied:

We are NOT all Hitler; we are NOT all Jesus.
At the most basic DNA levels without any differences and distinctions, all humans would be zombies.
It is the additional programs that are added to the basic DNA inherited from our different ancestors that give each individual a separate identity.
In addition nurturing factors also contribute to make individuals different.

Thus as Hitler and Jesus, we share the same general physical structures as a human being. But there is no way I want to be associated with Hitler or Jesus in terms of their psychology and personality.

My assertion that you are replying to obviously assumes the validity of the paradigm of idealism that I hold to (and to which, of course, you are free to reject). In that ontological paradigm, we are all quite literally one. It is only the illusion of separateness that makes it seems otherwise, including considerations such as DNA; that too is illusory.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

[-1-]

Every instance of creation is a process consisting in a sequence of events, which themselves consist in objects possessing properties. The presupposition, then, in talking about a Creator, is that there already were some objects to be used in the process of creating her/his universe, but if there were objects, then there was already a universe. The question is incoherent and a bit like asking "what time was it before the beginning of time?".

Maybe the Creator did not create the universe or a universe. He just embellished it, but putting in it things that hadn't been existing before.

The Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah speak of god's spirit floating above the dark waters (and perhaps of angels as well).

This presupposes the existence of several things: water, darkness, god, floatation, gravity, directionality of "up" and "down". These things were not created; but things WERE created (according to the many different religions of the world, incl. the Jewish and the Christian) at some point in time.

[Tamminen]

Ron Scneider:

In that ontological paradigm, we are all quite literally one. It is only the illusion of separateness that makes it seems otherwise...

I would say we are separate spatially but one temporally, i.e. in the flow of subjective time. I am Tamminen now, not Ron Schneider, but I do not know who or what I have been or who or what I will be as time goes by. This is what I mean by the modified concept of transmigration. Subjective time does not always follow physical time but sometimes leaps into physical past adopting the existence of another subject. This may seem paradoxical, though, and perhaps makes the hypothesis less plausible but I see no logical contradiction in it. It is a clear but embarrassing idea, if really understood, and solves many existential paradoxes that are difficult to solve in any other way, leaving many problems still open for philosophers to attack on.

[Spectrum]

In that ontological paradigm, we are all quite literally one. It is only the illusion of separateness that makes it seems otherwise, including considerations such as DNA; that too is illusory.

Even from the ontological paradigm one has to view existence as an entity within various perspectives.
It is impossible or rather there is no absolute ontological being which is supposedly, God.

As for the ontological human being, it need to be deliberated in the following perspectives as conditional truths;

• 1. As physical human beings we are separate individuals.
  2. As the empirical "I AM" [transcendental and not transcendent] we are also separate individuals.
  3. DNA wise we are separate individuals.
  
  4. In a team situations, each individual can be view as one as a team.
  5. From the human species perspective, we are one as humanity.
  6. In an organization or group we are one when we share the same mission and vision.
  7. In the Earth perspective, the individual is one with the Earth on a global scale, i.e. no pollution and other negatives that contribute to the destruction of the planet.
  8. One with the Universe so we do not destroy the solar system when capable to do so.

The point is each individual must switch perspective in accordance to the correct situations they are in.
In situation 4, 5 and 6, 7 and 8 each individual must adopt in real time they are one with all humans, the Earth and Universe.
Note this is merely a mental condition and state of the individual and not a matter of fact they are one.

In other situations the individual[s] must adopt a stance they are unique and different individual [DNA and nurture wise] from others. For example there is a need for healthy competition with others, etc. The individual must also take steps to ensure his/her well being is protected and developed.

Therefore to think of one self as separate from others in the right circumstances is not illusory, it is by default real especially from the empirical perspective.

For sake of the well being of humanity as whole there is need for each individual to give up their selfish and switch to a mode with the awareness they are one with all humans and the universe. This is not easy as one has to break away from the default of individualism.

But to view that there is some thing like a glue or a kind of substance [essence] that connect all human beings beyond the 'I AM' is an illusion.
Such an illusion is driven by some sort of natural psychosis which has its pros but also has a greater cons as a liability. This oneness is not real oneness as proposed in 4-8, but rather it is pseudo or illusory oneness as a pursuit for a selfish individualistic purpose.