Thread: Why do we think?

I'm not sure where to put this. If you think this location is inappropriate, the moderators can move it.

Why do we think?

Is it because God has given us the power of comprehension? I say not.
I do say however that God is as much creation of mankind as mankind is the creation of God.
To understand this all we have to start at the beginning – the creation of the Universe.
Something started it all, a primal urge, a creator or something.
Always keep in mind that we are limited by our own perceptions, our own ability to understand, in short by our very nature.

So we need to define What is reality?

Some of you may say reality is what we bump into in the dark.
Scientists have talked about this big bang that created the universe, for our purposes we are going to assume this is correct.
So what if we assume everything was inside that ball? I believe that the scientists do.
What was outside of the object that created the Big Bang. The answer is nothing, because everything comes from inside that ball – that is reality.

So What is time?

Some may say time marks the passage of events, I say it does not, I say humans mark the passage of events so what is time?
Time is what keeps everything from happening at once. So you see in the object that created the big bang everything was happening at once and then the universe changed.
Why? It just did.

Now if everything was occurring at once, before this creation, then everything was everything. No differentiation.
So for reasons we’ll probably never know, the totality of creation acted to differentiate itself. This “birth” of the universe was the means for the universe to become conscious.

For those that don’t understand, humans are conscious, animals are conscious, God is conscious, but why?

Because by becoming mortal it is the means by which the universe, this “stuff”, becomes self-conscious, self-aware. Each life is the universe’s experiment, and each of us brings back knowledge to the universe when we die.

Now no one knows the exact age of the universe but by many calculations and theories it is billions of years old but for all we know that could be the universe equivalent to a two-year-old child.

Now I asked earlier, why do we think?

Suppose for a moment that the universe and, everything in it, everything that ever was or will be is linked. We all share more than having something in common. We have many different names for these things but it is all the same thing, this “stuff” I mentioned earlier. Some of you may call it spirit.
The universe is alive, a being of impossible complexity and vastness. It is for a want of a better term God.
Can you imagine a being with stars in its head, billions of them? We have blood and bile, it has worlds, comets and intelligent races…everything!

God, the Universe is everything, knows everything but it’s a baby. How do babies learn?
They mimic actions and are corrected by their parents but what if there is no mother or father universe/God? It experiments. It tries things. It creates things, like people, and turns them loose to see what happens.

Am I saying we’re some sort of cosmic puppet theatre? No. God isn’t watching us on a celestial stage because God is also the puppets.

In case you haven’t kept up, we’re back to why do we think?

If God is everything, mind, spirit, thought, action, dirt, wind, everything that is and can be, then each thing God is must be accounted for as having a purpose.

What is life for? It’s a way to evolve thought.
And what is thought for? It’s a way to be aware, a stage between the physical and the spiritual.
And time? It’s a good way to keep things separated. And lastly, why humans and other thinking creatures think? It is so that spirit can be self-conscious.

All in all I’m saying evil is just as much God’s fault as good. This is because God doesn’t see it as good or evil; God’s learning about good and evil. To him, it’s just the odd way certain creatures behave.

Our ultimate purpose is to teach God to do the correct thing – we’re correcting a baby – and that good is worth struggling for, that kindness is better than hatred, that creation is better than destruction as well as many other things.

To put the above in simplest terms – it is necessary.

I adapted this from source material but cannot find the source material to credit it.

The idea of God according to the Judeo-Christian tradition is that he is omnipotent and omniscient. Therefore, God knows all about good and evil, and he can do anything he wants. Thus, to say that God is a baby, or that we are correcting him, is preposterous. If God is truly omniscient, then we cannot teach him anything.

Furthermore, a lot of your rant(?) doesn't make sense. You make statements and then fail to back them up. You are presenting the conclusions of a process without allowing the reader to see the process, which I believe is essential to the proper understanding of what you are trying to say.

Having an open mind and thinking beyond the 'everyday' is what brings about good writing, I would think.
Then again, someone will probably argue with that.
What about that hole in your pond-netting, Ox? Let me take a look at that....

Originally Posted by eclectic_specialist

The idea of God according to the Judeo-Christian tradition is that he is omnipotent and omniscient. Therefore, God knows all about good and evil, and he can do anything he wants. Thus, to say that God is a baby, or that we are correcting him, is preposterous. If God is truly omniscient, then we cannot teach him anything.

That all seems quite irrelevant to the point.

Furthermore, a lot of your rant(?) doesn't make sense. You make statements and then fail to back them up. You are presenting the conclusions of a process without allowing the reader to see the process, which I believe is essential to the proper understanding of what you are trying to say.

That just shows that you are a practical evidence based learner and that is the style of learning culture you prefer.

Thank you for your comment.

God created the heavens and the earth and called them good. We as human beings introduced sin into the human race when we disobeyed his perfect law. The consequence of sin is death, and last time I checked, people die. How do you then make the assertion that we, as mortal people, should correct that which is immortal? That we, the created thing, should correct that which created us? Or that we should accuse God of doing wrong when we introduced wrong into the world ourselves?

I think it's an amusing idea to poke at God in this manner -- assuming he exists. I'll be honest, the way you composed this piece is proper terrible. It was difficult to keep a grasp of what the hell you were talking about -- and not because it's an unusual mentality to identify -- just because it was written/typed as a big confusion. This piece is supposed to be a solution to many complex questions, yet it seems as though your train of thought never really reached its destination. In short, your confusion shines through the words and makes the reader confused. That was my experience anyway.

To jump aboard your train (it's tough, let me tell you), I put this question to you: why is it beneficial for humanity to act morally rather than immorally if God is but a baby and is yet learning of our behaviour and how to deal with it? Is this not flawed? When, and it is inevitable, someone acts immorally and God apparently is inexperienced with immoral acts, what is he to do? According to your theory, is it not better for God to accept and embrace that there is a balance between morality and immorality? In so doing, he would be able to gain experience with both sides of the coin, and so would adapt to deal with the issues immorality brings with it.

I agree with you!

Originally Posted by Sigg

I disagree with about half of what is written but I agree with the message. As far as the writing itself goes, try to read it to yourself again as if someone else had written it and you'll probably get the same sense of a condescending narrative voice that I did. If you do want to continue this as a piece of writing instead of the rant that a previous poster said it is, I would consider re-writing this to be more humble and welcoming so the readers don't have the kneejerk reaction of navigating away or leaving an unhelpful comment

Thank you. It was intended as a "condescending narrative voice".

Originally Posted by wizardslogic

This a thought piece and, as such, overthinking isn't a bad thing. However, the literary way of presenting those thoughts is vital to transferring the ideas to others for absorption. I, myself, have to admit that I understand what your saying. I read a book called "Equations of Eternity" by David Darling that suggests that consciousness exists as attempt by the universe to become self-aware. Really a fascinating idea. Your essay is interesting to me as well, but it has so many thoughts that are shrouded by passion and too densely packed with little concrete clarification. I like it as a poetic, emotional piece, though.

Many have claimed this piece as overthinking, let me suggest a counter-proposal that others do not think enough.

Equations of Eternity sounds an interesting read.

I like your interpretation of passion as I found little to none in the piece. Keeping in mind I only adapted it.

There can be no concrete clarification in the realm of the metaphysical.

I'm glad you liked it as a poetic, emotional piece.

Thank you