jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (131 posts)

Why do religious thinkers struggle with the concept of non-creation

  1. Jefsaid profile image59
    Jefsaidposted 5 years ago

    It is entirely possible that our conscience is eternal.  We may have always existed and may never cease to exist.  While physically we might witness the birth and death of our perishable physical avatar, none of us can actually perceive our intellectual non-existence.  So why is it that the religiously indoctrinated believe we are the products of some sort of creator..?

    1. 0
      just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why not a God? Is that more far fetched than what you suggest might be possible?

      1. Jefsaid profile image59
        Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think it is much more realistic to believe that consciously we always existed because I have experienced nothing other than that.  It seems more fanciful to imagine our non-existence and that we are the creation of something else. Surely such thoughts are pure fantasy as we have no tangible evidence that such a thing ever happened.  We believe that we create things but we don't.  We just manipulate what already exists. Creation is purely a perception of  religious tales and scientific theory.

        1. 0
          just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And yet, the possibility of our consciousness having an eternal existence is entirely plausible? I'm sorry, I think that's funny. Did you get that from Star Gate? Are we going to ascend and be an ancient?  I can imagine that. I can imagine a God. I can imagine no God. I can imagine an afterlife and I can imagine nothing more.

          I think there's more, but who knows? The question that keeps rolling through my mind is; why in the world is it so important to people who don't believe? It seems to be a desire to push everyone into the same mold. It is very odd. I'm such a non conformist it is difficult for me to imagine the fun in that.

          1. Jefsaid profile image59
            Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It is not about importance.  It is the simple matter that I can only perceive my existence and nothing else.  Everything to do with religion just seems like a fairytale particularly when I have spurious biblical quotations written by men 2,000 years ago rammed down my throat.

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I wish I knew people such as yourself, and those who are ramming things. Many people attempted to corner me, and badger me with their religion. I found amusement in it only. It appears that, on hub pages, one is badgered by those who did not believe in the same thing.

              Learn to stand up for yourself when it happens. Don't over react later and let it produce disharmony. It feeds the beast. These people are an opposing opinion only. Not the wrath of a god. smile

              1. Jefsaid profile image59
                Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Believe me I am so uninterested in all that biblical waffle I am pretty much immune to it.  If you knew me, you would appreciate that I am actually a very calm, even-tempered and peaceful soul with a little fire in my belly when necessary.  I can certainly stand up for myself.  I am also not offended by alternative opinion and enjoy these types of debates.  I find others get easily wound up or defensive by these topics.  cool

                1. 0
                  just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I used to think that too, but I think I was simply misunderstanding. I know people misunderstand me when they say that. I find it all interesting, except for the obvious disdain by the far ends of the argument on both sides. smile

                  1. Jefsaid profile image59
                    Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    There is no misunderstanding on my part.  I simply believe religion's (re-legion's) original purpose was less than moral i.e. controlling the thoughts of the masses.  The biblical story is an elaborate reinterpretation and misrepresentation of earlier Sumerian/Egyptian beliefs.  Its stories are symbolic analogies of those beliefs.

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Your post would seem to indicate you have tangible evidence of your conscious being prior to your birth and more tangible evidence of (perhaps other) conscious beings after their death.  Or am I reading your post wrong?

          1. Jefsaid profile image59
            Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Obviously you are reading it the way you wish to perceive it.  Let me repeat, I I do not recall my non-existence, can you remember yours?big_smile

    2. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I actually find this a fascinating and well-posed question.  The answer, though, is far simpler than the question supposes it might be.  Those of us who are believers, and not simply among the "religiously indoctrinated," believe in a creator because we have met Him.  This is something that is impossible to explain to one who does not believe.  They want "empirical" proof that the believer is not able to provide.  I believe that there is an eternal conscience and that He created each of us to be eternal beings.  I certainly didn't create myself.

      Again, though, this is a great question.  But, keep in mind when talking with believers that not every one of us has been indoctrinated from birth to believe the way we do.  Some of us arrived at our current place of belief through our own examination, processing, and experience.

      1. Jefsaid profile image59
        Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You refer to 'him'... Is the creator a man?

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          A Christian believes two important things that I think generally lead us to refer to God as male.  First, we believe that there is a triune God - one God, three persons.  Jesus was a man.  We believe that Jesus was the Son of God (or God incarnate).  Because Jesus was a man, we tend to "think" of God as being male.

          The next thing we believe is that both men and women are made in the image of God.  Therefore, there MUST be both male and female nature present in God, the Creator (the first person of the triune God).  The Holy Spirit is present in both male and female believers.

          Our language, however, does not present us with a suitable pronoun for an androgynous God.  So, we are forced to choose, and generally choose to refer to God as male for that reason. 

          Personally, I believe that God is God - not only male, not only female, but completely BOTH.  I simply refer to God as Him because that is the language to which I am accustomed.  That language doesn't provide an accurate way to describe God as both.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Although I seem to recall references to MAN (Adam) being made in God's image the same does not seem to be so for WOMAN (Eve).  Where do you draw that conclusion from?

            And language does exist for both sexes; hermaphrodite.  While there are indeed a few humans born that way (as Adam may have been for all we know) it is a rarity.

            1. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              First question:  Genesis, 1:27 "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them."

              Secondly, a hermaphrodite is a human being born possessing both male and female genitalia, not a human being possessing the nature of both man and woman.  Someone/something androgynous is in possession of the nature of both a man and a woman.  Neither word, however, has an acceptable singular pronoun in our language, hence we are forced to choose.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps I'm too literal: twice the quote refers to the creation of man in His image, but merely states that He created woman.  It is also quite possible that the men that wrote and translated the works of the bible simply did not consider woman important enough to include the the image thing at all.

                Your are certainly correct in your second point, but I would have to say that either way, if God has the attributes of both man and woman then man does too, as he was created in God's image.  If that image has both, so does man.

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I understand the literal thing.  I think that some of scripture is literal, some is metaphor or allegory, and some is coded, depending upon who wrote what and when it was written.  I interpret that verse to mean, though, that God did, in literal fact, create both man and woman in His image.

                  As to your response about the second point, I agree with you a thousand percent.  Men and women both have masculine and feminine characteristics in our very nature.  Heaven forbid anyone should ever mention that to the average red-blooded male though!

                  smile  Thanks for being so respectful in your response, btw.  It's encouraging to see that we can agree or disagree with that degree of civility and acceptance.

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What's cool about your response is it shows the depth of this text. Everyone interprets it a little differently and the interpretation, to me, shows the heart of the person. You see an inclusive message, because you have a big heart.

          2. Jefsaid profile image59
            Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            To me, creation is a word 'created' by man and the concept of God is a creation by man and as a consequence religious thinkers cannot get away from the thought of creation.  It is the biblical story that 'creates' this perception.

            1. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Perfectly reasonable for you to think that way.  Your question was originally "Why do religious thinkers struggle with the concept of non-creation?"  My original answer is that we don't.

              So, if creation is a word "created" by man, and "religious thinkers" cannot get away from the thought of creation - is not "consciousness" a word created by man and are you any less enslaved by your concept?

              1. Jefsaid profile image59
                Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Good point!

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks.  Like I said, I found the question fascinating and well-posed.  And, when two people are able to discuss it with an actual and sincere desire to understand the thoughts of the other, it makes for a fascinating conversation.  I've enjoyed it.  But's it time for sleep.  Everyone, play nice if you can.  smile

                  1. Jefsaid profile image59
                    Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I am also off to bed, it's nearly 3.00am.  Thanks for contributing.

    3. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There is a difference between a "Conscience" and "Consciousness. Your post makes the wrong assumption about the wrong one.

      Conscience is your ability to determine right and wrong.

      Consciousness is your ability to be aware of your own life, as well as, your ability to separate yourself from your surroundings, so as to think for yourself.

      Neither are eternal.

      Your conscience and consciousness will cease to exist when the brain is completely dead.

      1. Jefsaid profile image59
        Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well you pick at language which is derived from the indoctrinations to which we have all been subjected.  To me they both mean the same thing.  You have no evidence to suggest that it is not eternal other than your own perception.  Why is it not possible that consciousness simply moves from one being to the next in physical life and death?

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You're correct, I was subjected to the same indoctrination as many others. And, I'm sorry, if you need to be told that the two are different, because they are.
          Then you still have things to learn. hmm
          Actually, since the "conscience" can only be determined by actions and "consciousness" can be measured by medical devices. I would beg to differ.
          Moves? You act, as if the "consciousness" is a spirit, which it is not, but is the capacity of mind space of your brain, which can be measured. When brain dead, so is consciousness.

          1. Jefsaid profile image59
            Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Cagsil - you are completely taken in by concept of human scientific logic which presumes anything that is not explained in a man-written book or formulated in a laboratory as mystical.  That is the problem in your ability to think otherwise.  It is much the same with religious thinkers who live in fear of hell and driven to believe in a creator.  Sub-atomic physics suggests that we are intellectually connected with everything around us but struggle to interpret it.

            1. Cagsil profile image59
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, you don't know me and what I've learned, so please don't jump to assumptions. It would be good for you. lol
              Actually, it's not a problem with my thinking. I stick to reality and understanding it. Which by all account is what each person should do. wink
              Actually, if you ask a lot of the religious folks, your statement above would be completely blown out of the water.
              Oh okay. If you say so. lol

              1. Jefsaid profile image59
                Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You have not really said anything of substance other than what I could read in a book.:p

              2. Jefsaid profile image59
                Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                My reality is that consciously I have always existed.  How more real can one be...big_smile

                1. Cagsil profile image59
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, that would be a delusion you sold to yourself. And has nothing to do with reality. lol

                  1. Jefsaid profile image59
                    Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So explain reality to me,  you are clearly an expert on it.  Hold up, you're not god are you?wink

      2. Jefsaid profile image59
        Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It seems completely realistic that consciousness is the intellectual energy that gives organic beings life.

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Intellectual energy that gives organic beings life? lol You're funny.

          Human consciousness is derived from the brain. When it's dead, so is consciousness, even on a molecular level. It's NON-existent.

          Everything in the entire body dies. Nothing is sustained.

          Why do you think the body decomposes? You think consciousness just leaves the body?

          There is no spirit or soul in the human body. Both of those words are to describe an individual, based on their actions.

          1. Jefsaid profile image59
            Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What evidence is there scientifically about consciousness?  None what so ever? It is integral to our existence so it cannot be quantified experimentally. What has physical matter got to do with the existence of consciousness?  It may be the case that it can only be perceived through the organic matter of our brains.  Why is it not possible that the reality is opposite to your scientifically minded perception.  Again, like the religiously indoctrinated, you need to be able to think beyond what is embedded in you.

            1. Cagsil profile image59
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Apparently, as I said before, you've still some stuff to learn. lol
              Now, if I told you, then you wouldn't believe me, so I guess you'll need to still learn more about it.
              The brain is what created consciousness to begin with. Without the brain, consciousness ceases to exist. What part are you having trouble with?
              Because, reality has nothing to do with perception.
              You're too funny. But, do enjoy your thread. I'm sure you'll have fun with it. lol

              1. Jefsaid profile image59
                Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You really have had your head stuck in some books.  Elaborate further, again you have not said anything of substance. roll

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Intellectual energy?  Do you refer to the movement of electrons down neurons?  Or to some religious concept, perhaps "soul" or "spirit"?

          1. Jefsaid profile image59
            Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Here we go again, indoctrinated scientific thinking.  If it can't be explained in a lab then it is mystical.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Isn't that the layman's definition of "mystical"?  Believed or imagined, but not observable?

              What do you mean by intellectual energy that gives life?  Does a dog have it?  How about a bacteria?  A plant?

              1. Jefsaid profile image59
                Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Absolutely dogs and bacteria have it.  Consciousness is limited to the capacity of the brain.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Many animals (bacteria, all single cell creatures, viruses, etc) have no brain, thus the capacity is 0.  As consciousness is what gives life does this mean that these creatures are dead?

                  I would consider a plant to be both organic and living; you did not mention the plants.  Without this intellectual energy that gives life are they then non-living as well?

                  This is the problem when you leave the world of science and enter the world of mysticism, making up new words and phrases or new meanings for old words.  People can't understand what you are saying, especially when even you don't understand it either!

                  1. Jefsaid profile image59
                    Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Scientists, philosophers and religious indoctrinators make things up all the time and we believe it.  To say no one understands what I mean is ridiculous judging by the debate that has taken place.  You are obviously a mechanical thinker who believes anything that cannot be put down on paper is 'mystical' which is a word made up by scientists to dismiss things they cannot explain. 

                    I understand that I exist and my perception is that I always have.  What aspect of that do you not understand. 

                    What have plants got to do with consciousness?  If you are alluding to my life energy for organic matter, yes certainly I should have been more specific in saying that  'if it has the capacity for conscious life' i.e. having a brain.

                    I have never suggested being an expert on the subject matter as you appear to be insinuating you are.  However, I have a notion that I believe to be completely feasible and sensible.

                2. Jerami profile image78
                  Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I think conciousness in its most basic form can be found only in the brain.

                     But conciousness in it's totality is everywhere.

                     Our being is but a fraction of what conciousness IS.
                   
                     Unfortunately ........   we can't see beyond ourselves.

      3. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ugh, Cags!  I so know the difference between these two words and I still used the same word he did in the OP.  OOPS!  Thanks for not pointing it out to me.  smile  Appreciate that you let that one slide, because although I used the word conscience, I did in fact MEAN consciousness.

        1. Jefsaid profile image59
          Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We create words for ourselves to use then get hung up on them...

    4. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Just thinking off the top of my head,  I've got no proof!

         coming into existance  is creation.

         something came into existance at some point in time.

         TIME may have been the first thing that came into existance or how else could anything progress?
         If a BIG Bang happened ?  how could it if  TIME  stood still?

         Who says that time only progresses in only one direction?

         So YES  Your past is marching forward (in that direction that it is going) To ! 

          But your forever is forever expanding also.

          Otherwise how can it be?

      1. Jefsaid profile image59
        Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Quantum Physics questions the existence of time as a straight line moving forward.

        1. Jerami profile image78
          Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Do you believe that?   Only in one direction?

             What about the big bang?

             If time didn't exist first how could a chemical or any kind of reaction proceed through its processes without time?

          1. Jefsaid profile image59
            Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Cumulative time is a perception... It can go forward, backward or sidewards.

            1. Jerami profile image78
              Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I may be wrong but I preceive time kinda like a rock falling into a pond.  Call this the big band!   the waves went in every direction as far as "TIME" is conserned.

    5. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Simple, there is an inertia sequence, that re-minds the human mind of the concept of itself. Despite massive threads of light energy, in a space the size of a grapefruit, made mostly of a consumable energy (glucose (sugar)), the human mind perceives something more powerful exists than itself. It knows something made it, even though it tries eventfully to dismiss it or alter what that Creator/creation might be or not be.

      Take for example a unit of energy defined by humans as an atom.
      This atom is made of 3 sub units and those sub units further units -invisible to the optic world, yet present and accounted for. The realization of ultra-subatomic light particles and their frequencies, is known to the mind of man -with or without mechanics. The human mind knows a single unit of this energy/light/information is more powerful than the entire collective of itself, because that ultra-subatomic unit is what the mind is made of. One sea-level muon, has more power and creative ability than the entire collective human conscious since its inception.

      Sadly, this has been deduced --by human ignorance -pro or con, to the formation of the sciences of sensation or equation aka humanism.

      To sustain itself, humanism has devised such things as "G/gods", technology, paper towels, Hollywood and my all time personal favorite --indoor plumbing, else it "feels" or reasons it is inept (inferior), rather than embracing its limitation and allowing that little muon to show them the possibilities beyond themselves.

      Humanism struggles with the concept of creation, as much as it struggles with non-creation. Not to forget the blatant neglect of the human purpose, ability and value to observe creation is just, well, plum ridiculous.

      James.

      1. Jefsaid profile image59
        Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Fascinating take on the subject.  But like I said, I have always existed so I cannot perceive non-existence or a creator other than through religious fables and scientific theory.

        1. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly,
          And why should you have to perceive such?
          Why "lower standards" to the fore | aft melodrama of a limited self (mind)?

          As I wrote once here on HP and is the underlying theme to my work:

          "It is not necessary to consider a question nor its opponent, an answer, both are relative properties of the applied mind syndication ( aka the Need To Know).

          Why? Because we already know. We know because we are, and have always been. Perhaps not in the form of what we anticipate, but have always existed. We are the energy we observe within the sciences by either vehicle, solidified to a degree, semi solid frequencies of light. We are Creator expressed as creation. No need, no lack, no torrent when we free ourselves from the tool, the processor, the mind.


          When the mind imposes necessity said factors that subdue the mind are manifest -time especially. As QP discusses time -- a relative infinite, not an absolute. Light does not "move" in lines but pulses of informative frequencies ( defined as patterns ) "360" "dimensions" per what-have-you. "Spheric Longevity"

          James.

    6. kess profile image59
      kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are right and wrong so I'll just restate.....

      The reality is that we are consciousness and it is eternal.
      We have always existed and also never existed.
      We Live in a physical body so that we can see the both sides.

      You begin to live when you perceive the reality of your always existing self, and with that understanding you also perceive you never existing self.
      You then separate the two then apply both in support of the always existing self.

      In the same context by our nature we know the nature of the One called Father of whom others refer to as creator.

      He is exactly the same as us except in that He went ahead of all that why he posses the Title Father.

      Now the term creator also applies to Him, but the true understanding eludes those who do not yet understand themselves...

      And some will never come to that understanding because, they are the never existing conciousness, to whom such a knowledge will be foriegn.

      1. Jefsaid profile image59
        Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for your contribution but not sure what it all means.  It sounds like something to do with god which I don't personally believe in.  I believe in life energy and that the manifestation of that energy is the eternal consciousness that brings to life organic matter most noteably via the central processor we know as the brain.  Consciousness has no measurable existence nor can it be observed independently through science as it is integral to our own thoughts and actions.  It would be like trying to perceive our own perception.  The whole creator thing is something man made and I have heard no tangible argument to convince me otherwise.

        1. kess profile image59
          kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          well you should quit seeking for your convictions from the words of men...and seek after truth.

          For in the ed it Trth alone that matters.

          1. Jefsaid profile image59
            Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I think you have misunderstood me.  I do not believe in man made words.

            1. kess profile image59
              kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Truth is knowledge..

              A man cannot know that god is not without first knowing that God is.

              To say therefore that god is not without also knowing that god is is to trust ignorance rather than knowledge.

              but then again this is merely words on a screen and therefore should mean nothing to you unless it also comes from you..

              Seek and you shall find..

              1. Jefsaid profile image59
                Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Kess, I am sorry but this word god to me actually means 'man made'.  I believe in a reality and oneness that has nothing to do with god...

  2. knolyourself profile image62
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "It is entirely possible that our conscience is eternal.  We may have always existed and may never cease to exist." Agree. "So why is it that the religiously indoctrinated believe we are the products of some sort of creator..?"
    Because they don't believe it. They have to
    have hierarchy of being and earn their way into heaven, the capitalism of religion.

    1. Jefsaid profile image59
      Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I tend to agree with you.

  3. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Good night Yawl ...   been a long day of uo and down ladders and laying shingles.

       That's hard on an old man.


        Se ya tomorow

  4. Eaglekiwi profile image72
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Im not struggling lol

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Of course not, EK!  Your acceptance forbids it.  Jim Jones followers willingly swallowed the deliciously cool fruity beverages furnished for them and their children.  No one struggled then either.   Just saying.  smile  The mind of a child is easily bent and difficult to realign when adulthood is attained.  smile

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image72
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        @Randy-

        If by forbidding you mean, I obey the laws of the land
        Help family ,friends,strangers if they need a hand.
        Empathise with the prostitute who was brutally beaten, feed and help at a shelter-simply because I could.
        Visit a prisoner who had no family ,and volunteer to take children  from  parents  who had aids on a picnic......

        Nah love is a verb ,so I try to show it by doing and not just talk talk talking about it.

        Those kinda people are like rubbing vinegar in a wound-

        Jim Jones was evil indeed. No arguement from me.Hitler too , the list is long.

        But hey the good people ( like me) are outnumbering the loons. wink

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Don't count on it. lol

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image72
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Aww cags..
            Ive met some awesome Christians ,of course most of them too busy to frequent forums like you and me ,but credit where credits due I say.  smile

            1. Cagsil profile image59
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I've met a lot of JWs and many of them are very kind, however, I've also met my share of the fanatics. wink

  5. Jefsaid profile image59
    Jefsaidposted 5 years ago

    Let me elaborate on this point.  Firstly, I do not believe in religion.  It's a man made fantasy.  Having a father who was also a complete non-believer and a mother who did believe, provided me a balanced and unusually detached view of such things. I do not dismiss science, we would not be having this debate across all corners of the globe without it.  However, science and religion which we devised, by design, sets boundaries to our thinking.

    I am continually fascinated how the concept that there must be a beginning and end is so embedded in Western thinking.  Some Eastern philosophies transcend these boundaries which the Yin-Yang illustrates.  They see a reality where life is a continual flow of energy and that start/end are completely indistinguishable and even irrelevant.  Everything is fluid and interconnected in their view.

    It came to my attention some while ago after reading a book entitled 'Tao of Physic' by author, physicist Fritjof Capra that Quantum sub-atomic physics in its quest to find the finite indestructible material that everything was made of, found instead a continual flowing energy much like that described by Eastern 'mystics'.  It became apparent that everything was made from this energy and interconnected to it. 

    It threw into question our long-held belief that as living conscious beings we are independent of and separated from inanimate objects through time and space.  No such disconnection existed at this sub-atomic level.  It was also a phenomenon that was difficult to describe or explain due to the limitations of our perceptions and language.  Additionally, because the observer is intuitively connected to the energy, it was difficult to analyse as its manifestation is integrally connected to the observer and everything else.

    I personally have no difficulty in embracing this concept of our existence and have since become more fascinated with this reality.

    My question therefore of whether we never cease to exist seems totally feasible while I am intrigued by the inability of  religious and mathematically minded people  to  perceive such a reality beyond the boundaries of their indoctrinated thought processes.

    Anyway, the topic has created an interesting enjoyable debate and I thank everyone for your contribution.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Okay!  Religion or beliefs can be anything you imagine them to be.  smile

      1. Jefsaid profile image59
        Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Indeed!

      2. Jefsaid profile image59
        Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Reality is reality and what we see and believe is simply our perception of that reality.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And perception is perception and what we perceive we may take as reality.  smile  Works both ways but not necessarily true.

          1. Jefsaid profile image59
            Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            OK let's do the play on words game.

            Reality is perception and perception is reality so nothing is actually true.  Or is it that truth is our perception and not our reality and reality is the perception of truth.  Maybe we don't even exist? wink

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hmmm..So your perception you have always been around in some form of energy or another is only true for you.  In other words, some may think the internet communications we are now using is merely magic.  To those folks this is reality. 

              But to those in the know it is merely science and technology.  I prefer to rely on those who have working knowledge in their perceptions and regard their perceptions as truth.  Not those with perceptive reality gained by willing self delusion or denial of facts.  But to each his/her own.  smile

              1. Jefsaid profile image59
                Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I think you are confusion yourself now.  Internet communication has nothing to do with the belief of eternal  existence...

                Are you incapable of having your own delusions on life or do you rely on the delusions of others?

  6. HattieMattieMae profile image69
    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago

    yeap it's what you focus on and what you believe to be truth! Only you can really decipher what fits you and your lifestyle.

  7. Eaglekiwi profile image72
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Yea I smell bacon and eggs somewhere. ( Perception)

    But its next door ,so they are not my reality..sighs  lol

    1. Jefsaid profile image59
      Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I perceive that you have an incredible sense of smell?  I think there may be a good job for you around the baggage handling section of the airport.  The handler wouldn't need to rely on a bark or wag of the tail you could just sniff and point, although you do seem prone to getting your reality mixed up so probably not such a good career option. big_smile

  8. HattieMattieMae profile image69
    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago

    cause you were created, so if there was no creation, you wouldn't be alive! lol

    1. Jefsaid profile image59
      Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Created! You mean by that imaginary god thing?  You know that thingy-me-jig  that people 'perceive' to be the creator.  What was it that created the thingy-me-jig again...?roll

      1. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Aw, come on. You can imagine that. You said you've got a big imagination. smile

        1. Jefsaid profile image59
          Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Did I? or is that your perception? cool

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol I thought you said it, but then I have been called delusional.

            1. Jefsaid profile image59
              Jefsaidposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              just-curious, I always enjoy your contributions.tongue

 
working