This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

the living universe, and misunderstood religion

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by Astrum, Apr 22, 2011.

  1. Astrum

    Astrum Psion

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,918
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    I was browsing threads to see if i could express some of my opinions about this matter in relation to another conversation, but i had too many vauge options so i decided to put this out here on my own. there are two parts.

    i have done a lot of reaseach, general learning and some interesting personal experiences over the past year or so that have led me away from my lifelong bounce between vauge agnostisism and outright atheism. i have developed some ideas, that continue to develop, that now define my ever changing personal belief system on the nature of the universe and what all people refer to as "god" under so many different names.

    i'm going to cut straight to the point and hopefully provoke some questions, arguments, and insights. one thing, divided into two parts: the universe, and the supreme being (god, whatever)

    i beleive god (or whatever you choose to call god) and the universe as we know it are one and the same. we view outselves subjectively as separate from the objecive world around us. but what separates us from this world? what makes us beleive that there is an "I" that is seperate from everything else, which is external. there is nothing, us included, that isnt a vibrational field. our bodies interpret these vibrations using our senses as what we see and feel around us. but this is an obvious truth to me: the universe is the being, not "us". we think of a "being" as "something" that is "alive". this "something" existsin the "world" around us.

    this is an illusion. everything is one and the same, and the fact that "we" even exist, think, and feel emotions, is only further evidence to me instead of the opposite. The universe itself is one consious emotional entity, and us as "people" are just, as a figure of speech, six billion eyes of "god". to me, any religious text is an interpretation of this truth as it was understood then by the enlightened idividuals who wrote them. as civilizaition progressed, people developed into different groups, the five senses became more distracted, we further divided into groups and categories until a complete sense of indivudiality has been reached. "we" think that "we" are "us", that everyone is an "I" and "we" are intelligent beings in a universe that exists around us. this, to me, is obviously false. we are a hyper-microscopically small fragment of a massive force we cant even begin to comprehend. we are god, everything around us is god, god is this. as alan watts once wrote, "If you ask me to show you God, I will point to the sun, or a tree, or a worm. But if you say, 'You mean, then, that God is the sun, the tree, the worm, and all other things?'--I shall have to say that you have missed the point entirely"

    Words are a creation of the unmeasurably young race of men, and we live by them. most people dont realize that the "things" "around" them cannot be siimply defined by words, nor are they the words themselves. the universe is what has been vaugely referred to as god throughout the ages, and because the universe isn't exactly humanoid in appearance we do not think of it as a living being. it is.

    my other opinion that is one of the main foundations to my belief is that we live in a basically fictional world. what we see, feel, touch, smell, and hear around us are products of our own mind and the organic computer that is our body. without those senses, there is absolutely zero reason to assume the things our senses interpret are actually there, if we didnt have those senses. people are capaple of literally anything.

    i literally could go on and on for hours (i'm currently writing a very long essay about this sort of thing) but you get the idea.
     
  2. crimsonfloyd

    crimsonfloyd Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I think you're a little confused. The first part and the second part of what you say are completely opposing philosophical views. The first is a pantheistic externalism and the second is a transcendental idealism.

    If God were anything, this is what it would be. You should check out Spinoza's ethics. He gives a very strong argument that God is nature. Unlike you, he doesn't think that god or nature is anthropomorphic, but nonetheless I think you would find it interesting.

    However, I think any time someone uses a term to refer to "everything" that term is nonsense. The word "everything" is meant to point out a group within a larger group (i.e. "everything in my room is green"). Therefore words like "God", "Universe" when used in such a manner are meaningless. Words show. When used in such a manner these words show nothing.


    Things certainly are not the words themselves. However, words to show things in a certain way. For humans, which are inherently linguistic animals, words give and take. They reveal certain respects of an object and cover others.

    Well what do you mean by "living"? To me calling the universe "living" is to misuse the word living. Organisms can be alive. Rocks cannot be alive, water cannot be alive. This does not necessarily mean that these objects are inherently meaningless, but they are certainly not alive.

    This completely contradicts what you said earlier about there being no reason to believe in a distinction between "I" and the "world". If it is the case that the world is fictional, then it must be represented to a subject, an "I".

    The body is not a computer. It is not a machine. It is a living entity. Living entities cannot be reduced to functions. Of course, we can reduce it to functions- as we do in science or behaviorism-- but this cannot account for the unity and meaning inherent to the living being.

    Furthermore, if we are to think of our own bodies as "computers" (though this makes no sense since embodied beings created computers) then why would we not think of nature as a "mega-computer"?
     
  3. Blowtus

    Blowtus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Straya
    you take quite the realist perspective regarding what to me are just pragmatic linguistic devices... my 'I' exists because I want to say it does. Similarly, you can describe aspects of your experience with a term like 'the universe', and even call it conscious if you think you gain something from it. To me the former (universe) distinction is useful, but calling it 'conscious' just reduces the term to meaninglessness...
     
  4. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,247
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i've said it before, and i think someone else said it before me,

    religion is a wheelchair for the crippled mind
     
  5. hexwind

    hexwind Creepiness Och Terrorism

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    9,791
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Psychedelic Planet
    You said it before me :)
     
  6. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,247
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    +1
     

Share This Page