Mind and matter are the mutual antipodes of our metaphysical deliberations. The tension between them shows no sign of resolution.
In the same vein, the Big Bang is the antipode of God. The Big Bang is writ large across the heavens. God, apparently, is rather more bashful, or is on a major Sabbatical.
On a microcosmic scale the atom is the logical antipode of the self. The atom is tangibly omnipresent, while the existence of the self remains problematic.
The thesis of immaterialism is that these appearances are deceptive, but only for a very good reason. If there is deception here, it is certainly on a grand scale.
Given a creative deity, then surely there would be creatures and a story line. Is not the scale of our world perhaps overdoing it? But first things first.
Why should we even suppose that a creative mind could exist without a brain of some rather elaborate sort, like ours? If a body is not necessary for the creator, why should it be necessary for the creatures, unless, perhaps, we are the body of the creator? After the fact?
One point is that the brain seems to have much more to do with the body than with the mind. There is a strong logical connection between body and brain. We can hardly conceive of one without the other. Yet there is no such stricture between brain and mind. Disembodied spirits are a staple of every culture. It is simply that thoughts seem to have no internal spatial coordination or identity whatsoever. The is no conceivable relation between mental and physical space.
Although a thought might exist without a body, we can hardly imagine a thought without a self. An unperceived thought is nonsensical, as is perception without a perceiver. Neither could there be a perceiver without perception.
If our most serious minds can imagine a spontaneous Big Bang, why do they seem to have difficulty imagining a spontaneous self? Can you and I?
A major hurdle is the space-time barrier. All of the selves we know and imagine exist in space and time. We try to imagine God existing in eternity, with scant success. Our spontaneous, self-organizing self will be responsible for its own spatial and temporal orderings. We are told that the Big Bang is quite capable of manufacturing its own space-time manifold out of God knows what.
In a few billion years matter has organized itself into selves, under formidable circumstances, we are told. Imagine what those spontaneous selves might dream up in an eternity. This is not to be flippant about anything, it's just that we must constantly struggle with the language in these realms. But don't underestimate the ultimate, creative power of the Logos. We are told that God did not.
A very important question is the multiplicity. Cosmologists have no trouble imagining an uncountable infinity of spontaneous universes, each in its own possibly infinite space-time cocoon. What about our spontaneous selves? What would be the ground rules of their cosmic intercourse?
Gods will be Gods. If intercourse is possible, it is inevitable. And how could it not be possible? Where is the supply of cosmic condoms? Where are the communication barriers. Indeed, their might ever only be one spontaneous self. Its actualizing potency distorts the cosmic virtual potency in an unmistakable fashion.
Regardless of whether the other selves were spontaneous or cloned in some fashion or both, from then on, the only conceivable ground rule of intercourse would be love. To put it the other way, the bad seed is ostracized. I think we can presume that cosmic ostracism has its instructive aspect. I don't think any of us would be here if we had not somewhere failed in love. Even Her Spontaneous Selfishness must have had her lapses. We all participate. We all partake. If She had not 'failed' at Self-love, we wouldn't be here, would we? [An cynic might suppose we are a cosmic social disease, but that would be most unfair!]
I do ramble, but there is a lot of territory and not an abundance of signposts. I am just about as much along for the ride here as any reader might be, trust me!