A Carapace of Thought

Today I have subconsciously, but not unwillingly, enveloped myself in a series of questions that I do not believe are on the whole tangible to the outreaches and diameter of the human mind. I am an agnostic:

–noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

And what I ask of all of you followers of the set path of someone else's idea is a question that is a loop in itself, literally, and utterly undeterminable by anyone. If there is a god, (a creator of things, and all things that are tangible with these things) the creator of the universe, then who created this creator? How can anyone state as if it were a general truth (another word relative to the person) that a certain person(s)/thing(s) created any of this so called 'existence'? And from there I loop back to my statement that I am an agnostic. If you were able to obtain this 'truth', then definitively you would be a god. I believe religion was once a basis for the path of life, just as there are signs to warn those who venture down long paths and flights of stairs in a skyscraper. Another question:

What is the point of reaching the bottom of this scyscraper that is life, with the bottom being death (or a greater truth) if one can simply just run full charge through the window and reach the bottom in virtually no time without consequence?

Thus, almost every Modernized religion or every religion that takes a definite claim towards what is thought as 'truth' is corrupt. Yes, many religions provide a path, so to speak, to guide people through hardships, and give people a non-tangible object to grasp with the limbs of their minds, but why complicate and exaggerate and overuse these ideas and once pure ideas?

One who strives to be perfect must realize that to be perfect is relative to one's own cause.

One who strives to achieve a higher state of mind must realize that a higher state of mind is only a different way of thinking, and different ranks of thought are in themselves overlapping.

One who strives to be original must realize that there is no concept that exists that is truly 'original', that everything that has ever been thought of, whether it be thought of from man or any other being, is only a [i]discovery, a pre-existing mass of matter that was formulated and rearranged through some breakthrough or phenomenal vision. To obtain originality is to be able to conjure mass and matter from nothing, as rediculous a thought as magic.

Thus, in ourselves we are how others perceive us and how we perceive everything and nothing that we may do; thoughts are a mere weight upon the ever-so destructive mentalities and physicalities.

-And yes, I do realize that some of my views are highly hypocritical, but it is impossible to avoid such errors.

Please read this through clearly before you respond (if you do respond), or at least incorporate this into just one moment of your daily thought or thoughtlessness.

Don't be shy to share your thoughts... lol...

alllllllrriiiiiiiiiiighhhhhhttttttttttt...........

I completely agree with you but,

This is true for the most part except that the human mind usually percieves that a beginning and an end are with everything. In the case of God I'm guessing there was no need for a beginning or an end which in turn made that being a God, the before was god and the after as well. God might be the only definate infinite in the universe, or even outside of the universe.

That's just an argument for people to build from. I personally agree with you James, Wholeheartedly, Whether this made any sense to anyone else or not doesn't really matter to me seeing as I'm a 15 year old teenager.

did you just make a second account and answer yourself? if not that's cool but I was just wondering.


But yes I do think you are on to something. not quite sure about the skyscraper analogy though, care to explain more?

No, I had a friend join the forum and respond to it so people would be inclined to put forth their thoughts.

The scyscraper analogy has three parts with the peak of the very topmost part being birth. The concrete sidewalk at the base represents death. I noted that there seems to be no point in climbing down this scyscraper (the inbetween) when you can just get to 'heaven' (for those who believe in heaven) by jumping off at any point and instantly getting to a better place- as we see occurring in the Islamic culture with suicide bombings to reach Allah.

in eternity there is no beginning end or middle. there is just plain eternity. eternity doesn't mean an infinite amount of time, it means no time at all. after reading the question thats how i figured i would answer it. there can be an effect before a cause. that is where the answer to the question lies. the god who created our creating god may not be capable of being revealed to us because maybe he exists in the future from our perspective. we humans are imprisoned by time and have no way of comprehending how something outside of it functions.