> You can find it written about in ancient books. Mostly gnostic, mystic, and hermetic texts.

It sounds as if you're adhering to some institutionalized belief systems.

> By word I'm talking about the universe.

Well, then, that's not what John is talking about. You and John have different definitions of "Word," and therein lies the confusion.

> It is said in the bible that God spoke the world into existence using words. These words are of the substance that is God.

Language is distinct from substance. In Genesis the word is an expression of His will and sovereign rule, and is not to be equate with his substance. It is God ordering the world, not bringing it into being. Genesis takes pains to assure us that creation is different in substance from deity. This emphasis is in direct contrast to the reigning Babylonian, Egyptian, and Sumerian cosmogonies. God words in creation don't equate with his substance.

In John 1 the author is not discussing a communicative event, but rather a philosophical one. Jesus is not divine language, but the divine First Cause. This is a concept that appears only 4 times in the Bible, even though God communicating occurs thousands of times, and teachings about Jesus also thousands of times. John most likely uses the term to answer the Docetic Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ, or the Cerinthian Gnostics who separated the aeon Christ from the historical Christ. That the pre-existent Logos (Jn. 1.1) because flesh (Jn. 1.14) answers both misconceptions (actually heresies) at once. Here in John 1.1 "The Word" is not the universe, but the God/man Jesus. This is the possibility that you have ignored.

> If God is all that existed before the universe then the universe must be fashioned out of the essence that is God.

Not so. Genesis 1.1 is explicit in its distinction between uncreated God and created cosmos. God is able to bring matter and energy into existence ex nihilo rather than out of His substance (Heb. 11.3). The Bible doesn't teach ex materia (God creating the universe out of material already in existence, also a belief of the Greek philosophers) or ex Deo (out of his essence or substance). God has no materiality, so ex Deo is impossible. The world came from God but is not of God. He was its cause but not its substance. The only choice is that God has the power to cause matter to come into existence. God made something that before He made it did not exist, either in Him or in anything else or in any other form.

> Making something out of nothing is a logical fallacy.

Creating all matter out of what was originally a dimensionless, infinite, matter-less singularity is well accepted. "Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe with all spatial dimensions of size zero, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity). Creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) is not a far stretch by any means. To go from God (who is Life) to energy to time and matter is a simple step of both scientific and spiritual understanding.

> I guess anybody can say anything they want, but that doesn't get us anywhere. What is the source of this concept? What does it mean? What is the substantiation of it? What makes you think our consciousness is of the same substance as God's consciousness?

The source of the concept is the eternal aspect of ourselves. You can find it written about in ancient books. Mostly gnostic, mystic, and hermetic texts. But you can also experience it first hand by traveling inward to the seat of the soul. We are the source of the concept. The universe follows mathematical principles (golden ratio/phi, flower of life geometry). These mathematical principles reveal the recursive nature of existence. How everything is branching off of everything else like branches of a tree that sprout smaller branches and then leaves. When you understand the fractal nature of reality you see that it is all birthed from the same place and of the same essence.

> My mind certainly processes all I am ever experience, but when I break my leg, my leg is experiencing something, too.

No, your mind is experiencing your leg. There is no leg experience without mind...

> Ah, no it doesn't. It says "The Word," which is Jesus (v. 14) is God. It doesn't say God's Word (usually meaning the Bible) is God. But even if by "God's Word" you mean God's communication mechanism, that's not God either. Therefore "This is implying that Gods creation is God" is not true in the least, either.

By word I'm talking about the universe. It is said in the bible that God spoke the world into existence using words. These words are of the substance that is God. Logically this is the only possibility. If God is all that existed before the universe then the universe must be fashioned out of the essence that is God. Making something out of nothing is a logical fallacy. God must be the artist, the canvas, and the painting. Oooo, we got ourselves a trinity.

> Is this not God moving?

It most assuredly depends what you mean by "moving" and "unmoving". I asserted that truth is objective. You'll have to explain and define what you mean by "moving" and "unmoving".

> It is of the same substance of Gods consciousness but of a lesser magnitude.

I guess anybody can say anything they want, but that doesn't get us anywhere. What is the source of this concept? What does it mean? What is the substantiation of it? What makes you think our consciousness is of the same substance as God's consciousness?

> Realize that mind is all you are ever experiencing.

My mind certainly processes all I am ever experience, but when I break my leg, my leg is experiencing something, too.

> It is the singularity.

Because, as I said, if all is a singularity (consciousness and mind), then there is no subject-object relationship, and therefore no possible diversity or distinctions basic to reality.

> That the bible is not literal but allegorical.

Ha, that's funny. Please read more carefully. I didn't say "allegorical" but rather "analogical". Anthropomorphism is an analogical (a way to make an analogy so that we can comprehend the concept) literary tool. The Bible has some allegory in it, certainly, but the Bible is not allegorical. So you better stand further back, because it's obvious you and I don't agree about this either. The Bible is rich in many literary forms: allegory, simile, metaphor, parable, historical narrative, poetry, music, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, and archetypes. Allegory is only one of many literary strategies used by the biblical writers.

> The passage says that Gods word is God

Ah, no it doesn't. It says "The Word," which is Jesus (v. 14) is God. It doesn't say God's Word (usually meaning the Bible) is God. But even if by "God's Word" you mean God's communication mechanism, that's not God either. Therefore "This is implying that Gods creation is God" is not true in the least, either.

> As far as the creative force behind existence is concerned, it's not a belief system so much as a deep revealed understanding from meditation, lucid dreaming, nature exploration, and the aid of plant teachers.

I guess I would question the truth potential of those sources of information as over against their potential for disinformation and self-deceit.

> This is an artificial definition and a misunderstanding of truth and the Christian God. Because truth is purposeful, personal, and communicative, then for God to embody truth He must also be purposeful, personal, and communicative, which the Bible says He is. And since He is those three things, then his reaching out to humanity is not only possible but expected.

You agreed above that truth is unchanging, unmoving, and eternal. You then go on to say that God reaches to humanity. Is this not God moving?

> This sounds like Hindu theology. This is not possible. If all is a singularity then there is no subject-object relationship, no particularity, only a bland unity, and therefore an emptiness and void of non-personality as ultimate. In such a worldview there is no distinction or diversity basic to reality, and therefore no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. Ultimate reality is a bare unity about which nothing may be said. If the universe is all of the same substance as God but of different magnitude, then humanity is just part of a cosmic chain of being, and personality and diversity are impossible. No, this worldview is not only implausible but impossible.

I'm speaking more specifically of our consciousness. It is of the same substance of Gods consciousness but of a lesser magnitude. God must be consciousness essentially. There is nothing more primary to a creator than mind itself. Just take a moment to look around you. Realize that mind is all you are ever experiencing. Mind is the totality of your experience. You can never see behind it. It is primary to existence. It is the singularity. I don't see how you draw the conclusion that personality and diversity are impossible within this understanding.

> Anthropomorphism in the Bible is merely an analogical literary tool, not any kind of literal description of God.

Well, now we are agreeing on something. That the bible is not literal but allegorical. This I will happily stand behind.
I beg to differ. "Word" in John 1.1 has Greek background as "the outward form by which the inward thought is expressed," in other words, the principle that controls the universe. John 1.1 is not about creation by the spoken word. Even in Genesis 1, "And God said" is God ordering the cosmos, not bringing it into being.

> That's missing my original point tho. The passage says that Gods word is God. This is implying that Gods creation is God.
It seems, if I may venture an observation, that you are holding fast to a vast body of belief systems.

As far as the creative force behind existence is concerned, it's not a belief system so much as a deep revealed understanding from meditation, lucid dreaming, nature exploration, and the aid of plant teachers.

> Exactly, they have the humility to take it all with a grain of salt.

Wow. This admission makes me think that free thinkers are really deniers of knowledge and "thinkers in the void," so to speak—so open minded that they deny what the rest of us consider to be knowledge, wisdom, and learning. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that's how you're coming across to me.

> The point I'm poorly illustrating is that the Christian God should be accessible without foreknowledge of the Bible or Jesus Christ.

Oh, He most certainly is. Romans 1 says that the knowledge of God is generally available to all people just by looking at creation (order, beauty, functionality, purpose, grandeur, complexity, morality, personality, conscience, knowledge, etc.)

> If the Christian God is actual truth then everything is moving relative to it.

This is true.

> Truth is truth because it is unchanging/unmoving/eternal.

This is true. Truth is objective.

> If these are the characteristic of the Christian God then this God is never moving and reaching for us. We must be the ones that tune into/reach towards it.

This is an artificial definition and a misunderstanding of truth and the Christian God. Because truth is purposeful, personal, and communicative, then for God to embody truth He must also be purposeful, personal, and communicative, which the Bible says He is. And since He is those three things, then his reaching out to humanity is not only possible but expected.

> Which is why I'm stating that this God should be accessible at all times and all places.

The Christian God is, according to the Bible. 1 Chronicles 28.9; Joshua 1.9; Isa. 41.10; Matth. 28.20, and many others.

> An omnipotent, omnipresent consciousness that propagates all of reality.

It depends what you mean by "propagates".

> We are of the same substance as God but of different magnitude.

This sounds like Hindu theology. This is not possible. If all is a singularity then there is no subject-object relationship, no particularity, only a bland unity, and therefore an emptiness and void of non-personality as ultimate. In such a worldview there is no distinction or diversity basic to reality, and therefore no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. Ultimate reality is a bare unity about which nothing may be said. If the universe is all of the same substance as God but of different magnitude, then humanity is just part of a cosmic chain of being, and personality and diversity are impossible. No, this worldview is not only implausible but impossible.

> What I deny is the anthropomorphic deity depicted in the bible.

Anthropomorphism in the Bible is merely an analogical literary tool, not any kind of literal description of God.

> The Bible depicts God creating the universe out of words.

I beg to differ. "Word" in John 1.1 has Greek background as "the outward form by which the inward thought is expressed," in other words, the principle that controls the universe. John 1.1 is not about creation by the spoken word. Even in Genesis 1, "And God said" is God ordering the cosmos, not bringing it into being.

It seems, if I may venture an observation, that you are holding fast to a vast body of belief systems.

> So I'm trying to understand your point. If a free thinker doesn't adhere to institutionalized beliefs, then they don't adhere to science, history, economics, jurisprudence, all of which through the eras have an institutionalized core of beliefs, methodologies, and presuppositions.

Exactly, they have the humility to take it all with a grain of salt. To not hold fast to any belief systems.

> So I'm trying to understand your point. These are existentialists who deny deductive knowledge and only subscribe to whatever is perceived via experiences?

The point I'm poorly illustrating is that the Christian God should be accessible without foreknowledge of the Bible or Jesus Christ. If the Christian God is actual truth then everything is moving relative to it. Truth is truth because it is unchanging/unmoving/eternal. If these are the characteristic of the Christian God, then this God is never moving and reaching for us. We must be the ones that tune into/reach towards it. Which is why I'm stating that this God should be accessible at all times and all places. Now, I have communed with spirit. An omnipotent, omnipresent consciousness that propagates all of reality. But this God was not the Christian God. It was actual God. The one that is ever-present and indwelling/emanating all of reality. Like an infinite ocean of mind that we are but a wave rising and falling upon. We are of the same substance as God but of different magnitude.

> For a Christian, Scripture is only one avenue to knowledge. We also pursue science, philosophy, math, logic, and reasoning that is deductive, inductive, and abductive.

Of course, but at the basis of all of this studying is the preconceived notion that the bible is true for the majority of Christians.
Evolution and scientific naturalism don't provide a foundation for knowledge and truth. Christianity, on the other hand, posits that an intelligent God created humankind with intelligence. Reason has come from reason, not from the processes of mutation and naturalism—the accidental by-products of matter plus time plus chance. Christianity, however, postulates that truth is objective and that it can be known. We have been created with reasoning brains able to weigh alternatives and derive conclusions.

I wouldn't deny that that reality comes from some form of hyper intelligence. See, i'm not an atheist. I know God. God is moving through everything. What I deny is the anthropomorphic deity depicted in the bible. The lowly God with all the jealousy, wrath, vengeance, masculinity, etc. God isn't A being. God is being itself. The universe is of the substance of God. The Bible even harps on this. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Bible depicts God creating the universe out of words. Yet the Bible also says that God is the word. If God is also it's word then the universe is literally made of the substance of God. It is all mind/all intelligence.

> A free-thinker is one who doesn’t adhere to any institutionalized beliefs.

So I'm trying to understand your point. If a free thinker doesn't adhere to institutionalized beliefs, then they don't adhere to science, history, economics, jurisprudence, all of which through the eras have an institutionalized core of beliefs, methodologies, and presuppositions.

> They choose to understand reality strictly through the lens of their own personal experiences.

So I'm trying to understand your point. These are existentialists who deny deductive knowledge and only subscribe to whatever is perceived via experiences?

> Their understanding of the world is fed to them through scripture.

For a Christian, Scripture is only one avenue to knowledge. We also pursue science, philosophy, math, logic, and reasoning that is deductive, inductive, and abductive.

> Often times Christians are convinced via scripture to deny their personal experiences and trust that the Bible is the only truth.

I'm not sure there's a shred of truth in this statement. Faith is making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable to hold that assumption. Christianity is primarily evidentiary, though, like all disciplines, there are some first principles and presuppositions that govern our worldview.

> That our minds are faulty and cannot be trusted, for all are sinners, all are flawed.

I'm not sure there's a shred of truth in this statement either. We believe that God has made our minds capable of reason and therefore eminently trustworthy. It's the scientific naturalists, who believe that everything came about through processes based on natural selection and genetic mutation, that have every reason to question the reliability of the mind. As Dr. Plantinga said, "If I believe in both naturalism and evolution, I have a defeater for my intuitive assumption that my cognitive faculties are reliable. And if I have a defeater for that belief, then I have a defeater for any belief I take to be produced by my cognitive faculties. That means I have a defeater for my belief that naturalism and evolution are true. I cannot rationally accept them. Therefore, if I can't accept them—the pillars of contemporary science—then there is serious conflict between naturalism and science."

Nietzsche said, "Only if we assume a God who is morally our like can 'truth' and the search for truth be at all something meaningful and promising of success. This God left aside, the question is permitted whether being deceived is not one of the conditions of life."

Thomas Nagel: "If we came to believe that our capacity for objective theory (e.g., true beliefs) were the product of natural selection, that would warrant serious skepticism about its results."

Barry Stroud: "There is an embarrassing absurdity in [naturalism] that is revealed as soon as the naturalist reflects and acknowledges that he believes his naturalistic theory of the world. … I mean he cannot say it and consistently regard it as true."

Even Darwin himself concurs: "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

> How does a Christian reconcile this?

Evolution and scientific naturalism don't provide a foundation for knowledge and truth. Christianity, on the other hand, posits that an intelligent God created humankind with intelligence. Reason has come from reason, not from the processes of mutation and naturalism—the accidental by-products of matter plus time plus chance. Christianity, however, postulates that truth is objective and that it can be known. We have been created with reasoning brains able to weigh alternatives and derive conclusions.

A free-thinker is one who doesn’t adhere to any institutionalized beliefs. They choose to understand reality strictly through the lens of their own personal experiences. Christianity is in direct opposition to this idea. Their understanding of the world is fed to them through scripture. Often times Christians are convinced via scripture to deny their personal experiences and trust that the Bible is the only truth. That our minds are faulty and cannot be trusted, for all are sinners, all are flawed. How does a Christian reconcile this? Especially one who considers themselves an intellectual?