Truth and Consequences

Creators gonna create, such that there is 

neither beginning nor end, which means that the Universe is conceived as a permanent cycle of impermanent "creations," or as a "coeternal" cycle of temporal worlds (Schuon).

No offense, but a little imagination, please. Get over yourcosmos! Limiting God to a single creation -- this one -- is insanely presumptuous. Just as God is beyond our conception, so too is the divine creativity. Thus, we need to adopt an apophatic approach to both terms. 

Which we already do in the form of God's infinitude, AKA the divine freedom or All-Possibility. 

Not that those other creations are any of our business. To say anything about what they might be like would be pure speculation -- like wondering what it's like to be a bat -- except to say that they would have to obey certain metacosmic rules that are in the nature of things. 

In short, in no cosmos is Impossibility a possibility. 

[C]osmic and coeternal manifestation is necessary because God is necessary, whereas "creation" is free because it is not "the manifestation" but "a manifestation." 

God is in fact free in His "modes of expression," but not in His "ways of being," so to speak, and this is the case since the perfection of freedom and the perfection of necessity must both be found in the divine Nature... (ibid.).

On the one hand this may sound sketchy or insolent. What's the word, Petey?

I believe the mot juste is lèse-majesté.

Thaaaat's right, Petey, that's the one. 

Again, our particular creation is simply caught up in the endless cycle of creation as such. It would be out of line to suggest that God engenders "Sons," but it's perfectly kosher to say that the Trinity itself is fruitful beyond our wildest and thensome. Who can put limits on God's creativity? Amateurs, that's who.

The physical world in which we live, the objectively observed universe around us, is only part of an inconceivably vast system of worlds (Steinsaltz).

That's interesting, man: system. These other worlds cannot be radically separate from us, only relatively so, since God is one, ie., the overarching principle of Unity itself. These diverse worlds would have to somehow reflect one another, but how? 

Persons?

That's gotta be it: a person is the thing that is both radically unique -- AKA the individual -- and yet the most radically related of all. Therefore, we must be on a micro scale what those other worlds are on a macro scale. Each of them is related to the Principle, so if we're on the right track, then these other universes are more like cousins than strangers.

You said you weren't going to speculate.

I'm not. Besides, we're done speculating. Let's stick with what we know about God and can know about God, first via reason and then revelation, bearing in mind that the latter transcends the former but can never negate it altogether.

For example, when it is said that "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made," it is simply reiterating that reason is rooted in Reason, or language in Word, or thoughts in the Thinker.

A few posts back we mentioned a brainwave we had -- that if revelation can accommodate science, then how much more should it be capable of accommodating metaphysics, AKA the perennial wisdom that cannot not be? 

For example, if scripture reflects the view of common experience that the sun circles the earth but science proves otherwise, then it's not only acceptable to reinterpret scripture in light of heliocentrism, it is obligatory. So long as we are certain of the science.

I was about to say "absolutely certain" of the science, which, of course, would be a rʘʘkie mistake. Science can be absolutely certain of precisely zilch, except of its own relativity. Which is not nothing. Far from it! Falsifiability is a key principle in the philosophy of science, but falsifiability itself isn't falsifiable, nor empiricism empirically verifiable.

It all comes down to Truth and Consequences: 

To say that there is such a thing as truth is to speak in absolute terms. The notions of "being," "reality," "truth," and "absoluteness" are thus intrinsically related. Reason cannot prove them; on the contrary, it takes them for granted, that is to say, cannot function in their absence (Bina & Ziarani).

Truth --> Reality --> Being --> Absolute: these are all fungible into one another, in this or any other universe, or any other inhabitant of said universe, no? 

Correct: the isness of truth is objectively true here and everywhere, both in and "outside" God, in this or any other cosmos:

--Truth has its root in the notion of the Absolute. 

--Without this ultimate point of reference, every logical argument is devoid of a foundation. 

--Man cannot be certain of anything in the absence of this notion, because as soon as he becomes absolutely certain of anything without the implicit assumption of the notion of the Absolute, logically, he must let go of his certitude of it and start over again in a vicious circle of doubt (ibid).

Demonstration: "I am absolutely certain that God doesn't exist. Therefore God exists."

Really, it's just the law of noncontradiction writ large.