“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Your conceptions of beginnings and endings make an explanation of such a situation most difficult, for in your terms the beginning of the [universe] is meaningless—that is, in those terms (underlined) there was no beginning (intently).

The [universe] is, as I explained, always coming into existence, and each present moment brings its own built-in past along with it. You agree on accepting as fact only a small portion of the large available data that compose any moment individually or globally. You accept only those data that fit in with your ideas of motion in time. As a result, for example, your archeological evidence usually presents a picture quite in keeping with your ideas of history, geological eras, and so forth.

The universe formed out of what God is.

The universe is the natural extension of divine creativity and intent, lovingly formed from the inside out (underlined)—so there was consciousness before there was matter, and not the other way around.

2. I see correlations between the “flat view of reality” given to us by our physical senses, as Seth maintains, and the “flat” view of the universe that cosmologists perceive when they look way out into space. In his general theory of relativity, Einstein postulated that space can curve, and this has been shown to happen near our sun. Yet when scientists examine our universe of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, they see space as essentially flat, instead of curving in upon itself as it should over those enormous distances. Nor can the big-bang theory of the origin of the universe account for the homogeneity of a flat universe. The inflationary model can explain both the appearance of flatness and homogeneity—but, like all theories, it poses other problems that have yet to be resolved.