Re: If the gods ‘exist’ then how can god do so? …or what does that mean for monotheis Hi Z, You said, "…I wonder if we have to include the universe in that there cannot be a ‘not-universe-existing’ space." --> I think this puts a limit on how far infinity goes. I do not think we can do that. "So the universe at any stage in its history is still the singularity. In this way we can see a pre universe with a singularity in it, where that pre universe singularity is of the previous universe." --> I disagree. If the universe is the one and only singularity, there cannot be a pre-universe. "…the absolute contains all, hence it has the ‘all’ version’ of light!" --> If the light is the all, then there cannot be non-light. "…Or ‘is’ the absolute?" --> Either the absolute equals the light or it does not. You seem to be leaning towards the idea it does, while I am leaning in the opposite direction. "…bliss is the absence of things/apsects…" --> That is a fascinating idea, although I do not think I agree. "…you have to have things to stop you feeling bliss, so a lack of things = bliss." --> Again, a fascinating idea. But there are two different ways of looking at it. One idea is that there is bliss and there is non-bliss — a duality. But I contend that there is an even higher level of ‘existence’ where even such a thing as a bliss/non-bliss continuum disappears. "…So why not simply use different terms for the two kinds of darkness, so people don’t get confused?" --> Good question. There are a couple of reasons. First, there is the idea of God is light. This is very powerful symbolism, and I think a lot of people cannot get away from it. Another problem is that we are dealing with very cerebral ideas here, ideas that common people cannot easily grasp. I have a friend of mine named Tony, he is a really nice guy, but all of this theory is waaay over his head. Another thing is that theists refuse to accept the idea that the absolute is not God, and they love to describe the absolute as darkness, which causes people to confuse darkness-as-absolute with darkness-as-evil, which advances the theists’ cause. We are fighting a very big uphill battle here. But you are right, we need to look at new terminology. What do you propose instead of light/darkness? Ceugant/what? Also, there is the issue of the four corresponding concepts (absolute/spirit/matter/universe, the Christian darkness/father/mother/son, The Hindu Parabrahma/Brahma/Pradhana/Brahmā, and the Jewish Ayin/Ain Soph/Ain Soph Aur/Demiurgos. Lastly, let’s not forget the Buddhist Sunyata/Avalokiteshvara.) Any new terminology must take this into consideration too. "…i think our views are very similar aside from the semantics, but they are important to peoples understanding of wisdom." --> I agree. And I think this has been a very helpful discussion in helping to iron out confusing concepts and nonstandard terminology.