The Existence of God: Abstract and Jayson

[Jayson]

And how would we be able to determine if the entire universe has conscious thought unto itself?

What would that conscious thought look like?
What are we looking for as a sign of conscious thought in the universal being?

[Abstract]

And how would we be able to determine if the entire universe has conscious thought unto itself?

What would that conscious thought look like?
What are we looking for as a sign of conscious thought in the universal being?

Wewll coincidences of sorts could be, but then I would say it is hard to determine such, unless say there is a relative frequency of the conincidneces to aid you or do something with regards to your life...Of course there would allways be an alternative explination as for anything it would seem...
I imagine thinking the thought had an appearance itself would be like asking what my thought "looks" like, as far as the physical mass itself, it might appear simply as galaxies and what not to us... that might seem slow for example to us, but relative to perhaps its recognition of the passing of time such would be different...Imagine what say the known universe would look like if it was speed up by 5,000,000,000 times or something, or maybe an infinite amount of time...or just consider all the interaction simply happening on the micro level, beyond our obvious perception of sight...

[Jayson]

So there's no means to verify the neural activity of a thing which is around us at all times.

OK, then what kind of behavior of the movement of the universe does this give us?
Does it predict the nature of how the universe enteracts in some manner, considering we are asserting a function to it that has an executive motive?

[Abstract]

So there's no means to verify the neural activity of a thing which is around us at all times.

It would seem there is really no way of being sure anything thinks, rather than just being some sort of automation...

OK, then what kind of behavior of the movement of the universe does this give us?

There would not be a means of arriving at definitive behavior of a thing which you yourself are a part of. in other words any calculation you did would be subject to alteration by that larger set, and thus of a uncertain probability.

Does it predict the nature of how the universe enteracts in some manner, considering we are asserting a function to it that has an executive motive?

It lends to the idea that by some alteration resultant of that thing we came into existence. and it would be imaginable that we came into existence well known if we are fully a part of that thing which has an infinite capacity of recognition. As such it would become evident that many events would have a reason and would be lending to something...although it would be hard to assert what those events were actually lending to...unless you then perhaps realized that they may not be lending to a particular finite result with regards to our perception of what will be but rather some thing beyond any capacity we had to recognize, or be sure of.(in other words we fart and think it smeels bad, it might see a fart and what it results in every living moment afterword, but might at the same time not simply recognize the event of the fart as all events relating to its coming of existence and passing and results...) But then you can begin to question why it is that such a thing might allow certain things to happen like say a religious text, or the idea of there being one God to pervade to the degree it has especially when it is somewhat evident that it could exist and have a hand in such. Which then lends to the idea that there may be some truth of sorts to the texts, and perhaps everything really in so far as having a purpose, and that there may be some level of care it has for us otherwise why would we be thinking of it. and ultimately you could assert that anything with such a capacity to be aware of all that it is and within would be capable of foreseeing all that happened and arranging that things happened in a manner that was best...

[Jayson]

It would seem there is really no way of being sure anything thinks, rather than just being some sort of automation...

It's rather simple to determine whether neurological function is taking place with executive command.
We do so daily.
I know, you'll cite certainty again. I don't care.
For all intents and purposes, we can successfully determine executive capacity in a functioning neural network.

There would not be a means of arriving at definitive behavior of a thing which you yourself are a part of. in other words any calculation you did would be subject to alteration by that larger set, and thus of a uncertain probability.

Why should uncertainty stop us at this point versus any other since everything is uncertain to you anyway?
Accepting uncertainty in everything, by what process would we calculate?
What would we be accounting for?

It lends to the idea that by some alteration resultant of that thing we came into existence. and it would be imaginable that we came into existence well known if we are fully a part of that thing which has an infinite capacity of recognition. As such it would become evident that many events would have a reason and would be lending to something...although it would be hard to assert what those events were actually lending to...unless you then perhaps realized that they may not be lending to a particular finite result with regards to our perception of what will be but rather some thing beyond any capacity we had to recognize, or be sure of.(in other words we fart and think it smeels bad, it might see a fart and what it results in every living moment afterword, but might at the same time not simply recognize the event of the fart as all events relating to its coming of existence and passing and results...) But then you can begin to question why it is that such a thing might allow certain things to happen like say a religious text, or the idea of there being one God to pervade to the degree it has especially when it is somewhat evident that it could exist and have a hand in such. Which then lends to the idea that there may be some truth of sorts to the texts, and perhaps everything really in so far as having a purpose, and that there may be some level of care it has for us otherwise why would we be thinking of it. and ultimately you could assert that anything with such a capacity to be aware of all that it is and within would be capable of foreseeing all that happened and arranging that things happened in a manner that was best...

That might help someone that is concerned with such questions.
But what does it offer someone that doesn't have a problem with good or bad things happening, nor cares about divine purposes?

[Abstract]

It would seem there is really no way of being sure anything thinks, rather than just being some sort of automation...

It's rather simple to determine whether neurological function is taking place with executive command.
We do so daily.
I know, you'll cite certainty again. I don't care.
For all intents and purposes, we can successfully determine executive capacity in a functioning neural network.

I would say that there is no way of being certain that neuroligical events, or having what seems to be a brain constitutes thought...but this is not so significant... the question might be why does something have to have what looks like our brains in order to think?

Consider looking at our brains from a perspective such that you perceived them as all the moving atomic structures; protons, neutrons, electrons, and maybe even deeper instances...would that seem vary different then perceiving such as all those galaxies and parts within the known universe on the typical macro scale...it surely would have a difference but this suggests that perception of the thing with respect to certain qualities is a larger decider with respect to recognition of what that thing may be...

There would not be a means of arriving at definitive behavior of a thing which you yourself are a part of. in other words any calculation you did would be subject to alteration by that larger set, and thus of a uncertain probability.

Why should uncertainty stop us at this point versus any other since everything is uncertain to you anyway?
Accepting uncertainty in everything, by what process would we calculate?
What would we be accounting for?

There are means of asserting probable reactions of course...as is shown by science...but there isn't exactly a guarantee that the pattern won't be changed such as to alter the validity of any predictive behavior we might arrive at...As for now though it would seem the best thing is to open the mind..everything is effectively a coincidence it depends on how you look at it and how far you look back in order to assert the cause...which domino you blame in other words (in a possibly relatively endless stream of dominoes...relative to us at least...)(one person says it is because bob hit the glass with the bar, the other says the glass broke because bars have a high density and capacity to resist alteration of molecular consistency...or something like that) The thing I would look for is just when you personally recognize something as being coincidental, or having an odd number of correlations, the fact that something was recognized as a coincidence by yourself, is often the biggest sign. in other words looking in with respect to what is outside often helps.

It lends to the idea that by some alteration resultant of that thing we came into existence. and it would be imaginable that we came into existence well known if we are fully a part of that thing which has an infinite capacity of recognition. As such it would become evident that many events would have a reason and would be lending to something...although it would be hard to assert what those events were actually lending to...unless you then perhaps realized that they may not be lending to a particular finite result with regards to our perception of what will be but rather some thing beyond any capacity we had to recognize, or be sure of.(in other words we fart and think it smeels bad, it might see a fart and what it results in every living moment afterword, but might at the same time not simply recognize the event of the fart as all events relating to its coming of existence and passing and results...) But then you can begin to question why it is that such a thing might allow certain things to happen like say a religious text, or the idea of there being one God to pervade to the degree it has especially when it is somewhat evident that it could exist and have a hand in such. Which then lends to the idea that there may be some truth of sorts to the texts, and perhaps everything really in so far as having a purpose, and that there may be some level of care it has for us otherwise why would we be thinking of it. and ultimately you could assert that anything with such a capacity to be aware of all that it is and within would be capable of foreseeing all that happened and arranging that things happened in a manner that was best...

That might help someone that is concerned with such questions.
But what does it offer someone that doesn't have a problem with good or bad things happening, nor cares about divine purposes?

Well the books if accurate representations as affected to be by the All...do suggest Heaven and Hell..which it would seem perfectly possible for any "Everything" to self alter such as to allow the existence of...
I would ask do you have the capacity to prevent your mode of thought from being altered such that you do care?
Be that in say a place like Hell, or even on earth..say if certain parts of the brain were altered...

[Jayson]

I would say that there is no way of being certain that neuroligical events, or having what seems to be a brain constitutes thought...but this is not so significant... the question might be why does something have to have what looks like our brains in order to think?

Consider looking at our brains from a perspective such that you perceived them as all the moving atomic structures; protons, neutrons, electrons, and maybe even deeper instances...would that seem vary different then perceiving such as all those galaxies and parts within the known universe on the typical macro scale...it surely would have a difference but this suggests that perception of the thing with respect to certain qualities is a larger decider with respect to recognition of what that thing may be...

The easiest method I would expect is simple.
A) The universe should not be endlessly growing.
B) The universe should have a neurological form in overall shape.
C) The universe should not be annihilating itself.

B doesn't appear to be so, but I will easily grant that our imagery of the information may assume the wrong shape just as easily as we first did with Earth.
A, on the other hand, would take far more explaining as to why the entire universe is growing, however, we could posit that a god level brain never stops growing and there really would be no means of verifying this point; so it is useless to aid.
C, on the other hand...if the universe is at some level a brain of a god, then it has a the most plagued amount of tumors and is on course for critical complications to neural processes if any were found.
Brains don't do well when things inside of them start smashing violently together, or exploding; even on the quark level.

There are means of asserting probable reactions of course...as is shown by science...but there isn't exactly a guarantee that the pattern won't be changed such as to alter the validity of any predictive behavior we might arrive at...As for now though it would seem the best thing is to open the mind..everything is effectively a coincidence it depends on how you look at it and how far you look back in order to assert the cause...which domino you blame in other words (in a possibly relatively endless stream of dominoes...relative to us at least...)(one person says it is because bob hit the glass with the bar, the other says the glass broke because bars have a high density and capacity to resist alteration of molecular consistency...or something like that) The thing I would look for is just when you personally recognize something as being coincidental, or having an odd number of correlations, the fact that something was recognized as a coincidence by yourself, is often the biggest sign. in other words looking in with respect to what is outside often helps.

I don't really accept coincidence.
In my view, there is no such thing.
Just because I don't believe in gods, why should that mean I immediately think everything is random?

Well the books if accurate representations as affected to be by the All...do suggest Heaven and Hell..which it would seem perfectly possible for any "Everything" to self alter such as to allow the existence of...
I would ask do you have the capacity to prevent your mode of thought from being altered such that you do care?
Be that in say a place like Hell, or even on earth..say if certain parts of the brain were altered...

Not all religious texts account for heavens and hells.
And even those that do disagree on what these things are in concept; radically.
The differences are so vast, in fact, that it is somewhat an error to conceptually consider them by the same name to indicate the same form.
For instance, the universe of heaven to Mormons includes becoming gods through multiple layers of heaven, yet only has one layer of hell.
Counter to this, Dante outlines only one layer of Heaven yet accounts for nine layers of hell.

Conversely, Scientology, Hinduism, and some forms of Buddhism account for a re-birthing process.
And in that, Scientology accounts for a means by which Earth is the domain of man without any such concept of Heavens or Hells meanwhile Hinduism and the forms of Buddhism that share Hindu reincarnation concepts essentially aim for oblivion of a sort whereby the reincarnation (unlike Scientology) is considered a thing you don't want as much as you want to be released from reincarnation.

Then there is Jainism which asserts the perpetual cycle of things until you transcend the gods and become over them in what you require; you do not control the gods, but you are beyond them.

Then there is spiritual Taoism which has you aiming to evaporate into pure forces of nature and ether of sorts.

And then we have standard mainstream Christianity and Judaism, which disagree on Heaven and Hell.
In Christianity, on the protestant side, you just go to heaven or hell; done.
In Orthodoxy, you go to limbo for repentance and (depending on the view) will wait until judgment day (something exclusive to Judeo-Islamic derived religions) before ascending to heaven if you have repented and hell if you have not.
Judaism, on the other hand, has a very ambiguous and unstated account of Heaven where half of Judaism believes in a reincarnated Earth (essentially) as the "heaven" and the other think of it somewhat, but not quite, like the Christian heaven. Very little is discussed on hell other than a place where you basically cease to exist in some form, with possibly some rather terrible punishments just prior to evaporation.

This idea of heaven and hell dichotomy is by no means a universal religious concept.
By and large, most religions do not have such a thing.
That may seem odd to say today because we are so saturated with one branch of religion around the world which popularizes that idea in a mass array of forms, but the truth of the matter is that if you tally up all the world's religions over time and currently present; the amount of them accounting for a heaven and a hell are quite few by comparison to those that do not.

So if I went by the basis of the mean of religious collective, I would have to say that the texts tell me that there is no such thing as a heaven or hell.

Now, if you mean to refer to only Judeo-Islamic derived traditions...then I don't care.

If there is a heaven or hell, I'll deal with that after this life is done.
Right now, I have this life; not that one.
I'm not going to spend this life focusing on some possible next life.
I have better things to give unto my soul here than an emptiness of this world for the next.

[Abstract]

C, on the other hand...if the universe is at some level a brain of a god, then it has a the most plagued amount of tumors and is on course for critical complications to neural processes if any were found.
Brains don't do well when things inside of them start smashing violently together, or exploding; even on the quark level.

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 don't really accept coincidence.
In my view, there is no such thing.
Just because I don't believe in gods, why should that mean I immediately think everything is random?

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...

Well the books if accurate representations as affected to be by the All...do suggest Heaven and Hell..which it would seem perfectly possible for any "Everything" to self alter such as to allow the existence of...
I would ask do you have the capacity to prevent your mode of thought from being altered such that you do care?
Be that in say a place like Hell, or even on earth..say if certain parts of the brain were altered...

Not all religious texts account for heavens and hells.

I meant the books specifically regarding the one God...

And even those that do disagree on what these things are in concept; radically.
The differences are so vast, in fact, that it is somewhat an error to conceptually consider them by the same name to indicate the same form.

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...

For instance, the universe of heaven to Mormons includes becoming gods through multiple layers of heaven, yet only has one layer of hell.
Counter to this, Dante outlines only one layer of Heaven yet accounts for nine layers of hell.

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

Conversely, Scientology, Hinduism, and some forms of Buddhism account for a re-birthing process.
And in that, Scientology accounts for a means by which Earth is the domain of man without any such concept of Heavens or Hells meanwhile Hinduism and the forms of Buddhism that share Hindu reincarnation concepts essentially aim for oblivion of a sort whereby the reincarnation (unlike Scientology) is considered a thing you don't want as much as you want to be released from reincarnation.

Then there is Jainism which asserts the perpetual cycle of things until you transcend the gods and become over them in what you require; you do not control the gods, but you are beyond them.

Then there is spiritual Taoism which has you aiming to evaporate into pure forces of nature and ether of sorts.

And then we have standard mainstream Christianity and Judaism, which disagree on Heaven and Hell.
In Christianity, on the protestant side, you just go to heaven or hell; done.
In Orthodoxy, you go to limbo for repentance and (depending on the view) will wait until judgment day (something exclusive to Judeo-Islamic derived religions) before ascending to heaven if you have repented and hell if you have not.
Judaism, on the other hand, has a very ambiguous and unstated account of Heaven where half of Judaism believes in a reincarnated Earth (essentially) as the "heaven" and the other think of it somewhat, but not quite, like the Christian heaven. Very little is discussed on hell other than a place where you basically cease to exist in some form, with possibly some rather terrible punishments just prior to evaporation.

This idea of heaven and hell dichotomy is by no means a universal religious concept.
By and large, most religions do not have such a thing.
That may seem odd to say today because we are so saturated with one branch of religion around the world which popularizes that idea in a mass array of forms, but the truth of the matter is that if you tally up all the world's religions over time and currently present; the amount of them accounting for a heaven and a hell are quite few by comparison to those that do not.

So if I went by the basis of the mean of religious collective, I would have to say that the texts tell me that there is no such thing as a heaven or hell.

Now, if you mean to refer to only Judeo-Islamic derived traditions...then I don't care.

If there is a heaven or hell, I'll deal with that after this life is done.
Right now, I have this life; not that one.
I'm not going to spend this life focusing on some possible next life.
I have better things to give unto my soul here than an emptiness of this world for the next.

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...

[Abstract]

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?

[Jayson]

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

[Abstract]

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.

[Jayson]

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.

[Abstract]

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...

[Jayson]

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

[Abstract]

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?

[Jayson]

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.

[Abstract]

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...

[Abstract]

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...

[Jayson]

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.

[Abstract]

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.

[Jayson]

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.

[Abstract]

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."

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...

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.

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.

[Jayson]

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:

And don't spend your time lookin' around
For something you want that can't be found
When you find out you can live without it
And go along not thinkin' about it
I'll tell you something true

The bare necessities of life will come to you

[Abstract]

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:

And don't spend your time lookin' around
For something you want that can't be found
When you find out you can live without it
And go along not thinkin' about it
I'll tell you something true

The bare necessities of life will come to you

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...)

[Jayson]

"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?"

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 is something I was attracted to for a long time.

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.

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...)

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.
https://sites.google.com/site/bomanism/