Well obviously, it comes from the same or a +1 more logical or +1 more illogical place than wherever God came from LOL!! Then God is false too. If +1 cannot exist outside of totality then totality does not include all things. Therefore totality is not as you define it. In your confused definition, totality cannot include +1 outside of itself. But Gilbert can! You've no clue. Go study Cantor and Goedal for starters you plonker. LOL!!! It does not include itself +1. You say so. So the definition you gave for totality as including everything is actually quite contradictory and illogical. Your definition of totality cannot include everything. Exactly! Game set and match to Gilbert yet again. You're really rubbish at this.
Well obviously, it comes from the same or a +1 more logical or +1 more illogical place than wherever God came from LOL!! ....and the dump in your trousers, stu + 1 dump in his pants, though descriptive does not alter the equation at all. Shit on the inside or outside of stu=stu no matter how one looks at it... Adding to stu what is already in stu is shitty math... Then God is false too. Then your "reasoning" is false too. If +1 cannot exist outside of totality then totality does not include all things. Therefore totality is not as you define it. There is nothing outside of totality Goober... In your confused definition, totality cannot include +1 outside of itself. There is nothing outside of totality Goober... But Gilbert can! Gilbert is illogical then, which perhaps is why you worship Gilbert. There is nothing outside of totality by definition. Totality includes everything. Tough concept for you apparently, I suggest a remedial and most basic class in basic concepts... You've no clue. You've no clue. So there. Nana boober... Go study Cantor and Goedal for starters you plonker. Go make an argument and stop withe the TK9 insanity stuff... LOL!!! Trollish, eh? It does not include itself +1. You say so. So the definition you gave for totality as including everything is actually quite contradictory and illogical. Your definition of totality cannot include everything. Yes, totality includes everything by definition. Nothing exists outside of the totality, because the totality is everything. Exactly! Exactly wrong... Game set and match to Gilbert yet again. There is no game set and match in your masturbatory game between you and Gilbert... You're really rubbish at this. You are really just plain rubbish, at this, and that, and everything in between...
It sounds like you are postulating another conclusion - that of initial awareness. It still appears to be a shift in dimensionality - from 2 dimensional (flat) to 3 (curved). However there is no requirement for awareness that necessarily must occur. Also, I go back to a traditional definition of God, which usually ascribes to it not only independent consciousness, but also intent. "Totality" still does not address these, as it seems more simply a "state of being". Without the addition of those aspects, it would seem Totality is < God as God is usually defined.
I am proposing an initial situation, i.e. awareness, pure consciousness. Without self awareness, without awareness of any object, just pure consciousness. (Please note when I say initial, the first response is to think in terms of time, as in which came first. Like which came first, the chicken or the egg. Imagine that there is no first, there is just an eternal cycle of chicken and egg. In an eternal cycle, there is no first, there is no initial, there is only an eternal cycle. The totality has no first or last, as the totality is eternal, beyond the concept of cause and effect, time and space, first and second, etc. When viewing from a time perspective, there is a first time, but from the perspective of God and totality, there is no first time, as there is no time factor to eternity. Eternity is timeless. Eternal cycles have no beginning, no end, no first, no last, etc.) The first condition of a human being to have any perception, either through the senses or in the mind/intellect is awareness, consciousness... I have no problem with your traditional definition of God, I just don't think your definition is complete. What I am suggesting that both flat and curved consciousness exist simultaneously, and have done so eternally without any starting or ending point. It would be true then to say that God is personal because of the self awareness that comes when God is aware of God, and it is also true that simultaneously God is impersonal and only pure awareness... Conscious of God's own existence through the process of being aware of God's own existence which includes an observer, an observed, and the process of observation. Both impersonal and personal simultaneously, which yields God as being only one, and being all simultaneously. The oneness of God is never lost and is eternally present, and the multiplicity generated by God's awareness of God is also never lost and is eternally present. Totality then includes the pure state of being, and the equally pure state of becoming, and the equally pure state of being aware of becoming, and the equally pure state of observer, observed, and process of observation. I know this could never happen in "real time" but "real time" is a product of, and a consequence of not having an awareness of or identification with timelessness. Human beings are unaware of timelessness as they are identifying with spot existence, meaning they exist at a particular spot at a particular time. Human beings are not omnipresent, nor are they eternal. However, the nature of God is easily understood in the following: God exists at no particular time in no particular place, which means God transcends the limits of time and space. God is in all possible time and in all possible space, and also in no time and no space. This co-existence of opposite values is not possible when bound to spot existence and spot existence thinking. From a spot existence point of view, it is impossible for it to be raining and not raining at a specific time and a specific space, but for God this is not impossible as God is capable of both conditions simultaneously. Which is why in God's dimension, if you will, it is always raining and not raining simultaneously. God's very nature is totality, which is why God=totality of existence and non existence, of self awareness which generates an observer, the observed and the process of observation combined with a continuity of pure awareness without the process of self awareness. The ocean is calm and flat in one area, and wavy and stormy in another area, and the ocean remains always as the totality of the ocean...So the ocean is wavy and not wavy simultaneously. Totality is not just a flat state of being, it is a simultaneous state of lively awareness which generates multiplicity and the singular state of pure awareness. You have to let go of the limits of time and space to grok this...
This is going back to basic question "what was there BEFORE the Big Bang?" That is the state of timelessness. You are presenting a conclusion of consciousness. That is an alternate word for what traditionally has been called "God". But again, it is a premise that starts as a conclusion. If Totality is defined with initial awareness, then a Totality with lack of awareness never exists, so it lacks unawareness in it's Totality. Or perhaps it is missing "lack of consciousness" by that definition.
Before time there was timelessness, but if there is an eternal cycle of timelessness, which is a constant, and and eternal cycle of birth and death of time, then from that total perspective the creation, maintenance and eventual destruction of time is an eternal situation. Look, you are awake most of the day, right? You are aware most of the day. Then you go to sleep and lose awareness for some period of time. While asleep the world ceases to exist for your mind, time ceases to exist for your mind, etc. Yet you continue as you even while in deep sleep. You are unbroken, even though you alternate from a cycle of awake to sleep. You had a birth, you will have a death... That is the eternal cycle within the cycle of time of the universe. The universe may have had a beginning, a "new day" just like when you wake up to a "new day." However, the cycle of one day to the next is not really a creation of a new day, it is a continuity of a cycle. I am suggesting that we have both, an unbroken eternal cycle of God which has God's potency manifest aspect, i.e. the physical universe and also an unbroken eternal cycle of God which is unmanifest constantly...and both are within the nature of God, the totality of God being both the unmanifest aspect and the manifest aspect. I am not suggesting that time is unreal, any more than a dream is unreal. A dream is a real dream, time is real time, but time comes to an end, just like the day, then night has its time, then day comes again. Eternal cycles of birth, death, rebirth, etc. combined with an unchanging and unbroken eternal non birth, non death nature of God are all within the totality of God, which is why God is totality. The totality includes everything, manifest or unmanifest. If you are only looking at one part of a time line, you are not seeing the entire story of eternity... What was before the so called big bang was no big bang, and before that was a big bang, and before that was no big bang, and before that was another big bang...eternally cycling between the two. Think of it like this: God is awake and the universe appears. God goes to sleep and the universe disappears, but God is always there, just like you are always there during your lifetime when you alternate between sleep and waking. The difference is that God has no lifespan, where that which is within the universe does have a lifespan... You are stuck in looking at this situation from a time bound perspective. I suggest you think of this differently, from a non time perspective in which periods of time come and go, and both time and non time are just part of the eternal cycle which is timeless...
This is the concept of Brahma - opening and closing his eyes. However, the definition of Totality starts and ends with the same premise as ascribed to God. So it ends up with the same debate as just using "God".
You have the definition of totality as starting and ending, and I am saying that totality is beyond starting and ending... This is not a word game, but man is so lacking in an experience of an unlimited totality both conceptually and experientially that I have no choice but to try to use words to describe what is beyond words...
no need to apologize mate most of the stuff in this eternitotality is beyond words anyway try love for instance