Seeing the Stars

Seeing the Stars

Here is a statement that came to me tonight:

  “Without someone to see them; there would be no stars.”

There is a lot of profound truth within this.

Think on this question. Why is this true?

A reader responded to the above with: “That phase reminds me of … ‘If a tree falls and none is around too hear it — does it make a sound?’“

JJ: Yes, but it points toward a very different truth. It makes a statement rather than asking a question.

The idea related to this statement does not present a similar conundrum as in the tree falling in the forest question.

A reader makes this statement in his interesting dissertation:

  “Yes, the tree MAY still fall and yes the air molecules may get disturbed by the movement and yes that perturbation may get transferred from air molecule to air molecule over quite a distance, but NO Virginia, if there is no one there to HEAR it, it makes no sound as both the idea of hearing AND sound are just ways consciousness has evolved as a method of making sense (use) of what is really just a bunch o’ flappin goin’ on.”

JJ: This thinking depends on the definition of sound. If we define sound as the creation of sound waves then there is sound, but if we define it as Dan did here as something that must be heard by a human being then there is no sound.

For the sake of uniformity in understanding let us define sound as being in existence as long as there is sound waves whether one hears them or not.

Therefore if a tree falls in a forest there is sound.


Still this statement is true:

  “Without someone to see them; there would be no stars.”


Another reader said this:

  “If there was no one to see them, then there would be no purpose in creating them in the first place.”

JJ: Everything in the universe exists not for the sake of its own, but for good of the whole, so lets say that seeing them benefits somehow (and it does), then we can write this statement as:

  “Without someone to benefit from them; there would be no stars.”

Following the principle, we could also write for example:

 “Without someone to experience it; there would be no kingdom of God.”

Anothere reader says: “Without someone or something to create them, they and we would not exist.”

JJ: These thoughts take us in the direction I want to pursue, but there were other good comments giving other interpretations.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it there is still a tree that falls and sound waves are given off. However, neither the tree or the stars would have been created in the first placed if conscious life was not available to see and appreciate it. Nothing would have been created and the universe itself would not exist if conscious life was not available to see and appreciate them.

DaVinci would have not painted the Mona Lisa unless he and others could later step back and appreciate the creation.

Even so, the stars would not exist if there was no life available to see, use and appreciate them.

You, I, and the consciousness that is in us assisted in making stars, planets, animals, atoms, quarks, etc. We were motivated to create things of beauty and perfection, so we could stand back and look upon them as God did after making the stars when the scripture says “and God saw that it was good.” (Gen 1:18)

If God could not see the stars and appreciate them he would not have created them.

This principle may seem self-obvious and very simple yet there are many who must not believe it for they do not accept the reality behind it.

How does this truism refute the logic of the atheists and agnostics?

Here’s an observation about atheists made by a student:

  “Since I have come upon the teachings here, the one thing that I personally have found to be interesting about the positions of those that call and/or consider themselves to be atheists is that it appears (to me) that the main flaw in their logic is that they use the definition of “god” that orthodox religionists use. And when I have listened to (or read) them, the thought that rises in my mind is that it makes sense that they would come to that conclusion, and will continue to as long as they use the traditional and/or orthodox definition.”

JJ: This is a good point. Quite often I have seen some Christian arguing with an atheist in the media and the atheist makes fun of the God on the throne idea. The believer then responds with orthodox arguments leaving the audience with the conclusion he does accept an anthropomorphic God who sits on a throne.

This distraction causes those on the fence to not take his argument seriously.

The funny thing about this belief is that most Christian religions do not believe that God is in physical form on a throne. Instead, they believe he is a spirit that is everywhere and make fun of Mormons who do believe that God is in the form of a man.

It is somewhat humorous that orthodox Christians are attacked for believing in a Mormon type of God, and they do not defend themselves by clarifying their belief.

And why do they not do this? Most likely because in reality they are not sure what God is, except that he is a mystery and cannot explain Him themselves.

On the other hand, the idea that God is a great life that is a composite of all other lives in the universe has some logic to it that could appeal to some non believers. We can see, for instance, that we, as humans, are lives composed of billions of smaller lives. We also see that groups, cities, states, countries, etc., seem to have a greater life and character of their own. By extension then a composite God that is evolving Itself through the Universe is much more logical than some outer being who just snapped His fingers and made everything instantly appear.

The most amazing proof though that a Creator exists is that anything exists at all. If there was no God then there would be nothing at all — not even a speck of dust existing anywhere in the universe. In fact, there would be no universe, no time, no space, and no life.

I was contemplating the thinking of an atheist when the phrase under discussion came into my mind and when I reflected upon it I saw proof for God in a way I had never considered before. The standard proof given is to point out how improbable that random chance could create complicated things like the atom, a cell, a human body, etc.

But this statement takes an entirely different slant. It presents the idea that anything that exists in form does so because some intelligence conceived it, created it and then sees and appreciates his work.

Just stating this principle will not convince many atheists, but when one contemplates it with even a glimmer of light from the soul the truth will become self-evident.

It’s a little like the statement “the truth shall make you free.” Such a statement is difficult to prove in black-and-white, but almost all who contemplate this will sense that it is profound and has truth incorporated within it.

  “Without someone to see them; there would be no stars.”

This is a similar statement that teaches such a basic reality that many will sense truth is there even though it cannot be empirically proven.

Creation is impossible unless there is a creator and creators come forth for the joy of seeing and experiencing their work through to the finish and being appreciated by other living beings.

Everything should be made as simple as possible … but not simpler. —Albert Einstein

Jan 11, 2009

To search the website, containing millions of words, replace the word “search” with the word or phrase you want to find and place the entire line in the Google search box.


Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE