'God' can be experienced, part 1

Atheists would have us believe that 0=1 but this is not logical. How can something come from nothing? Either 0=0 or 1=1. Those are the only logical, rational options, to my mind. So, which do you think applies? Buddhists would probably opt for 0=0 and Christians would probably opt for 1=1.

The Ultimate Reality or who-you-are-in-fact can be experienced – you just need to begin that journey. It is the narrow-experienced who do not know who they are in truth, who say there is no God or Ultimate Reality, who belittle true mystics. I say ‘true’ mystics for the word mysticism has been equated with irrationality and superstition but this is a smear. There are those who have gone beyond, who have experienced but as with all experience it can only be experienced by the experiencer. So, fingers poke when mystics make their ‘incredible’ claims. All who make the journey can experience ‘God’, so why do atheists refuse to make the journey? It’s because they are stuck. Their position looks to me like a proudful one since they refuse the invitation to make the journey and are satisfied with their current (and limited) reality.

6.2.1. "In the beginning, dear boy, this world was Being -- One only, without a second. To be sure, some say that in the beginning this world was only non-Being, one only without a second, and that from that non-Being Being was born.
2. "But, dear boy, how could this be?" he said, "how could Being be produced from non
- Being? In the beginning there was Being alone, one only, without a second.


According to The-Big-Bang-Theory they are able to calculate this process all the way back to the first milliseconds after the onset of the Big Bang. But then, paradoxically, they run into problems and all their calculations start falling apart.
The dilemma is that on calculating any further they arrive at the unavoidable conclusion that everything, all life-and-matter throughout the Universe, actually originated from "Nothing"! By their own admission however, and according to their own perceptions, they summarily reject such a paradox out of hand as being utterly “unscientific”!
Excepting those that believe in God, however, they don’t offer any indisputable alternative answers!


"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."


2. Let’s assume that the scenario above is correct; then the explanation for the universe ultimately resides in the “quantum vacuum” (or we could call it the “law of gravity” as Stephen Hawking does). In order for the quantum vacuum to cause the universe, it must exist eternally or else the real question becomes what caused the quantum vacuum. Similarly, the quantum vacuum must have the power to create the universe; it cannot simply be a description of how things work. In other words, the laws of physics must be prescriptive, not just descriptive. So the cause of the universe is self-existent and causative. And if Thomas Nagel is correct in his view that consciousness is a universal feature of all things, then the cause of the universe must be self-existent, causative, and conscious. We may call it a quantum vacuum, but it sounds a lot like God.