[NOBLE]

Everyone keeps talking about "creation" and the "creator." I highly doubt many of you even have a clear sense of what "creation" means or what constitutes something having been "created."
For me, there is no such thing as "creation" because the concept implies a linear view of time. I don't believe time is linear, I believe it is cyclical (like a circle) in nature, and in a circle, there is no beginning or end whilst any and every point is potentially the beginning and the end. I think the idea of linear time where we're ever moving from some theoretical "beginning" in the distant past forward into the future is an illusion that was created by what scientists refer to as "The Big Bang" and substantiated by the universe's expansion. Time is omni-directional and not linear-forward the way our finite point of view suggests.
"Creation" as most of us understand it isn't real because the process we call "creation" is perpetual rather than static. EVERYTHING is in a perpetual state of being created and recreated in each moment, and what functions in that perpetual creation is everything else, so there is no one thing that is the creator.
The idea of things being "created" also presupposes that there are absolute existences. I believe nothing exists absolutely. Things only exist relative to other things and everything is dimensionally larger than what we see. What I mean is when you look at something, you only see a 3-dimensional object, but that object has a larger 4th-dimensional (time) existence and in the higher dimensions, it's existence might overlap and merge with the existence of something else which in our 3rd dimension you would consider a separate existence. So to talk of it being "created" becomes even more ridiculous when you contemplate its larger dimensional existences.
To cut it short, I don't believe in creation (as it is commonly understood) because time isn't linear and existence is relative. And I think for anyone to truly refine their view on "the creator" they would have to first fully answer for themselves exactly what it means to say that something was "created."

[NOBLE]

Everyone keeps talking about "creation" and the "creator." I highly doubt many of you even have a clear sense of what "creation" means or what constitutes something having been "created."
For me, there is no such thing as "creation" because the concept implies a linear view of time. I don't believe time is linear, I believe it is cyclical (like a circle) in nature, and in a circle, there is no beginning or end whilst any and every point is potentially the beginning and the end. I think the idea of linear time where we're ever moving from some theoretical "beginning" in the distant past forward into the future is an illusion that was created by what scientists refer to as "The Big Bang" and substantiated by the universe's expansion. Time is omni-directional and not linear-forward the way our finite point of view suggests.
"Creation" as most of us understand it isn't real because the process we call "creation" is perpetual rather than static. EVERYTHING is in a perpetual state of being created and recreated in each moment, and what functions in that perpetual creation is everything else, so there is no one thing that is the creator.
The idea of things being "created" also presupposes that there are absolute existences. I believe nothing exists absolutely. Things only exist relative to other things and everything is dimensionally larger than what we see. What I mean is when you look at something, you only see a 3-dimensional object, but that object has a larger 4th-dimensional (time) existence and in the higher dimensions, it's existence might overlap and merge with the existence of something else which in our 3rd dimension you would consider a separate existence. So to talk of it being "created" becomes even more ridiculous when you contemplate its larger dimensional existences.
To cut it short, I don't believe in creation (as it is commonly understood) because time isn't linear and existence is relative. And I think for anyone to truly refine their view on "the creator" they would have to first fully answer for themselves exactly what it means to say that something was "created."