Defining divinity
the cosmic blender =
information procreation [agitation]
_____________________________.
information degradation [entropy]
…blend/create.
Place all personhood and all things into the cosmic blender and you will end up with no personhood and no things. Yet that is not God, it is the divine feminine/infinite [Crone or Crom in ancient Celtic [also Caugant – the divine infinite]]. It manifests the infinite universe and so must be equivalent and hence equally without end, so I think they are eternal principles. However, just because its not linear, that doesn’t mean the house [the whole infinite thing] doesn’t require foundations, and so God is the eternal creator of that. I wouldn’t wish to define God any further than that. He [well, ‘it’, but that sounds impolite] is an eternal creator and necessarily outside of existence ~ in meta-position at least.
In which case, it is not the cosmic blender nor the creator which manifest universe. It is a combination of all the eternal principles working in unison, which manifests all existence.
We/everything are hence composed of both an existence and a non existent element. The undefinable ‘God’ is an element and principle in all things, but itself has no form. If we take a given object and give it force, the Newton’s third law will happen, if we swing a stone on a string you get centrifugal/petal forces. In our minds you get an information sponge [brain] manifest in and of the cosmic blender, and then there is us – the non-existent factor.
Now put the whole thing together and you get, the Tao.
A further consideration is that there is probably nothing which determines sex nor sexuality in the eternal principles. There is no objective thingness of the masculine or feminine, and gods at best are only representative of said principles? or can principles have being. after all, information is the result of principles, and we are a composition of information, and we have being!
_