Can one find a flaw with this meaning of existence?

This is HALF of my Answer since I did not have enough room for the Other Half: Look for the Other Half in My Proile Questions Please!

So, First Half:

Finally Architect! I get to answer this for U! First OFF, Allow me to make good use of this answering space & given time to Congratulate U on your Thoughts, Energy, Efforts & Time into putting this very well written Truth Together! Simply & beautifully! U truly are One of the Few Living souls I have Encountered which dedicate even a tiny portion of their LifeTime into thinking this Clearly & achieving a set goal in Mind to Share with Others! Truly SELFLESS &Generous of U,! May others EMPATHIZE with U as Well! OK.Now...I've read IT all & Clearly, and I don;t find any emminent Flaw in your Philosophy or Perpective on Life. It was very well thought out & agree with IT very much So. I speacially Love the sentence "Self is Consciousness, Universe is Unconsciousness". Next, I appreacite the fact that u addressed the issue of Death. People are often times too overwhlemed by Life that they take Death Lightly or Negatively beforehand, w/out even giving it some serious thought! I however, DO have a Confusion when you address the Judgment of the Self...Is that to be taken Literally, as in 'God', the essence of the Universe which the living self still perceives to be separate from ItSelf will be judged by this essence, by 'God'? Or is this part to be Interpreted Metaphorically as in the Self meeting Final Judgment as into cleansing itSelf out of all the Preconceptions, Judgments, Misconceptions & Illusions IT obtained within its LifeTime? Could U clarify that? I am curoius w/this as though I am not sure if U are taking it with the religious & literal approach of the world religions such as Christianity, or if U sometimes just make Biblical refrerences b/cause they're good examples that illustrate & reveal Truth? Please Clarify this...I'm all for the Truth! So siding w/a particular Team or given religion per say sometimes goes along with the necessity or inevitability of ending up being biased which distorts what people say & confuse them into mistaking THIS by being the Objective Ultimate Truth! I am not saying this is your case Architect. and I do re-state once more that I agree 100% w/ your philosophy but I gotta make sure from what approach u were intending into presenting it: i.e. religioin alone or rather a more spiritual-based Truth....But nonethless, the Truth is Immutable whether Physics, religion or Philosphy says it! I am also glad u also included the approach of Physics through Quantum Mech., although the Quantum Mechanical Theory of the Observer being Observed may very well be part of even a greater Perspective such as String Thoery or an Utimate Finite & unchangeable Outlook to the Universe as a whole. Therefore, w/ This I am simply trying to pinpoint the fact that :May U consider ALL the pieces of the Puzzle as to leave NO piece behind! Please keep this Pricnciple in Mind!

Suggestions for You:

* I would love seeing U explain your Philoshophy live & face to face in some public presentation:

May U consider presenting such views in a TED talk per say? What could be better than hearing these same words come out of the mouth of the individual who wrote them Down & gathered them in a File to share with Others!

I am always grateful of your points of view. Many Thanks!!

Sadly I do not have the time to read your piece (but I did copy it), and answer it completely.

I want to point out, Us and our world, are simply electrical impulses, effecting atoms (thus molecules) in ways that still perplexes mankind. Everything is created in our minds.

Does anything really exist?

Could we all be nothing more then a dream (or nightmare) happening in God's own mind?

Is there a God? Is there more than one God?

If God really does exist, There must of been a time when he did not exist.

The problem with understanding the Mean of our Existence (or anything else, for that matter [no pun intended], is we can not grasp the concept of everything that does exist, without out the conclusion that there must of been a time, when absolutely NOTHING existed! If there was NOTHING, how can there be even one subatomic particle? Yet, we have so much more than that!

Beyond the question of the "Meaning of Our Existence", is what is the Meaning of "Us" after death?

Many are told we will "live" we God & Jesus Christ, for an Eternity. Doing what? That question scares me. An eternity with God? A mass Murderer?

I leave you with this question: What was God's thinking, when he created only one human [Adam]? What was Adam suppose to do, all by himself?

PS: Ockham's Razor is a "Principle" not a "truth". It has been proven to be, just as wrong, as being right. No better than a flip of a coin.

It is a hard question. I agree with it in many ways, yet many things become a bit blurry in my eyes for me to give a clear definition of.

"Everything is, yet is not" is not something that proposes many answers in actuality. Though it makes sense in some ways.

The text seems to draw inspiration almost only from christianity which may make it less appealing for non-christians. I would really love to hear your explanation on ecactly what it is you define as "god". For me, the idea of an all powerful diety that can be compared to humans makes no sense at all. But that is not really how you put it.

You say that everything is one, which I agree upon, but what does one with god mean in your definition. For me, it is simply being one with the universe. Which we are automatically, anyway, but may not always percieve it that way. "God" for me is the universe in whole.

I may have missed something, maybe the answer was already in that text, I didnt have time to read through its details yet, will do later.

Either way, bless you.

Do I see a flaw? This is what you think the meaning of existence is, or what you might call your ontological identification or interpretation. It is a flaw not to include an understanding that every person and thing has their own ontological existence and therefore interpretation of existence. What I do I mean by this? It all comes from the variation of existence, subjectivity. GENERAL example of subjectivity: Take any one's life and what it includes, what it is. There are commonalities when it comes to being alive, being life, being human, but you haven't worked on those commonalities. There exists a reality outside of your own particular existence, or any particular existence. Not to add this, can be a flaw, but adding itself is merely another particular way of approaching ontology.

Why are you labeling the infinite God, why not zeeto, myboa, tinky-winker? I am guessing that comes from the religious part of your psyche?

While grasping at the this oneness, do you see yourself as still being finite? A) The concept of oneness is different than B) the being of thinking of oneness. I.e. A) All things are one. B) I am the tree. I am the doing of drinking the water? The second can be a form of escapism but it also is form of feeling connected and seeing the self as "universal." The thing is the attributes of self are particular.

God as a form doesn't exist. That's not always true. People think that some ontological beings, such as the highest intelligence possible is God. Pantheists and people who claim they are God, or even in Hindu atman to brahman, think they are god in form. You attributing God with infinity, is just your relative concept of God attaching to your relative attribution of the concept/possible being.

Your not going to get very far with this idea, as I told you before its an ancient, gnostic, hermanutic, hegalism, spinoza, idea, and isn't popular! Why should it be? By virtue of communication people are influenced to think differently, or they stay with theirs, or make an interpretation of what anyone has put out there. Why think the universe is God? Why think separation from God is Luciferian?

I would suggest that you set apart yourself from your ideas, and see what else you can think of. This is what I do, and gives me more perspective and interconnected knowledge (holism) to work with.

I have already gone into proving this theory with mathematics and deducationism *than retracted the fullness of it). Look at people man, look at the population, you really think they are ready to understand what Buddha said was, "all is in all?" I think it should be something people awake to on their own, instead of forced upon them.

Be what you want to be, do what you want to do.

I've read a few different philosophies and about mysticism and whatnot but the older I get the less I'm remembering.

I seem to be seeing bits and pieces of things I've read in the past in your article and some of it appears to combine parts from one area and another.

I've attempted to read your article a few times but lately my mind just doesn't jump too high to grasp things that quickly. It takes a while for my mind to absorb and comprehend things if capable at all with certain things. But I still try and with some things I continue to look at it from different angles at different times and after reading similar or contrasting things to see if any bells start to go off.

I'll continue to try and grasp what your article is about but at this moment it just seems to be a very high jump for me to catch a glimpse of the bottom of it let alone to understand the middle and see the top.

Sorry I wasn't more helpful but I'll continue trying to understand.

After reading the answers you have put on this site. I have no doubt that it will contain some wisdom. I fear this is no more than an attempt to drive traffic to whatever the link go's to so i wont click on it.

Appealing to people curiosity and how can i say it. Intellectual Ego is very clever though.

You should be in marketing.

If you're asleep and I put smelling salts up against your noise you will wake up.

Numbers exist only because of the mind like everything else in existence. So the universe is illusion.

I can't be bothered to read the whole thing.

Is not the authors use of God as being one and all being God not the ego's attempt at continuing its existence in a different guise.

Complex.

flaw no1: u assume readers eyes to be closed and this text to be a solution for that

flaw no2: the text is from one persspective, of more then 2000yrs ago