What is the ultimate form of Existence?

My school teacher in Norwegian prose called me an existentialist once, after intercepting a note I wrote in class. He was shocked to discover it was a poem intended for a girl in my class, and ended up interpreting it in front of the whole class, to everyone's great amusement (including my own).

The quotation marks around 'creation' might not be necessary if it is understood that we are speaking about our creation...

That word "creation" is often used in very creative (!) ways, Cyracuz.

Often theists will ask, "So how do you explain Creation without a creator."

I guess it is a form of Begging the Question, but you gotta admit, it is creative.

It is. But there is a creator for creation, no doubt. Next time you get that question, tell the one asking it to look in a mirror.

Why thank you Frank, your response is encouraging in this dysphoric conflation of dispiriting punic persiflage

A simplistic response as you infer, evolution being, well, automatic and creation being an ongoing process

However—and herewith the Devil’s Advocate-- it’s really hard to explain how everything seems to have been “adjusted,” in some cases within a fraction of one percent, to permit the evolution of life, without which the entire Megillah seems a dreary and pointless exercise of particles meaninglessly bouncing off one another

Remember what I told the elderly Jehova's Witness when he asked if I believed in a creator? I responded that I grew like a tree; I was not created (i.e., constructed) like a wooden house.

Semantics

More than "mere semantics".

Well yes, no, nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else after all

The capacity to affect. There's little point in asserting that something exists if it's a perpetual island that can't impinge on anything else and vice versa. The same even if distinctions/individuals are posited as relying on a common or underlying mediator to deliver and determine their influences; the latter source would provide their potent being or give their being any value by delivering effective information about them to each other, with whatever applicable consequences.

If people truly insisted on direct contact or dissolving merger with some supposed "general and ultimate existence" rather than the knowledge that perception and reasoning provide, then it would be the emptiness or absence of all after death, or prior to fetal brain development. Such raw, unconditioned being minus consciousness isn't much useful to a cognitive agent that's no longer manifested and understood either (as well as functioning). So such agents are stuck with how the influences of things conform to the rules and organizings of their immediate sensory presentations and later/ongoing reflective thoughts about them.

"The capacity to affect"--almost a synonym for Nietzsche's "will to power".

Eth, JH, JL, there’s a subtle truth herein concealed. Indeed evolution is the capacity to affect and effect

Nothing is created out of nothing'

I dunno as the Devil’s advocate. There’s a perfectly serious theory that something does arise from nothing

Nothing that is natural, and natural or nature the core of our existence

...one thing you will learn in life is that there are perfectly silly serious theory's just about anything...even nothingness.

that something does arise from nothing

To the contrary nothingness seems to most natural condition imaginable. One of the most profound questions is, “Why is there anything at all”

However it might prove that nothingness entails contradiction or paradox, explaining why it has to become something

DTrue Fil but I mention it’s not my own thinking so mayhap thou wouldn’st place me in that category

On the other hand, however, see #537 above

Heaven, Hell, a deep hole, or scattered ashes. I'll settle for scattered ashes.

Not me

I require a condition of infinite mass and zero diameter, a sort of nothingness, but to skirt various paradox and contradiction assert its duration to be zero