But we should note that in this context, even “creation” takes on a whole other meaning. “Creation”, the word, implies time–it implies that something is brought into existence–a before when it didn’t exist and an after when it did–but that doesn’t mean we can’t infer an equivalent in the timeless context. In the timeless context, creation becomes dependence–that is, “creation” depends on the “creator” for its existence. The creator doesn’t go through a process by which the creation is brought into being, but rather the roots of the creation’s existence can be traced back to the creator–like the foundations of a building can be traced back to the initial concrete that was poured in order to erect the building–both coexisting at the same time (“timeless” in a sense)–but definitely an order by which the building and the foundation are related by dependence (the building depending on the foundation). So while there is no “before” and “after” in a timeless context, there can still be an order of dependencies, a relation between that which must exist in order for something else to exist and that something else.
How significant are you?
You’ve created. You are a creator. That significance was bestowed by your creation.
Creator and creation create each other.
You are. Your creation is. Both you and your creation are. In that sense equally significant.
Creator and creation create each other concurrently.
As creation develops so does creator. The process of making creation is the process of making creator.
The painter becomes the painter as the paintings become the paintings.
Yes. Being.
So you agree.
Entity is already there. Like a student. The entity becomes creator like a student becomes professor.
Creation makes entity a creator. Creation does not bring entity into existence.
In other words things do not suddenly appear from nothing or from nonexistence. Things develop, things arise from other things, things are created from other things.
Extent, capacity, power.
However that’s not actually what was stated.
I stated “existence as a whole would encompass, would exceed God or would encompass and exceed a creator”.
Existence is not just creator and creation. Existence is destroyer and destruction as well. Existence is every and all.
Existence does exceed creator. Existence does exceed creation. Indeed, existence exceeds both creator and creation.
All existence is all existence. Creation is only part of existence, the universe is only part of existence.
Hence use of the term “existence” and not “universe”.
Note I am not claiming adherence to nor rejection of Biblical principles. This is merely discussion.
The creation is the creator’s knowledge and understanding projected outward…
Like art is the artist’s representation of reality, or his reaction to reality.
Technologies are the mind’s externalization of its knowledge and understanding of how his own body/mind works - represented using a different medium.
Like memes extend genes, so too art and technology, all human creations are extensions of man’s knowledge and understanding of himself and the world, and how he relates the two.
Abraham’s one-god is exactly that: a representation of man’s abstraction of himself as an ideal - an idealization of his self-awareness.
He orients this absolute one as the mind, projected as an incorporeal otherness. From this mind/body relationship - as absolute immortal good, to a divided multiplicity of corporeal mortal evil - we reach current Transsexualism. Paradise would be the noetic re-turn to a universal mind.
In Judaism this representation of if the collective Jewry, idealized as the ‘chosen’, or the ones they choose to worship above all others - spiritual elitism.
Christianity and Islam universalize this collective - like Marxism - setting up the dichotomy of those who willingly belong to the collective - the good - and those who refuse to accept their belonging - the evil.
God is a creation of man, inverted, i.e., nihilism.
Man creates a creator creating him, essentially he wants to engineer himself into the ideal represented by god of the Scriptures: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, absolute good, i.e., all-inclusive.
Messianic.
genes are meme carriers
just saying
Declarations as “arguments”
You are not already cognizant that the genetic code is encoded to decode, to correct noise (aka PREVENT mutation of meaning) & synthesize functioning shapes that lose function when they lose shape?
It’s an alphabet with words & sentences. Our hardwired programming is written in it, and it allows for variation during a lifetime that may effect future generations if our mom’s choices or environment (partially composed by choices) influenced our epigenetics in the womb, & her mom messed with hers, & ours effect our in utero (or whatever) offspring, & so forth.
Genes are like volts carrying amp memes & environmental conditions are the ohms — the whole process (physical & informed & synthesized) being a watt. Take that with a grain of salt, as I have zero clue what I’m talking about.
Sure, if how we’re measuring significance is in terms of how real it is, how much a part of being it is.
Yes, but in completely different senses.
Yes, everything is one and the same in this sense. The shit I take is one and the same as the pyramids of Egypt in this sense; they are both part of being, part of the same one universe. But obviously, this doesn’t get rid of the distinction between them. I can still tell the difference between my shit and the pyramids of Egypt–I don’t typically confuse the two–likewise, painting and painter are still distinct, creation and creator are still distinct.
Huh? You cross out probably the most important part of my point and you ask if I agree? I don’t think I do.
Yes, I would say we are speaking the same language here (approximately). Creator brings the creation into existence in a real ontological sense, but the creation brings the creator into existence in a merely conceptual sense–that is, we now conceptualize the creator as “creator”.
I absolutely agree! (You see how easy conversation becomes when we nail down exactly the meaning of our words? 
)
Of course! No one ever said it wasn’t.
Creation makes creator isn’t actually correct, but a “creation” implies a creator.
But what is creation? I would suggest that we and the ancients use or used the word for that which we/they see, and we know from science that we see a lot less than is evidently around us. Our brains select what we see, which is quite helpful and enables us to survive.
The fact that what we see is incredibly complex, albeit sometimes paradoxical, suggests in some cases design, and in others evolution, which I don’t see as contradictory. Even if we do not anthropomorphise our observations, there seems to be an intention visible, a potential that was waiting for the right circumstances to explode into existence.
This might not align with an engineering God, but it does beg the question as to why such a potential for life as we see it exists, and why we are even able to ask that question.
Yes. The statement “creation makes a creator” is nonsense because it violates the grammatical rule of the well-formed sentence and thus also logic.
If, for example, the producer produces his product, this does NOT mean that the product produces its producer.
Such phrases are allowed in lyrical language, but not in prosaic language.
That’s easy. Those who do not understand this do not understand much else.
For me, the authors of such sentence constructions try to prepare humans for the transformation from humans to transhumans (whatever that is: it is what comes after th end of humans).
But then how certain is that such trans humans are not really creating the rules of grammer?
How the fuck can anyone determine what is nonsense, right?
How can we ever determine how to define words?
Let’s look in a dictionary.
What’s under uni-corn?
Well, if it’s in the dictionary it’s real.
How about flat earth…
How can we ever determine what is most probable and not waste our time on nonsense and insane fucks?
Can’t think of a thing. 
How can we ever define ‘female’…it can mean anything.
I’m “fractured & fragmented”, because the more I see the “logic” in one direction I stop, scratch my arse and realize the other direction also makes good points.
How can I ever break free from my conundrum?
Who needs words when one can get to the source in other ways than that?
You are not gonna disclaim all the varieties William James described as resourceful attempt to get to the bottom of things?
Incidentally thanks for the eye of the tiger early on when you still thought I was not really trying to be funny,
Just sayin’
The Tyger
BY WILLIAM BLAKE
Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
In what distant deeps or skies.
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire?
And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat.
What dread hand? & what dread feet?
What the hammer? what the chain,
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp.
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?
When the stars threw down their spears
And water’d heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?
Tyger Tyger burning bright,
In the forests of the night:
What immortal hand or eye,
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?
Cross my heart
and hope to die
God’s existence is infinite, hence God did not create himself and we humans did not create God.
God creates through evolution multiverses and beings who can believe or disbelieve in God.
The history of religion among us humans strongly hints at an evolution of enlightenment.
I would not go so far as Spinoza in noting that God and Nature are two words for the same thing.
The creator is involved in creation,is not the creation itself. But the creations themselves, as Bob noted, hint at the existence of a Creator.
Right, except never believed in a clear cut distinction between evolution and creationism
I agree. Thanks for the Blake!
These declarative exchanges are mazing.
No reasoning, no evidence, nothing but statements of knowing the absoltue…god
From a book?
A non-existent being existing as a myth in a book, described in detail.
Why does what has no beginning and no end require a ‘creator’?
If this creator is infinite, then why not take this middle-man away and leave the existent as the infinite?
Because the feeble soul needs a father protector…because the mortal mind needs immortality to hope.
If love is the most creative thing ever and is not real without demonstration, then demonstration makes demonstrator—and the creator is both planner and pantser, co-creatively. Existence & Essence (binary) are mutually productive (m.p.) just like being & doing (m.p. binary). Existence is being. Doing is being doing essence — a harmonic triad. If you’re not doing/existing (m.p. binary) eternal (formal/final) essence (m.p. trinary), you’re doing (creating) a wholotta nothing (nihil… privation that shows up the wholeness for what it is).
Lorikeet, your assumption that the physical universe has no beginning and no end flies in the face of established science without counter-evidence or counterargument. Calling scientists naïve man-children is not an argument.
Lorikeet,
The OP was opinion. May I not express my own without having to joust with left-brain opinion, which excludes much of human experience?
The Book? I have read many books. I thought this was a religion forum, not philosophy 101.
And can I not critique your opinion, correcting its emotionally founded declarations?
Beyond left- right-brained subjectivity there’s the objective world.
It is the standard that determines which is more and which is less plausible.
With no beginning and end there’s no necessity for a creator…saving you the trouble of coming up with double-stadard excuses as to why the creator need not be created, as if existence must.
You begin with the goal already determined…so most of your kind reject free-will, reflecting this self-serving immutable determinism.
I begin with the experienced.
I see no beginnings and no ends. I see no absolutes, no immutable, indivisible, singularities.