Foundation concept 4 shows what traits the Creator cannot have.  Here I list traits I think a perfect Creator must have.

Note that each one of these characteristics are nothing more than "projections" of the constructive human qualities we find in our selves (which is actually quite a naïve approach!).  Undoubtedly there must be much more to a perfect Creator, but this is a good enough place to start.  Again I have found that thinking about perfection makes for an excellent spiritual enlightenment exercise.  Contemplating perfection with the insistence that the Creator is perfect, and we deserve this respect and attention, can be profoundly inspiring and fulfilling.  And the reshaping of our understanding of God is, I believe, the very definition of traveling down our spiritual path.

How would a perfect creator communicate with us and us with them?  Foundation concept 6 presents arguments (emotionally and intellectually) that suggest how such communication needs to work, but it is on this page where I speculate on how this actually happens.  To review, the requirements are:

• a perfect creator would communicate with everyone - no exceptions;
• a perfect creator would communicate with us no matter where;
• a perfect creator would communicate with us no matter when;
• a perfect creator would communicate using complete ideas instead of words (because words often mean different things to different people);
• a perfect creator would give us ideas no matter how little education we have had, and would not care if we failed a class or two, or even all of them;
• a perfect creator would communicate with us when we are awake or dreaming or drunk or high or even nearly unconscious;
• we would have the opportunity to communicate with a perfect creator in the same way and under the same conditions: it must be a two way channel.

And one last requirement is that we are completely free to reject, confuse, misinterpret, and ignore any or every idea sent to us.

Now, what mechanism exists that match these requirements ...

I suspect that the things we call inspiration, insight, instinct, gut feeling, might be some of the ways divine ideas reach us.  I do not think that every inspiration, insight, instinct, or gut feeling is divine, but these are certainly ways that meet the above requirements.

Now, when I first thought that God might speak via insight I was angry, and then scared.  Why?  Because I grew up in a world where my ability to solve problems with ingenious solutions was very important.  If my ingenuity really came from "God" then what made me special!?  Thus when this idea first presented itself ... I initially rejected it! ... until I became comfortable with the idea that I was really part of something much bigger than myself.  After that I began to see insight as the experience of briefly coming into contact with the "Universal Database" after thinking about a problem for a while.  By forming a pattern for the problem I wanted to solve in my mind, imagining as much detail as I could, and mulling over it for a while, things would "line up" and a flash of contact or insight would occur and fill in some new pieces to the puzzle.  Quite an ingenious mechanism actually!

One important argument against the idea that inspiration, instinct, and gut feeling are methods of divine communication is that these mechanisms produce ideas that are often quite bogus.  Lots of times I get an instinct about Lotto numbers that won't even return my investment.  Lots of other people have wild and highly emotional experiences that sometimes lead to completely uninteresting results.  Still I maintain that some of our inspirations, instincts, and gut feelings are quite possibly from a source much greater than our selves, and that part of our puzzle here on earth is to learn to recognize which instincts are folly and which are profound.

I also don't think our divine communication is deliberately confused.  A perfect creator does not need to deceive us.  But we are certainly allowed the option to confuse ourselves.  Why does the puzzle of life seem so difficult?  I believe it is because we are being allowed the opportunity to get the big prize!  Big rewards really don't happen without risk or challenge.

Communicating both ways

Communication however needs to be a two way street and so we can also define how a perfect creator would listen, as well as suggest ideas to us:

• a perfect creator would listen to everyone;
• a perfect creator would be listening all the time;
• a perfect creator would understand everything exactly - even the parts we don't know about yet;
• a perfect creator would not be fooled or misled;
• and a perfect creator would not need to, but could, act on whatever was useful whenever it will be useful.

If it is hard to imagine a perfect creator doing any or all of this, it may be because other humans have given us many many experiences of how this is not done.  As kids we learn about how this all works from less than perfect role models.  Even great parents have a ways to go.  These habits of communicating and understanding others then are carried with us until we deliberately set out to improve them.  If you sometimes feel like you are never heard or never understood, it is probably because at some important time of your life that is exactly the way it was.  But imagining or knowing something better is the first step in creating change in the future.

One can argue that destruction is a necessary element of growth as well.  As we create things to support growth, so too must these constructs eventually be destroyed to allow the organism to stand on its own and grow beyond these artificial limits.  Space and resources sometimes need to be reclaimed.  Ultimately, the universe's space and time will likely be reclaimed too, right? 

The key is balance.  At what point do the walls, boundaries, systems, procedures - all the artificial constructs we have created, impede, more than nurture, growth?  Many times we can't see the ill effects of our habitual routines and they need to get knocked down - shocking and possibly angering us - but ultimately letting us see new light.  But who gets to decide this?  I say only those with both insight and compassion.  Destruction out of anger sets us back instead of moves us forward, wastes valuable time and energy, and ultimately defies any profound purpose for our existance, thus making it fundamentally wrong. 

Thoughtfulness and precision must be used when tearing down constructs that are no longer useful.  Always hold compassion for those around us at the front of your mind.  If you can't, maybe sit down and just breath for a bit ... and then try again to seek out compassion and learn from it, before reinforcing a world without it.