The Existence of God: Abstract and Jayson

Define “violently”…neurotransmitters are constantly running into receptors…I think they can even run into themselves…Te speed at which something is moving depends largely at the rate of perception…and even so as to whether something is violent simply because it interacts quickly, or by a sudden alteration is hard to assert, with regards especially to all particular things.

I wouldn’t say anything is random either…I don’t think i was implying you were…or at least I don’t remember intending to…
My point is is that many people call something a coincidence because they don’t understand what lead to the event… my point is that in that sense everything is a coincidence and as such one might as well say nothing really is…for we don’t really know what lead to anything, we just have an idea of some of the things that lead to it, without exactly knowing what lead to those things…So the point I am pointing out is that it might be a sign when one recognizes that a thing extremely odd happened. like if all the sudden a million bikers fell out of the sky…the acceptable explanation would be that a bunch of bikers were being cariied on some thing being flown through the sky that snapped or something…But then there are really more questions like why did that happen right then…and you can begin to ask why you were witness to that particular event…and then begin to pay attention to how it affected you…how it could…and take further action with regards to those thoughts…If a thing was meant to teach or lead to a specific action it can help to quest as to what so that one can specify the best action to take…of course it is hard to take any of it as certain…it is more of something perhaps worth noteing, that sometimes when noted later lead to a sort of large evidence of sequential odd events that allude to exterior intention…

I meant the books specifically regarding the one God…

Largely I think this is due to trying to represent something that alters with respect to the thing that is needed. Ii.e perhaps rather than saying hot water will be boiled on your heads. one could just say that what you don’t want will happen, that even if you want everything, you will be made not to…

I wounder how many layers of heaven the Mormons account for…would be funny if it was 9.

Your assuming that emptiness is a necessity in order to achieve a good “after-life”…one might call it more fulfilling…especially if one recognizes that the actions requested aren’t merely pointless in order to achieve a better state…but lend overall to a better state for those in the current life, others as well as the self…unfortunately too many are used to specific ways such as to find it hard to alter such as to enjoy doing things in better more universally beneficial ways…And many of the ways suggested are seemingly not so positive unless more openly considered…and then there are of course problems of things like in the Qur’an where it basically OKs a harsh treatment of women and allowance of slaves…but for such things one might ask how could anyone with a good word have it out without having their heads cut off before any other parts of a message might pervade…
As for dealing with it after this life…that is not likely to be possible.

Clearly humans have the capacity for free thinking and action…or so it would seem…and as such it would seem likely that many religious views would come about, besides those that are more in line with the more seeming likely hood of a singular God. And likewise many similar religions may be misuses of those better intended…hard to say…it may not be best to assert with surety that all things would be intended directly by the All or God…or whatever…as it may have been intended that freedom be allowed to at least some degree…

Perhaps what I might should ask is why one would think Heaven or hell, or at least some sort of harshness would not be incurred(that is if you don’t think such would be incurred) if one say lived a wonderful life doing things like what Hitler did and then died before anything bad would happen to them?..One might think that an eternal punishment would not seem fair for a finite action…but then that may be considering that actions actually have dead end results…i would think that anything done has a complete alteration on the entire future…and as such might have an infinite value…but then perhaps an eternal punishment isn’t affixed but rather a short unpleasant one…i don’t claim to really know what heaven or hell will be like other than that it would seem that some may experience good and some bad, of possibly varying degrees…

I tend to think of this; if what happened after my death was not considered relevant by my parents or my deep forefathers, it is highly unlikely that i would have existed…as why then would they have had children or would anything in particular be of a state worth living in…is it not largely thanks to those that wished to fix the future for others beyond their death that provided for what we have now?

Basically sounds like to you, a purpose beyond your own design is something that you need so to make sense of existing.

It would seem there isn’t really much making sense of existing in any way that is of a sureness, or really of any more surety than anything else.
Nonetheleses this does seem more likely to me, of course this is based on my experience…and the Vulcan mind meld isn’t really possible, which may be a good thing.

Although i don’t know that this is exactly a purpose beyond myself as i am still one to choose it…it would seem little different than choosing any other purpose.

So it would seem to me that gods only really serve to provide you with that end.
A singularity solution to the reason for everything.

As would be the provision of any assertion concerning existence including that there was no reason…

True, but a person isn’t required to answer that question.

who doesn’t come to some idea of it?
what else might compel us to ask any question?

It’s not so much about who doesn’t come to the issue.
It’s that arriving at the issue, a person can find that there’s no need to actually consider it to live.

Only after they have considered it: In other words it might be more appropriate to say: “It’s that after arriving at the issue, a person can find that there’s no need to actually consider it to live after they find an answer that says it doesn’t matter.”
In other words it would seem that such is only the case once you have thought that you have found an answer to the question, such as “it doesn’t matter”
if you haven’t found or accepted an answer then you continue looking.
And then you can continue living but I find it hard to think that without the initial desire to find that answer that anyone would have ever got into the habit of particularly doing anything…
other than perhaps animal behaviors…instinct…

Plus the assertion of God is not actually a finalistic answer. There remains wanderings like why did God do it? Or why did God do anything in this particular way rather than another? In the case of acceptance of God it would seem the questions can continue at least for those who think asking a question doesn’t mean “doubt” it just means a search for more…

Although it is similar in that one might lend to thinking further understanding of the matter isn’t possible…although i imagine further understanding is always possible, it just takes thinking and questioning…just as in science…i don’t think there is really an end to what might be discovered by science, I don’t think it will lead to an end of knowing all things…

Interestingly, I never actually had an interest in answering that question.
Honestly.

I was never looking to answer that at all.
Other people forced me into conversations on the issue, and I never really had much to say regarding it.
It seemed implausible to answer with any quality of certainty considering how vast of an expanse the question covers, and also seemed, to me at least, to be the least of anything that does occur as requiring an answer in life.

I grew up in a Christian upbringing, but when others were focusing on what they got out of Jesus, I was more focusing on what the told actions of Jesus meant if I removed what everyone said we got from him.
Meaning, I was more interested in his motive to compassion when among people, and the weight that was said to be upon his shoulders as it would occur emotionally to him more than I was interested in what I got out of the deal in the sense of some divine salvation.

Likewise, in life, I’ve never been interested in the grand metaphysical questions, but instead the pragmatic questions that allow for an increase in understanding our own self and the world in which we find ourselves.

To me…gods just seemed to be far off in the distance and doing their own thing so much so, that even if they did exist, there would be no direct result to assuming that one has been able to discern anything about them.

I edited the last post a little right before you posted this…

But i would say that you arrived at a solution to the problem so asserting a lack of interest seems incorrect. While you may have not had a severe interest in it especially compared to others, or your other interests, it would seem that you did have at least enough to consider recognition of the idea that it didn’t matter. otherwise you would not have had any care and would not have even pursued recognizing that any reason or lack of reason was the case.

No…not really.
I quite honestly never even considered the question until a church teacher brought it up as a rhetorical question that implied proof that evolution was incorrect since it could not answer the question of origin.

And as soon as he asked that question, the only thing that popped into my head was, “What? That firstly makes no sense at all, and secondly…who cares? That is just so far into the abyss and unrelated to right now.”

The only other thing that has ever come about from that question to me is to reflect that people are far too hung up on the wrong portion of life.

i didn’t say you began to consider it or not on your own…Although, how can anyone know they wouldn’t have if they were told it in the first place, and what of any question comes but of our environment’s impact anyways…and i don’t know you could be certain it was unrelated to the right now unless you really new for certain what the answer was…unless perhaps you knew with certainty that there was no meaning, and i don’t see that your example suggests that but rather that you simply didn’t care. It would have taken some interest to consider it enough to arrive at the conclusion that there was no meaning…

If you ask why enough you come to such a question, different people seem to think that different extents of why’s are better…different people become satisfied with different amounts or levels of explanation…
It would seem there isn’t a final answer that can be achieved, at least by humankind alone…that doesn’t mean that questing for it is bad, it may be that questing as such keeps away boredom. what happens when one finds all the whys associated to a specific thing that they can see…they move on to another thing…and another…and another…it might be quite boring to find an end to what one could question…could be hellaciouslly boring.

We value based on emotion; that’s how humans work.
That’s basic neurology.
Pure rationality can only tell you what is better of some options in regards to a form of logic or another.
But it doesn’t place a value on anything.

With that in mind, I’ll try to explain as best as I can.
Short version: I had no emotional pull that there was a value with a return in greater volume than the investment one puts into the question of origin of all of existence ever.

Or to be more precise (as emotion doesn’t work that articulately to arrive at an actual argument like that): I never had an emotional push to move towards that direction.

It should be probably explained that from what I have gathered from others through life, I’m a bit odd in that regard.
Right now is easily contained for me.
For instance, the Zen practice of not thinking…that takes very little effort for me. I don’t think about a single thing quite often naturally.
Akin to this, when I was about 5 years old I was told to be home at 12.
I came home at 12:40 something and was in trouble.
I didn’t understand why fully until about two years later. To me, “12” meant anything prior to “1”.
It never occurred to me that 12 meant 12:00 and not 12:01-12:59.

You could say that was due to being a kid, but on the other hand; that kind of “missing the point” still exists with me today.
There is just something in the way in which I process on the acumen side that simply does not grasp the same things as other people appear to regularly.

So when I mean that it simply doesn’t strike me…it simply doesn’t.
Instead, I am more struck by what everyone else is doing in response to that question; always have been.

I liken it to being the guy standing at a football game.
There’s two teams worth of fans cheering and everyone is looking at the game between the two sides; barking for their favorite to win with grand emotion.

On the other hand, to me, the game going on never drew my eye. It was as if I had been looking at grass on the side of the road while riding in a car.
What stuck out as the spectacle to me has always been the fans cheering; watching how they move, act, react to and back to what takes place on that grass field.

So to me, I stand around just saying, to those that ask, that the real beauty and magic is being missed by most as they go into the big 'ol heat of everything.
The true beauty isn’t the game taking place, at least not to me, but the grand array that takes place in response to what is hoped for and believed to be the case.

The first thing I read that clicked in value wasn’t the Bible, or anything like it.
The first thing that clicked was a little fictional novel called Siddhartha.
Because in that book was a character that focused on now and drove himself endlessly to find the meaning of now.

That was the first time I had a light bulb click on and felt that I understood exactly what was meant by the ideas therein.

In the question of whether gods exist, my first answer is always, I don’t care; the more important question is what it does for you if they do or don’t.
That is what I see.

But when pushed, my answer is secondly, I don’t think it’s likely that gods do exist.
But I don’t mean that answer as anything that should affect anyone else’s belief that they do or don’t.
I would rather leave the world just as confused and torn about that question as it was before I showed up.
And I would because I like what it does and what it produces in humans with that question being something that they struggle with.

While I think there are far more readily tangible things to focus on, and encourage many to focus on the other aspects of life relating directly to their relationship from their self back to their self; I don’t mind for one moment that many are focused on gods.

I only wish that the many that focus on gods would allow for a bit more than just gods than they commonly do.
At some point, I believe people should be able to find rest in what their relationship is with the gods; either way; and move on to other relationships in life. Not stick on gods and stay there until they die.

So my interest in the matter of gods has always been an interest in the fans of gods.

Strangely…I relate to these words from a silly kids cartoon called Jungle Book:

I would think we are quite alike in at least our manner to be more focused on the fans of the game rather than the game itself…I was like this most of my life, and am still quite like that…Although I can remember as far back as about 4 asking the question, “why am I me, as i am now, where i am now, when I am now, and not in some other form of existence with the same perception of I?” I can’t say i found the answer or that there is or isn’t one, or that it can or can’t be found…I don’t think I accept finalities very often, if at all. yet it is possible some influence of another human lead to this thought…though I would think any thought is a result of compoundings of the entire environment rather than any single instance…

I believe I have read Siddhartha at least twice…Buddhism is something I was attracted to for a long time…and seems for the most part a good thing…though I weary of too much emptiness as such might lead to an emptiness of the self or even a loss nonreturnable…but that depends on the perception of the meanings…In terms of loss of “pointless” desires, i find that very important and more widely needed. (loss of all desires is pointless though, and a desire itself…) Closing the mind to distractions is good too…though paying attention to what distractions are there can be interesting…And one might find that should they fade far enough away from what they consider “distractions” they become jaded…bored…and wish for a return to things that many say are “distractions”…but i see you seeing this anyways…(for example i think we have already agreed that sadness or crying is not always a distraction…loss of it can be quite boring…without less what seeming is more…)

My shot at that has always been:
For an object to exist, it must also then therefore not exist.
Meaning, a roll of toilet paper only exists as you see it because it does not exist anywhere else; just precisely there.

Why does something exist precisely there instead of anywhere else?
Water. That’s why.
And that last part…I can’t explain unfortunately. That’s one of those that just has to click if it does or has.

Buddhism isn’t really what grabbed me in there.
He wasn’t a Buddhist.
He actually denied Buddha; walked away on the reason that he had to find his way and that one could not find their way through another’s way. Buddha’s way was good for Buddha, not for Siddhartha; Siddhartha had to find Siddhartha’s way.
He found that he had found his way all along once he was an old man.

Mmmm, yeah, no…I never say to turn off distractions. Ever.
Instead, I implore people to bury more deeply rather than remove.
Rather than take away, add upon.
The more you have around you, the more you can learn yourself by feeling and seeing what you do in response to everything else.
And the more you know yourself, the more you can articulate your movement in life accurately rather than marginally.

I plopped this up a while back ago for other reasons, but that was a bit ago before you came 'round.
If you want, you can check some of my ideas and thinking out on this site where I store a portion of my work.
Others are still being compiled.
sites.google.com/site/bomanism/

perhaps what you are saying is that one simply is all that it is due to where, when, how…etc…

Maybe it has been a while or maybe i am thinking of another book…but I know I at least read one with “Siddhartha” in the title…been a long time though…

it would seem to me that the point in “feeling and seeing what you do in response to everything else” can lend to recognition of reducing specific reactions, that would be of the forms of distractions in one of the ways I was using the word…in other words to learn that anger is a distraction as to be more in control of it, or at least rid of it in so far as it is detrimental.

I think i agree entirely with the forward…

The “self” to me is all that a thing is not simply the spirituality…and on “Self is seen as one’s nature” I tend to think all things are natural and thus of nature…(I’m not really judging i haven’t read enough yet…plus I have tendency to read with respect more to what was generally meant like I might continue reading as self meaning “spiritual self” however it fits into my picture…I guess)but then i recognize that agreement with all is not so important…I’ll have to read the rest tomorrow, and probably after work…it is getting late and i need to head to bed…i am glad you felt worth in sharing such with me…

One simply is all that it is due to where, when, how…etc… one isn’t.

Probably the same book.
It commonly is thought of as Buddhist because Buddha makes an appearance and “Siddhartha Gautama” was the Buddha’s real name (Buddha being the title; like Jesus vs. Christ), but in the novel, the character we follow that is named Siddhartha is not Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha; they are kept separate.

Not simply to reduce.
You don’t learn how to move combatively in a gym simply to remove detrimental actions and reactions from your personal style.
No, you also practice such with the intent to gain leverage in motion of those same actions.

Anger is highly useful, for instance. Learning how you react in anger and how you can use it is very helpful leverage.
Not only in the sense of what anger offers in and of itself when needed, but also what anger offers in telling you about yourself.
When something angers you, it should tell you something about what you value and why.
But also, anger can simply be an effective means of movement.

But more so, the idea is to learn both angles; flex and reflex. Not just one or the other.

Mr. Lee was a smart man.

You’ll find in the reading that the terminology is separating from essence, and not competing with your ideas here.
For instance:

Another way of saying Self Nature, in Bomanist context, is to say The Way In Which You Move Naturally; your Self Nature.
It is referring to nature as an action; not a title.
It is indeed all of you, and even beyond your body.
It is what I see as all the ripples that you make around you as well.

You’re in a body of water: all of the ripples that you provoke; all of the ripples that you disrupt; all of the ripples you do not either of these to; all of your body down the smallest particle; and all of these over your entire life.
All of this in motion together; that is your nature.