Your view and why it's correct

reply to post by drivers1492


Sorry for the late reply, I just now saw where you replied to me.

Anyways, I think I have some pretty unique views but then again everyone sees the world a little differently than the next person.

As for my sig quote, I believe it does have relevance in theology. What you see is the light, it is the image of God in my opinion. I believe the light we see, our unique positions and perspectives, could be considered to be "the light of the world" because nothing exists outside the perception of consciousness.

The image of God has been in front of us all along and we are created in that image. Looking into a mirror is not seeing yourself, you have to look at what's in front of the mirror to see who you are, the image (the light you see) of the invisible God.

sk0rpi0n
''your view and why its correct''.... It may sound obvious but I think most of us have our views because it feels ''correct'' to us. But thats actually a good question to ask people in the business of proselytizing. I just post my views here because ATS offers a somewhat neutral platform to discuss a wide variety of religious subjects. _________________________________________Like politics, when it comes to religion, groups are going to stick together on the basis of what they believe or disbelieve. So in that respect being ''correct'' on here isn't the same kind of ''being correct'' at a math problem, where your opponent has no choice but to admit being wrong if he doesn't get it right.

That's true, it does tend to come down to what one feels concerning it. Pointing out it's not the same as a math problem is a good way to equate it as well yet it is put forward the same way. Topics of a sensitive nature like this are so personal to many's core the emotion they experience seem to override sensibility when they are faced with opposing views which makes for rough conversation. That is extremely sad in imo. That is probably due to my inability to feel or process those emotions like most people so if I am shown to be wrong it's easier for me to accept. Like anyone else I do "believe" in certain things, yet not remaining clouded to the idea of being "right".

So if I may ask, like in my op, why do you feel your "right" in your understanding or acceptance of a faith/belief? Please don't feel I'm calling you out that's not my intent at all.

reply to post by PurpleHorizon


Excellent post and contribution PH thank you.

I have probably found more peace since accepting my own limitation of understanding.

I have as well.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Now worries I have been sick on top of a house full of little girls the last few days so I haven't been attentive either.

nothing exists outside the perception of consciousness.

I'm wondering about that particular view above. Why do you think nothing exists outside of this perception? I've heard it a number of times but I can't seem to get the thought process behind it to make it conceivable to me.

reply to post by drivers1492


Think of the double slit experiment or Schrodinger's cat, nothing is known to exist or known to happen until a conscious observer observes it. We have to collapse the wave function in order for something to pop into or back into existence.

Say you walk out of a room, that room for all intents and purposes no longer exists until you step back into it. Just as with Schrodinger's cat, we can't know that room exists unless we actually see it for ourselves again.

Nothing in the observable universe can be known until it is observed. Everything known is only known because of conscious perception, so in that way nothing exists outside of consciousness, nothing can be known without a conscious observer present.

Hopefully that makes sense.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I suppose I'm stuck outside the philosophy of it all. The idea that something "doesn't" exist outside of perception or knowledge of it still doesn't (to use a groovy new age term) resonate with me. I'm guessing that's the limits of my box so to speak.

reply to post by drivers1492


I understand what you mean and where you're coming from, it takes some getting used to I guess.

Let me try it this way then. If all life in the universe ceased to exist one day then so would the universe because the universe is made through conscious perception. All senses are made within the mind, if those senses cease to exist then so do the things within the image of the mind. The image is what you see, the physical universe.

What good is a waterfall or sunset if there will never be anyone to ever see or experience it? Why would they exist at all for that matter? They would have no purpose.

Life and the physical universe are intimately connected, you cannot have one without the other. What is good without bad or big without small? In the same way, what good is the visible universe if there is nothing to observe it?

If the lights go out (life) then so does the source of the lights, or vice versa.

Sorry for my babbling, it's a hard concept to put into words., but I'm doing my best.

I believe that no ones views are correct because we just don't know what the truth is. I also believe that each and every one of us have our own dimension that when our physical vessel dies we go to this dimension based on our own beliefs so everyone will be happy. Otherwise it would be carnage in heaven because people have their own views and beliefs. So there you have it my own view is that we all have our own sacred space where our imagination creates our own dimension ready for us to enter and be happy. Now no one can enter your own dimension so you will now be asking " Well how can we be happy if no one will be there " ok this is where it gets tricky but I believe that when we reincarnate we hold those memories of people and so we have everyone's imprints in our own dimension. Also as we are light beings we can be copied so our copies can be in other peoples dimensions if the creator agrees. This is my theory and yes I agree that I could be wrong but its a good theory.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If all life in the universe ceased to exist one day then so would the universe because the universe is made through conscious perception.

Why would perception equate existence? Would that not sort of put the egg being laid before the chicken existed to lay the egg? I suppose I see existence as simply that. Something exists. It requires nothing to perceive it in order for it to exist it simply is. How it's perceived may be true to it's form or not but it does not alter whether or not that object exists. The only variable I can see is how it's perceived.

Life and the physical universe are intimately connected, you cannot have one without the other.

I do agree with this absolutely but I think in a different way. The way I see the two being tied together is by life being a product of the physical universe. No proof to my thoughts of course but for some reason it works out in my head that way. But I also do not see life being necessary.

No apologies for the babble. That's exactly what I'm looking for people to share in this thread.

reply to post by Sk8ergrl


I've actually heard that view elsewhere in one form or another. The idea of having a happiness after you pass that is tailored to fit is understandable. It's just a valid as anyone's since I do agree with you in that I don't believe anyone can truly "know".

reply to post by drivers1492

Why would perception equate existence? Would that not sort of put the egg being laid before the chicken existed to lay the egg?

Because existence is perception, no matter what form that perception comes in. A jellyfish may not be able to see the ocean surrounding it, but it still perceives it through its other senses. Existence implies perception all the way.

Not exactly, I see it as neither chicken or the egg coming first but both popping into existence simultaneously. I don't mean that in a literal way as in a chicken and egg just poofing into existence a million years ago, I mean it in a broader sense.

I believe the universe has always existed in one form or another because everything is energy and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Both the chicken and the egg have always existed because the atoms and conscious energy that make them up have always existed in one form or another. Nothing came before anything else in an esoteric sense.

I do agree with this absolutely but I think in a different way. The way I see the two being tied together is by life being a product of the physical universe. No proof to my thoughts of course but for some reason it works out in my head that way. But I also do not see life being necessary.

Both life and the universe have always existed simultaneously, you cannot have one without the other, so life definitely is necessary in my opinion because "you can't have one without the other", even you agreed with that... I think.

All matter in the universe is energy set at a certain vibration, all consciousness is energy as well, and as we know energy cannot be created or destroyed. The body you inhabit right now has always existed in one form or another and so has the energy that helps to create your consciousness.

If you take consciousness away you take the universe with it as well. Nothing exists outside of consciousness because all things are made through it and for it in my opinion.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I see what your saying yet lets take a dead planet for example. On that planet there is a rock. Outside of our perception and description of said rock it does not need anything of the sort to exist. Unless you keep scrolling back the definition of life and equate it to energy. I think my point stems from a description of actually being alive. So no I don't really agree that life is needed to perceive something for it to exist. I do think that life was caused by this universe existing somehow but it isn't a requirement for it to exist. For me perception is only how our senses describe whatever we may be encountering no giving that thing is existence.
Everything imo is tied together in some way or another, even dependent in some cases, but I see life as a result of not a requirement for.

we know energy cannot be created or destroyed

Currently that is what we think I agree. But, we may very well be wrong. I know of no real support to go against it nor do I support the idea that that aspect of knowledge is wrong. Interesting outlook you have.

reply to post by drivers1492


Not every planet is dead though. If there is potential for discovery then it will exist in some form, and there is always that potential for discovery. Only when that potential is taken away does it cease to exist entirely.

If you believe you cannot have one without the other, why do you think you can have one without the other? I'm confused by your answer.

Currently that is what we think I agree. But, we may very well be wrong. I know of no real support to go against it nor do I support the idea that that aspect of knowledge is wrong. Interesting outlook you have.

Well, it's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt so far. Energy can transform but it can't be created or destroyed, and in the scientific circle that is a fact at this point and I agree with that conclusion.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If you believe you cannot have one without the other, why do you think you can have one without the other? I'm confused by your answer.

I may have relayed it poorly so let me clarify my stance. I think that life is not needed for things to exist. Using myself as an example....I see no reason that this universe, whether seen/encountered by me, relies on me being able to perceive it. Even if I were the only living thing in the universe and for whatever reason I ceased to exist, the universe would be unaffected by that by any reasonable account. The reason I feel that way is my lack of ability to know there is a star 500billion light years away that I can't see or know is there in any way doesn't negate that it is there doing it's thing. It exists, as do I, without any perception of each other and doesn't require either one of us to be aware of the other to exist. And your right not every planet is dead it was just for an example.

Well, it's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt so far. Energy can transform but it can't be created or destroyed, and in the scientific circle that is a fact at this point and I agree with that conclusion.

I agree, I wasn't making a statement against it simply stating that we could be wrong.

reply to post by drivers1492


I understand where you're coming from and I agree when you look at it on an individual level. You do not need to exist, your current incarnation, but overall life is needed for the universe to exist. If there is the potential for discovery, that rock on that dead planet will exist in some form even if it's in the form of an idea like right now.

If you were the last living thing in the universe and ceased to exist, how could you say the universe would exist at all anymore? There would be nothing to see it or feel it in any way and nothing would be able to make the statement "this exists". Without life, there is no existence because existence is life itself in my humble opinion.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If you were the last living thing in the universe and ceased to exist, how could you say the universe would exist at all anymore? There would be nothing to see it or feel it in any way and nothing would be able to make the statement "this exists". Without life, there is no existence because existence is life itself in my humble opinion.

Isn't that more a philosophical way of viewing though? I can see it from that point of view if that's the case I think. There is of course the possibility that on some level so small we have yet to detect that everything is "alive". Not in the sense of conscious life as we see it but life of some type. If that were or is the case then our existence, at least in my opinion, would make a lot of sense. If not I suppose you and I as well as others are left wondering and making our best guesses with what we think we know. Hopefully we will know one day. I look forward to it no matter what the answer may be.

reply to post by drivers1492


This post got me thinking about something called the Gaia Hypothesis. It states that a planet like Earth is actually one giant organism where everything interacts together to form a living eco-system.

It's kind of like if Earth is a body and all things living on it work together to keep it going, like our digestive system or respiratory system, except on a much bigger and more complex scale. It's an interesting theory and I think it's definitely a possibility, but why stop there? Isn't our solar system one huge ecosystem as well? Without Jupiter pulling in stray asteroids we might not be here right now. In that same vein, wouldn't that mean our galaxy is a giant ecosystem and then the universe as a whole as well?

Sorry for going off track but your comment about different types of life got me thinking. And yes, it is a philosophical view and not something that can exactly be proven.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I've read that as well. It's an interesting idea I enjoyed it when I went over it. There always possibilities that may be one of them you never know. Philosophical ideas are the driving force for most of these discussions, I appreciate your sharing yours.

reply to post by drivers1492


No problem! I enjoy discussions like this. Thanks for sharing your thoughts as well.

I am of the thinking God is good and we define our own laws.

We have figured out good is better than bad, and we try to define it and live by it.
However we are also stuck on old interpretations of this when it comes to social, cultural and other levels.
We should not allow ourselves to be so influenced by past views. Together we should remind ourselves of the lessons but always make our own decisions and opinions.

God is the challenge of belief. Do you believe there is a higher good intention for us in or do you feel that good and bad are merely definitions from our existence however that came about.

God is good and we define our own laws. I feel that we shouldn't be run by the past and the powerful but by our own standards, we are accountable for our actions