Gaia: Spiritual Life

So Buddhism taught you not to have desires, what now?

http://DanielDevoteeAndMystic.gaia.com — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:39:02 GMT

It's said that desire causes suffering, that when you want something, there is then some sort of disharmony in your mind. One thing I would ask, then, is what was it about the Buddha that made him different? What is it that makes any enlightened person different from the rest that allows them to achieve oneness?

The Buddha was completely obsessed with finding God, he was utterly consumed with desire, but not the same desires as those around him. He just wanted God, and he poured his efforts into finding Him. Where would the Buddha be without this burning desire? Obviously, the Buddha wasn't without desire.

The problem with desire, is when it's towards materiality rather than God. And this is not to say that one can't desire to have nice things, it just means that the desire for people and things can't be any greater than your desire for God. Desire for anything to the point that it overshadows craving for God causes an attachment, and in this condition, enlightenment would be impossible.

Rather than nurturing correct desire, many people have came to the conclusion that they should just be emotionally unattached to everything, but ironically, this will guarantee that enlightenment is totally impossible.

The common thread I see in those that have achieved enlightenment is an all consuming devotion to God. For most, happiness comes from surrounding themselves with anything they can come to control that can make them feel satisfied. But these individuals who find God, they are totally unsatisfied with that life. They must find God, because they know He is the real source of fulfillment.

Everything we love is all just a manifestation of God, yet rather than seeking the pure source of these things, we get so focused on the manifestations. And another problem is that many decide the source is something impersonal, very vague, lacking the characteristics that would cause us to develop the deep love necessary to serve and find oneness.

Who would risk their life, be devoted to, and cherish something that is impersonal, has no care for them, that doesn't even know they exist? Imagine how one-sided this relationship would be? What sort of loving committed relationship would take place with something impersonal, something that has only created us by accident? For all we know, we could merge with this impersonal reality and just come right back into individuality.

I don't think most Buddhists truely realize the ramifications of Buddhism's teachings. Do they not see that Buddhism offers no explanation to the question of why we exist. Many of them just conclude that life is suffering, that it has come about by accident, and the only escape is to just merge back into it, which is actually ending your life!

This belief system is depressing, and is quite similar to atheism. In addition to the above, the existence of the spirit is denied, yet rebirth is accepted! What would be the logic behind creating beings who's purpose is to just die and not take any lasting progress with them?

In Buddhism the divinity of personality has been striped from God and ourselves! The Buddha, however, accepted that there was a Not-Born, Not-Made who was our true destination, and upon his own enlightenment his words were "O House-Builder Thou art revealed..." It is clear that the Buddha believed in one who was eternal, a personal God, and clinging to This God was the escape from materiality.

Life: The Greatest Mistake Ever!

http://DanielDevoteeAndMystic.gaia.com — Sat, 23 May 2009 12:56:20 GMT

One observation that I have made recently, is that the majority of people are very much like sheep, following along with whatever the majority believes.

How many religious people go along with all kinds of things that are illogical?

How many non-religious people go along with things that are just as bad?

Belief in God, as I see it, is something that is just very simple, many times easy to accept. This is because the idea of God gives comfort, people feel that they're protected, and will go to heaven. At the same time, it is also very logical, because everything has its cause. So, when it comes to the original cause, the only option is God. Very simple.

On the other side, you have atheists, who accept evolution. As a side note, I think it should be called accidentalism, because evolution, in every observable situation, is the product of continuous refinement by individuals.

It is a big problem when people can't even agree upon the simplest of logic, because if that is the cause, we have no universal method to agree upon things. I think what everyone can agree upon is that new species continuously appeared in the past. I prefer to say appeared, rather than evolved, because I haven't read about fossils of gradual mutations, even though I look. And they would be very quick to do so, but the fact that they don't is very telling.

Think about it, these mutations are the explanation for every different species in existence! Gradual mutations would have to be taking place on a massive scale for such variety to occur. All we have are theories, claiming that maybe this happened, or maybe that happened, maybe dinosaurs came from birds, or sea creatures mysteriously modified themselves to breath air. How did that happen exactly, where is the evidence?

As advanced as science has become, it can't even replicate something so simple that it happens all the time by accident! If creating living things was so easy, why can it not be duplicated, even with the added benefit of scientists, with intelligence, creating the conditions for it to happen?

I could easily tell you what scientists are missing, that would make them able to create life. They don't have the intelligence and power. If somethings so easy can't be duplicated by intelligent people, aided by science, I would conclude simply that they don't have the ability to do it! So, who would have the ability to do it?

Before I just jump to the conclusion of saying it was "God," which some think shouldn't be the automatic answer for something unknown, let me take a look at what the First Cause might be.

Obvsiously, the First Cause wouldn't be physical, it wouldn't be the universe itself, or parallel universes, because all physical reality, not matter how you wish to conceive it, would still need a cause that isn't itself.

Secondly, it would be beyond time and space, because they came about with physical reality. So, one question we wouldn't be able to ask, if what caused the First Cause. This is because the First Cause is the first cause, there is no question of where it came from, it always was, the question of when just doesn't apply when time isn't in the picture.

Lastly, intelligence and power would be required. As I said above, science has been unable to make it happen, so more intelligence is needed to figuer out it is to be done. Not only that, but creation itself would require require will, in order to explain why it took place at all, in other words, the beginning needed to be decided upon, in order for it to start, or else, you will be still left searching for a cause. Will is a quality of mind, along with intelligence.

I say power, because all of creation would have to be generated, or caused to come into existence, and then manipulated, in order to create such a complex and large creation.

I am not a proponent of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) as many religious people are, or evolutionists. I find it completely unscientific to have a standpoint that assumes that it's possible to create something from nothing. Obviously, creation must have been made from what was already present. As the First Cause was all that was present, I would conclude that we are made from the First Cause.

I find it interesting that those who pracice meditation believe that the real foundation of their being, and source, is another reality, which they believe they can re-connect with. This makes sense to me, because I can see using logic that this reality must have come from another one.

Individuals who are religious, usually believe in an intelligent being, who makes the claim of creating everything us, and everything else. This Being is all-powerful, all-knowing and infinite, that "from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." To say that He is everlasting to everlasting, satisfies the idea that the First Cause existed before there was time.

One can easily see from the above, that this "God" has satisfied the needed attributes. Is it scientific to accept God as the First Cause? It surely doens't violate any aspect of science, not does it go against logic. Science works because the assumption is made, that there is an underlying order to things. Accidentalism was never a part of the equation when it came to understanding creation, which is orderly.

Science examines material reality, which is a phase of the First Cause, but not the phase that He was originally, and still is. It is not the duty of science to examine the First Cause, they examine the effects of the First Cause. We needn't wait for science to teach us the obvious, as intelligent people, it is best for us to come to our own realizations about the matter, and stop waiting for others to think for us.

There is simply no other explanation out there, and God posseses all the qualities that would make Him the First Cause. Why wait for anything other than "God," because no matter what you call the First Cause, it is what it is: An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Being, who is both personal, having the ablility to think and act, and impersonal, having the ability to be present everywhere, and create an ever-expanding creation.

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://DanielDevoteeAndMystic.gaia.com — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:09:03 GMT

Domus, you asked me who created God, and I've heard people ask this before. God HimSelf is the first cause and set cause and effect into motion and therefore doesn't need a cause.

It seems that some people think we shouldn't consider what we know about God from books as evidence for His existence. However, it seems to me that this issue is a matter of not only logic, but historical evidence. When we want to know about something that occured in time we look for evidence that it happened. When we want to know about the past of earth we look at fossils. When we want to know the purpose of it, who created it and why we look to our interraction with the One who claims to be the Originator. I think this is perfectly logical of us to do. I believe I have already explained that thousands of years of interraction with God all written down in scripture is something that must be considered. I think it silly, and annoying, how people make comparisons between things such as Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny and God. God is the only one who I see thousands of years of evidence for. I have yet to read about any deity who continuously tries to relate with us besides Him. Other god's that I read about always have some story about them, but it ends there. The people have no continuous interraction with them, and many times they seem to be regional whereas I have read about cultures from all over the world who have embraced a Creator God.

God's prophets have continously sacrificed to oppose the people and their polytheism.

I also am aware that people wonder why God doesn't just reveal HimSelf? This is because the purpose is to find Him. When in life do people value the things that are achieved easily. People usually think that the greatest achievements take the greatest effort, yet when it comes to God, people seem to want it to be easy.

Also, people ask why is there evil and suffering in the world? Why does God allow evil? Just like above, the point is to learn and grow. There's no learning if everything is just given to you. How would one ever know what they're capable of if they were just given everything? In the presence of weakness, and lack we are able to really test ourselves and grow more powerful. There must be problems for people to work to find solutions. God knows best.

From my understanding Einstein believed in God, but not a personal one. He reasoned that there must be an original cause. He had difficulty with a personal God because he couldn't understand God's motives for things such as suffering. Darwin was agnostic and not an atheist. I think it foolish to be wondering about the cause and think you shouldn't consider recorded history. The scripture was given to us precisely so we could know about God and now people want to know about God without scripture. Even with such guidance and so much logic and even evidence people remain opposed to accepting the truth. And in the end the think themselves smart to remain without answers while they're right there.

Ah, and people think it cruel that God would send them to hell for not believing in Him. Actually, I don't find that to be the truth in the first place. Being an atheist in my view will only lead to continuous reincarnations, and of course never heaven, because that is where you will be with God. Simply not seeking God doesn't mean hell as so many think, it just means you won't get to God, who is in heaven. This is perfectly fair. One could do lots of good things and get good karma, but nevertheless, they will be born and die over and over and over. This applies to even mystics, such as many Buddhists who don't seek God personally. For a person of greater understanding a life without God is unacceptable. Buddhists who are atheists are just as clueless as all the other atheists out there. When it comes to how and why, it's a big question mark.

I have a friend who believes because of the atheists will go to hell because of what he's read in the Qur'an, but this is really meant to mean those who are evil, wiked and therefore disbelieving. It's like when someone says that don't believe in themselves. Disbelief in this case is indicative of non belief in what one stands for. God stands for many things like power, love, forgiveness, charity... In the time of the Qur'an, everyone believed in Allah, but there where those who were selfish and evil and this is true disbelief as I see it.

And how can reasonable people believe in such a thing as a talking snake? It's an allegory. Adam and Eve were meant to fall in order for them to learn. The serpent is meant to represent Satan, which is actually just a principle, not an individual. People have confused Satan with Lucifer. Lucifer is a fallen angel, while Satan is a principle, capable of affecting everyone in the world at the same time.

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://mogrhod.gaia.com — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:21:23 GMT

This third and final post will have the Tamas Guna as it's theme, as it sequentially follows the line of argument as set out by Domus. The Tamas Guna in the personality is marked by fear (paranoia, aversion), dullness, laziness, but has a certain unstoppable inertia as it is fundamentally negating, or destructive. It is the Guna of the allegorical Mega Black Hole at the center of our galaxy, or black Kali, or Shiva in his aspect of Destroyer or perfectly still meditator. Many Shiva devotees today in India smoke Cannabis, the common word in South China for Cannabis being Tai Ma (or "Great Hemp") which has a direct relationship to the lazy or indolent aspect of Tamas (We won't go into the Proto-world Language Hypothesis of Stanford's Merrit Ruhlen, Greenburg, or the Santa Fe Institute).

Today there is a great scientific aversion or fear of religion, evidenced by the polarizing Richard Dawkins, Oxford fellow, and author of the God Delusion. Certainly there are some pretty rotten things done in the name of God, and plenty of delusional folks in religion, but the polarizing Dawkins and his mental hygiene is as extreme as the Creationists and their "science" fear at the other end. Tamas, with a peppering of obsessive Rajas...

**You probably don’t have anything to do with science no, but you do
adress my illogic, and as being a scientist myself, (a Physicist) I try
to relate to you as a porthole of (my) science. And thus by seriously
doubting my own logical reasoning, you are basicly also questioning
scientific reasoning.** - Domus

We have here Domus as somehow holding up that Science is some kind of bastion of reason vs. the religious unreason.

Let's take one figure for example, whom modern physics owes it's very foundation.

Sir Isaac Newton - Bipolar Looking at the authoritative book "Manic Depression and Creativity" by Dr.'s Hershman and Lieb, Sir Isaac Newton was an extreme example of a bipolar swinging between ecstatic manic delusion with attendant creativity, and the necessity for extreme isolation that is characteristic of an irritable hypomanic or depressive person; Without his wealth or an isolated lab at Cambridge, Sir Isaac Newton would have made appeared very irrational and unreasonable to society at large. Sir Isaac Newton spent enormous amounts of time attempting to reconcile his religious views, and even more time on (then occult or esoteric) Alchemical texts which today have been proven to mirror tantric processes. (For further reading, read "The Last Sorcerer" about Sir Isaac Newton. Looking at the Third Law of Motion, without which we have never made a lunar landing (no lunacy pun intended), we have the basic "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" which is essentially Karma (or Kamma, it it's original meaning being purely "action") and the ensuing dependent origination (complex web of cause & effect).

Let's say for example we practice extreme social and educational hygiene and either educate off, or kill off what scientists would deem "god delusions" or "spirituality" (I agree much of it is hogwash). My favorite allegory for this are the peoples of Papua New Guinnea, who whenever someone is a bit off or talking to a spirit (Suangi, sorcerer) they immediately kill them and eat them. And today, they are all still using stone tools, the basic deductive reasoning here is they immediately kill their most imaginative potential shamans, scientists, or artists.

Of course in our green age, maybe we do need to cool off...we have enough technology to go back to using stones and walking everywhere...I digress.

John Forbes Nash, Jr. - Schizophrenic Let's take a look at game theory, or the Nash Equilibrium.

Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that is used in the social sciences (most notably economics), biology, engineering, political science, international relations, computer science, and philosophy. Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others.

Traditional applications of game theory attempt to find equilibria in
these games. In an equilibrium, each player of the game has adopted a
strategy that they are unlikely to change. Many equilibrium concepts have been developed (most famously the Nash equilibrium)
in an attempt to capture this idea. These equilibrium concepts are
motivated differently depending on the field of application, although
they often overlap or coincide.

So what we have here is a sometimes unreasonable madman, by the crushing dualisms and conflicts of a disintigrating mind, becoming quite productive and reasonable...grasping desperately thie pristine strands of reason (Sattva) in the hopes it will contribute something (generosity) to others (science). Salvation (scientific answers) amidst the churning demonic oceans of delusion (crucifixion).

In many ways this "equilibrium" or "equanimity" is the "finding of the middle path between two extremes". Our Rinpoche has advised, that in our meditations on the Four Immeasurables "Equanimity" should be put first. As it says in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna to Arjuna "Equanimity is Yoga".

This is a fairly good article, on the Jain interpretation of the Nash Equilibrium

http://www.jainstudy.org/jsc10.00-Equanimity.htm

And if you want a good visual demonstration (Lila, or play) of the interactions of
extreme Rajassic behavior (Cutting Aggression) and Tamassic Behavior (Extreme Dissolution) the best example at this time is the David "Rajas" Letterman and Joaquin "Tamas" Phoenix dialogue (though a peppering of Sattva, as they both are acting and now what they are doing).

Where is Joaquin Phoenix, where does stuff go after it falls into a Black Hole?

Om Mani Peme Hung

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://mogrhod.gaia.com — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:06:01 GMT

The Sattva guna has the qualities of "wisdom (knowledge)" and "peace" and "purity". Interestingly it is our very basic animal knowledge that fruits are good for us, and the corresponding wisdom in Hinduism is that "Sattvic" foods are principally fruits (alot of vitamin C) and nuts (many nuts being rich in omega 3 fatty acids, good for brain). So the fruit and nuts based diet of the ancient rishis and yogis, has a corresponding relationship with the metaphors of "fruit" of knowledge or the "tree of knowledge" in many traditions. In addition the "Sattvic" quality of peace is demonstrated by the fact that Vitamin C (in fruits) is an inhibitor to the stress hormone Cortisol. When the adrenal gland is pumping out Cortisol there is a great reduction of Vitamin C in the gland and it is said that Vitamin C replenishment aids someone in recovering from a stressful event.

**"As to origin, we as we are, and as the entire world is based up is
simply a thermodynamic lowest equilibrium. Life is found out of simple
self assembly of simple atoms, that due to self assembly form greater
supra-molecules. And eventually due to the better and more better
specifiec interactions between molecules. more and more complex
chemical bonds are formed. Until after about 4 billion years of
thermodynamic equilibrium we arrive (just like evolution) into a state
where our arrangements in our brain favour our existence."** - Domus

Yes, essentially the scientific inquiry into evolution can be compared to meditating on dependent origination, or dependent arising, the complex web of cause and effect.

It is surprising how the core realization of tantric archetypes...

Tantra
symbolizes this aspect by comparing the couple Shiva and Shakti with a
seed of grain (CHANAKA). Such a seed is made up of two halves so
closely linked that they seem one, and one single cover covers them.
Symbolically, the two halves represent Shiva and Shakti, the cover
represents Maya (the cosmic illusion). When the cover is on, the two
halves are separated, but the cover goes off when the seed is about to
germinate, unifying thus the two halves in one. - Sivasakti.com

corresponds with both world archetypes of the Cosmic Egg, and Science...

The cosmic egg is an ancient concept resurrected by modern science in the 1930s and explored by theoreticians during the following two decades. The idea comes from a perceived need to reconcile Edwin Hubble's observation of an expanding universe (which is also predicted by Einstein's equations of general relativity) with the notion that the universe must be eternally old. Georges Lemaitre proposed in 1927 that the cosmos originated from what he called the primeval atom.Current cosmological models
maintain that 13.7 billion years ago, the entire mass of the universe
was compressed into a singularity, from which it expanded to its
current state (the Big Bang), the so-called cosmic egg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_egg

The representation of Cosmic egg being common to the ancient Druids, the Omphalos of the Greeks, or the Lingam of the Hindus. A realization arrived at by inner contemplation and intuition, with a hint that possibly our left hemisphere (linear-masculine processes) and right hemisphere (holistic-feminine processes) are the distant vibrational echo of what occurred at the very beginning with a bang.

I agree that Ken Wilber is kind of a hypomanic character most of the time, and his intellectualizing has diminishing returns (I couldn't even stand to pick up one of his books). But the reality is...he has demonstrated a modicum of self control, as proven by a neurofeedback machine, which is scientific proof that meditation can have profound effects on taming the mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFMtq5g8N4

When any of you can stop your brainwaves (or very nearly) and can prove it with an EEG, let me know (I've tried at the Andrews-Reiter institute...and so far cannot). Maybe I need to go on a fruit and nut diet.

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://mogrhod.gaia.com — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:51:29 GMT

Am thankful to have met a teacher, Man of the East. It is a rare opportunity, using statistics, to encounter and devote time to a good teacher.

The **clash between primal thinking**, spoken of by Domus, would be best described at it's core as Rajassic. The Sanskrit root means "impure". It is also related to the root rakta, "redness" and raga "passion". Neuroscience (Maclean) has recently confirmed that we are indeed
three-brained beings (Gurdjieff) with relatively autonomous though intercommunicating
regions, within the anatomy of the central nervous system, that separately
govern our intellectual (primate neocortex), emotional (paleo-mammallian
limbic) and instinctive (reptilian basal) lives. So indeed the Rajas Guna, and basic arugments including "flaw finding", are likely based in the lower reptilian and paleo-mammallian processes.

1. **In my opinion, and for what I see in the world. there is no purpose.
There is no higher goal, or level to achieve. There is no definite end.
And there is no-one we need to devote to. We are utterly free to choose
to pursuit happiness love in whatever way we please.** - Domus

At it's essence, there is no fault in this statement and it is sattvic; I will support it with the following quotes:

“In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities,
in the expert's there are few.”
~Shunryu Suzuki Roshi

"22. Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies
are like those who enter the (Father's) kingdom."
They said to him, "Then shall we enter the (Father's) kingdom as babies?"
- Gnostic Gospel of Thomas
Essentially aside from the empiracal learning and data sets which a scientist has at his or her disposal, there is always the fundamental quality of wiping the slate clean of personal emotions or random references of past or future, when looking at a new problem. This is a kind of "baby" mind beyond any fabrication or characteristic, or even beyond the label of rational/irrational.
The scientific approach is essentially Adarsha Jnana, or mirror like wisdom. Lightning fast and responsive like a baby's mind.
Mirror-like wisdom (Skt. ādarśajñāna; Wyl. me long lta bu'i ye shes) — one of the five wisdoms. Just as the clear surface of a mirror reflects everything before it, the wisdom of dharmadhatu ‘reflects’ all the phenomena of samsara and nirvana. This clear reflection is the mirror-like wisdom.

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://silent-observer.gaia.com — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:11:47 GMT

I am familiar with all these, and none of them disprove the existence of a Primeval First Cause (or what you call "Causality"). This is like deja vu altogether for I have already demolished all these here.

I asked you to show me evidence that man was able to produce life out of lifeless chemicals. I wasn't asking for an elephant, I was asking for the simplest form of life. Actually, I said a plasmodium or a diatom even. You were unable to come up with any. And now you're giving me synthetic amino acids as proof? Were the substances they use to make amino acids extinct or extant? Extant. Did the amino acids require a maker? Yes. Does synthetic amino acid made from extant substances in precisely-controlled conditions by a human scientist proves that life can just exist without a cause? No. Is synthetic amino acid a life form? No. What do these facts make you?

Real scientists who have made the biggest contributions to science and are, in fact, virtually "gods" of science unequivocally professed their belief in a purposeful Creator. And when I say real scientists I mean Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Planck, Einstein, etc. the list goes on and on. On the other hand, quack scientists like yourself who are useless nobodies who hardly understand what they're doing, are so arrogant and mindless to declare that there is no God, that there is no need for God, and that life has no purpose. Don't you find that ironic? And to add insult to injury none of you can even come close to proving it!

To quote Einstein (a real scientist): "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." (excerpt from a letter to Esther Salaman) and the now classic "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Address at the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion)

Now, with regards to your other concerns.

Actually none of my classes are obligatory, I only had 2 classes ever which I had to come every class.

That is the reason why you never learned anything. Actually, this contradictory statement makes me a bit dizzy. If none of your classes are obligatory then why do you have 2 , according to you, you have to come to every class? None means zero! This is your problem, everytime you speak you shoot yourself in the foot with preschool level contradictions.

"Ow and it is a lot of fun!"

I'm sure it was, because they were only 2.

"I beg to differ, people do not always act because of reason."

Who is saying that people always act because of reason? We were speaking about conscious choices. Choices always have reason, whether that reason makes sense to us or not is none of our concern, but there is always reason. Reason in that context is called PURPOSE. Check the message you replied to and stop confusing yourself.

"Was there a reason some people just snap."

Is there any reason why some people go crazy? Of course! But don't take my word for it, ask a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist.

"And do autists need reasons to do things they do?"

If they are making a conscious choice then of course!

"If I am entirely drugged with chemicals in my brain do I need reason?"

What does this have to do with making a choice? There is no indication of choice or action in this question. For example, someone who is high on drugs molested a girl. Did he have a reason for doing so? Of course!

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:34:11 GMT

"I
wouldn't know since it was just an example. Students are compelled to
attend classes unless they have a valid reason not to....
what became the fate of that choice?"
Actually none of my classes are obligatory, I only had 2 classes ever which I had to come every class. We are trusted with such self-management. And for that matter I miss quite a lot of classes If I deam them to be unnessecary or poorly given. Ow and it is a lot of fun!
I beg to differ, people do not always act because of reason. Was there a reason some people just snap. And do autists need reasons to do things they do? If I am entirely drugged with chemicals in my brain do I need reason? You will proabbly remark that this isn't a fair situation, but it is. Because just look at what pills people take, and what stuff they do to themselves. That is bound to take a pre-thought of purpose of things. Just think of boring. What is the purpose of not doing anything specific at all?
Yes, hell yes I disagree. Causuality is not a part of reality at all. And just ask philosophers etc. Causuality isn't something as logical as you might think it is. Particles do form spontaniously. Turbulence is a random act. And brownian motion is motion without purpose. That causuality whould work is just a dogma of society.
Yes it goes on and on. But do you know? For by stating that everything has a cause. You also state more or less that that cause is findable.
What if you can't? Does that still make causuality a strong foothold?

In exclaiming that I am free to choose what I do, doesn't include that I will achieve whatever I will attempt. That is a silly assumption, because how often hasn't anyone failed in attempting to reach a certain goal. I can not see how you can pre-assume that whatever I choose to do, I imagine to succeed. For I don't I choose to do something. Even if I know that these odds are highly against me for succeeding. And people do that on a daily basis. Just think of the lotery.
They do it, but do they really always expect to win?
"When I asked you where those
simple atoms came from, you do not know. But still you believe that is
what actually happened despite your claim that you only believe what
can be perceived by your senses." You can re-create the conditions that where prior to the assembly of atoms. (that is what they use the particle accelarators for) And then you can see what happened. As to the choice of words. If I 'belief' something I do not deam it nessacvery to be truth. belief isn't bound to proof. I say, whay I believe to be true is what I observe with my eyes. I belief that it is true what I see. Even though I might not always be able to confirm that. That is why I call it believed truth.
I can think of NO reason why a creator is nessacery. Please tell me why would I? The only place in reality that a creator could do usefull work in my world is the place that lies outside my system, something I can know nothing about. So what use has it?
I believe you are not aquainted with the kind of system I use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_system_(systems_theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_systems_theory
In such case the universe or space-time is my system. I cannot observe what lies beyond spacetime. I can for instance not look inside a black hole. Which is a limit of spacetime inside the area what we call the universe. It is therefore still not lookable for me, for my system is space-time and the black hole is no longer part of that. In a sense it would be possible for anyone to (given they know how, and that it lies within the laws of free-energy and enthalpy) create anything within the universe. (me with my molecules) but that it isn't possible to both create the entire system and be seen. For creating the entire system would require me to be outside the system. And since my system is space-time I cannot observe outside. Since I CHOOSE to only see my observations to be true. I cannot observe beyond the space-time. And therefore I have no need to think about how my observations once have come to be. Or how things are beyond what I can observe. For that no longer applies to my CHOICE of BELIEVING what is SEE is TRUE. That is indeed some sort of faith! Just not in a creator.
Such chemical conditions can be recreated and amino acids will form, and if you recombine those. You can practically form all of life. It will take you a lot of time. But then again a human lives only 90 years. It would be silly to assume he could do 3 billion years in only what 30 years he has as an acadamic. so no it hasn't been done. But it has been proven by observation that it is possible. (improved miller experiments):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Miller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Johnson AP, Cleaves HJ, Dworkin JP, Glavin DP, Lazcano A, Bada JL (2008). "The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment". Science 322 (5900): 404. doi:10.1126/science.1161527.

Catherine Brahic. "Volcanic lightning may have sparked life on Earth — earth — 16 October 2008 — New Scientist Environment". NewScientist. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn14966-volcanic-lightning-may-have-sparked-life-on-earth.html?feedId=online-news_rss20. Retrieved on 2008-10-17.
A. Lazcano, J. L. Bada (June 2004). "The 1953 Stanley L. Miller Experiment: Fifty Years of Prebiotic Organic Chemistry". Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 33: 235–242. doi:10.1023/A:1024807125069. PMID 14515862.
Oró
J, Kimball AP (August 1961). "Synthesis of purines under possible
primitive earth conditions. I. Adenine from hydrogen cyanide". Archives of biochemistry and biophysics 94: 217–27. doi:10.1016/0003-9861(61)90033-9. PMID 13731263.
Synthesis of organic compounds from carbon monoxide and water by UV photolysis
Fox, Douglas (2007-03-28), "Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment", Scientific American, History of Science (Scientific American Inc.), http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated, retrieved on 2008-07-09
"Early Earth atmosphere favorable to life: study". University of Waterloo. http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348. Retrieved on 2005-12-17.
Brooks D.J., Fresco J.R., Lesk A.M. & Singh M. (01 Oct 2002). "Evolution
of amino acid frequencies in proteins over deep time: inferred order of
introduction of amino acids into the genetic code". Molecular Biology and Evolution 19 (10): 1645–55. PMID 12270892. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/10/1645.
"'Lost' Miller–Urey Experiment Created More Of Life's Building Blocks". Science Daily. October 17, 2008. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081016141411.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-18.
So PLEASE stop saying I have no sources I can cite from, because we both know that is bullocks.
Again my quotation is that life has not definite purpose. Which means that there is no single one goal, no single higher attainable level of some sort or anything.
The entire reason I say such things, THE ONLY REASON is because I want to stop people from thinking there is only one way to look at things. That there is only one thing that must 'evidently' be true. The quotation is only there to screw with people that are very religious, because they believe they have a monopoly on the truth. Which naturally they don't. And when people have a monopoly on the truth very bad things happen. Like fascism. And this sentence isn't my own! but a parphrasation of 'Hans Teeuwen' during his visit to the dutch TV-show 'meiden van hallal'

Good day.

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://silent-observer.gaia.com — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:44:12 GMT

"Have I not chosen, to be there?"

I wouldn't know since it was just an example. Students are compelled to attend classes unless they have a valid reason not to. When I was studying, even if I feel really lazy or even a bit ill, I would still attend class because of a greater purpose that outweighs momentary suffering. If you are compelled to do something then it's not really what you may call a choice. The choice is actually higher than attending class (that is just a collateral), you are there even if you don't feel like it because you have made a choice to learn and obtain a degree. But if your brain gets blown out by a crazy guy in amoc then what became the fate of that choice?

"And have I not enjoyed what time I spend there?"

Again, I wouldn't know because it was just an example. There are enjoyable times in school, there are times that you just can't wait to get home. You are not in school to enjoy in the first place, but if you can then that would be even better.

"I think your assumption that my choices are made by me, in expectation of a higher goal (being an educated professional). Isn't entirely true really."

I never assumed that your choices in general are made in expectation of a higher goal (there would always be a goal but not necessarily a "higher" goal), it was for one specific example, and for that example the assumption is correct. Now, this is fact, people make choices for a reason, that reason is called purpose. When you choose a blue shirt over a pink shirt then there is a reason. Maybe you believe that blue looks better on you, maybe you already have a pink shirt just like that, maybe you think that blue is more masculine, etc. But there will always be purpose.

"In using the argument you too pre-assume a purpose to choice."

It is not an assumption, it is a fact. Every conscious choice has a purpose. It may not be so obvious at first, but when you think about it you will realize it's true. Why are you sitting down now? Why are your eyes open? There is purpose behind even the smallest choices we make, do you disagree?

"If there is a purpose to choice, how would you begin to explain the random actions of the gunshooter in the beginning anyhow?"

Again, there are endless possibilities. He may be completely crazy and he thinks he is inside a video game wherein the purpose of shooting people is to score points, he may be hallucinating that he is surrounded by demons and he needs to obliterate them for his own survival, he may have done it as a revenge to a society that in his warped viewpoint gave him nothing but hearthache and frustration, etc. It goes on and on.

"In my experience people aren't all that purpose-bound."

In your experience YOU aren't at all that purpose-bound. Here you are again speaking for everyone else and assuming that your personal experience applies to everyone.

"I am saying I understand it. not that I control it. In my understandment is also the knowledge that I can't really control that!"

No, no, no. What you said was that we "we are free to do whatever we want with our lives" as if it is even possible to do whatever we want with our lives. We have the freedom to envision whatever we want to do with our lives but actually manifesting that (the "to do" part) would involve the collaboration of factors external to us, factors that are usually beyond our control. Like in the illustration that I gave you or something recent like when that guy threw his shoes at George W. Bush, he was free to believe that he would hit Bush with his shoes but Bush was so quick to dock the damn shoes that he wasn't able to do it.

See?

I wrote: “No, no, no. If you design a certain structure which has unique and
distinct microscopic observables then you are supporting the belief
that somebody actually designed the universe, not the other way around.
Because in your example there is a designer, you. In your example, it
did not happen by chance. It necessitated for someone to do it
deliberately.”

And you replied:

"Both true, and not true at the same time. You are confusing the order of systems."

I'm sorry to state the obvious but you are the one who is confusing the order of systems here. You said that you believe the universe self-assembled from simple atoms. When I asked you where those simple atoms came from, you do not know. But still you believe that is what actually happened despite your claim that you only believe what can be perceived by your senses. Then you went on saying that you believe a creator is not necessary because you can design a structure with unique microscopic variables where polymers will self-assemble. What does that make you? Who created the structure? You did! So, your example demolishes your stand that there is no need for a creator! You are confusing the order of systems, because since you are now capable of creating a structure from existing materials that would allow self-assembly you hypothesized that the universe came into existence that way even if there was a complete absence of any such materials then! Your logic is working on a reversed order, and even in that order it is still faulty because in your example a creator is still necessary.

You said that there is no Creator, no purpose, and no meaning to everything. That life just came about as a result of chance chemical combinations over billions of years. I asked you why you believe it since you said you only believe things that you can observe by your senses, and you couldn't have possibly observed that. But you cannot answer. I asked you to present evidence that scientists can create life out of lifeless chemicals, you cannot cite any.

It is all very simple. If you have no evidence that, and can't explain how, the universe just came into existence without a Creator and that life came from chance chemical combination then stop believing them and admit that it is extremely unscientific to believe such rubbish ideas. You said you became a scientist "to shove people their assumptions up their ass" but everytime you speak you do it to yourself instead to the extent that you're ass is now bursting with your own assumptions. For example, saying that you became a scientist to shove people's assumptions up their asses means that YOU HAVE A PURPOSE FOR CHOOSING TO BE A SCIENTIST. It is also very clear that all the personal beliefs you disclosed here are not backed by either science or reason. You have been a victim of quack science.

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:22:51 GMT

"So, now you're saying that what you really meant was “we are free to do whatever we want with our lives.”
That is wrong. For example one day you are peacefully studying your
lessons at school and all of a sudden some crazy kid started shooting
at everyone on sight and blew your brains out. You may be in school
because you have chosen that route of being an educated professional,
but your choice proved powerless and meaningless because the crazy kid
just ended it all for you. "

But that doesn´t make my choice powerless? Have I not chosen, to be there. And have I not enjoyed what time I spend there? I think your assumption that my choices are made by me, in expectation of a higher goal (being an educated professional). Isn't entirely true really.
In using the argument you too pre-assume a purpose to choice.
If there is a purpose to choice, how would you begin to explain the random actions of the gunshooter in the beginning anyhow? In my experience people aren't all that purpose-bound.

"Provided that we can really do whatever we want with our lives, let's
say we are really that powerful and we control all circumstances that
has to do with us, including other people's actions and those of nature. "

Before I even start reading further, then just this sentence. I have stated such, I have even contradicted it my early writings, and its contradictions are even popular qoutes of mine. This is what I say:

"am currently In a state, where I understand, the world, the systems,
the people and nature itself. I challange myself daily, and see nothing
in my own perceiving world. That I do not understand. For instance this
dicussion, is just a clash between your primal thinking and mine. Where
mine is observation based, and your idea based. That is all. Famous
dicussions like that are Bohr and Einstein. And they can go on for
ever. For every idea can be observed, and only some idea’s lead to
observation. whereas observation surely doesn’t lead to all idea’s. "

I am saying I understand it. not that I control it. In my understandment is also the knowledge that I can't really control that! I can't control the free will of other people around me. And I cannot do everything with my world that is currently pleasurable for me. I could perhaps change specific aspects of it, but more importantly that would require a change, I do not wish to make. For its collatoral effects are too great.

"That is correct. What you are basically saying is that you do not know
and you are not sure but still you have chosen to believe it. I thought
you said, ”in my life I have made one decision: that is to believe what I can perceive with my own senses”? Yet
here we see loads of evidence to the contrary. There are many things
that you believe in that are way beyond what you are capable of
perceiving."

Again this is not what I am saying. In anyone's life we all make assumption. We do it only daily basis. I too. I assume that my alarmclock will work in the morning, I assume that my key will fit in the lock. I assume my tires are not empty. I even assume that the milk in my fridge is still present. But I am aware that it might not be that way with assumptions.
And that is my general idea of my way of life. On every assumption I make, I generaly know how, or why it could be untrue. Even with my very first assumption in my life. It easy to create a hypothetical situation that will buckle all that it stands for. But that is just the way with any assumption. They are assumptions! Of couree they can be broken.
The problem lies just there; where people think their assumption cannot be broken. And hold on to them so tightly they blur the view of their contents. And that is the entire reason why I even contribute to these discussion. To just make people see that their assumption are breakable with arguments they can think of themselves. And that has proven to be very difficult. Because people are too convinced about the truth of their assumptions.

"No, no, no. If you design a certain structure which has unique and
distinct microscopic observables then you are supporting the belief
that somebody actually designed the universe, not the other way around.
Because in your example there is a designer, you. In your example, it
did not happen by chance. It necessitated for someone to do it
deliberately."
Both true, and not true at the same time. You are confusing the order of systems. In Quantum mechanics for instance, it has been proven by observation, that if we choose a system. (a closed space with information) and choose to know all subsystems. We are left with less-knowledge then if we were to view the system as a whole. Now in the situation of my and my polymers. I can look over my pot of chemicals, and basicly control all about the conditions in that pot. I myself can put myself outside the system I am researching until I interact with it. I can let it Evolve withouth me. This is an important reasoning step.
However, in the universe, I myself am part of the subsystem. I am part of the universe. No matter how much I will know about hy system, the universe. It is impossible for me to know anything more about anything beyond me.

So even if a designer would exist. It would need to exist beyond my system (note that it then also that she also contains my own system). And if it does I wouldn't know anything about her, nor ever observe her. And if the designer was part of this system (the universe) and not a larger system, and hence could observe it. It wouldn't be able to create anything more then myself in this universe.
You cannot make such a scale elavation without facing the consequences.

As to your last paragraph,
That is why I became a scientist.
To shove people their assumptions up their ass. And I am currently doing It.
I must say it is quite easy, for people assume so much. But generally people just don't like. That my view has no determinative answer. And I'd say most people in the world, just simply cannot think without determinism.
And by now, you probably know I am not a determinist :P

nice chat!

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://silent-observer.gaia.com — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:10:01 GMT

"not nessecairrly, we may for instance choose Not to pursue anything. And still be in a state of mind of your choice."

You seem to have missed the point. Let me see if I can show you where I am coming from in a clearer way. But first let me explain why I asked that question.

You said, “In my opinion, and for what I see in the world. there is no purpose... We are utterly free to choose to pursuit happiness love in whatever way we please.” See? You only put a singular purpose here, "to pursue happiness and love ." Following your statement the part where you said "in whatever way we please" can only be applied to the pursuit of happiness and love.

So, now you're saying that what you really meant was "we are free to do whatever we want with our lives." That is wrong. For example one day you are peacefully studying your lessons at school and all of a sudden some crazy kid started shooting at everyone on sight and blew your brains out. You may be in school because you have chosen that route of being an educated professional, but your choice proved powerless and meaningless because the crazy kid just ended it all for you.

But let me agree with you for a moment. Provided that we can really do whatever we want with our lives, let's say we are really that powerful and we control all circumstances that has to do with us, including other people's actions and those of nature. Would it imply then that life has no purpose or is it possible that there is a purpose but we are free to be uncooperative with it?

"Where did the atoms come from? Good question, we can see until somewhere a few seconds before the big bang, if that hypothesis is even true. They at least originated from energy from the big bang if they did. And how that came to be, we do not know. There is simply no way of ever proofing. And if something is unprovable, and thus un-falsefiable it is unscientific in its purest form."

That is correct. What you are basically saying is that you do not know and you are not sure but still you have chosen to believe it. I thought you said, "in my life I have made one decision: that is to believe what I can perceive with my own senses"? Yet here we see loads of evidence to the contrary. There are many things that you believe in that are way beyond what you are capable of perceiving.

"Sure for me there is no direct way to watch the self assembly of molecules. Even though sometimes it is. But not all. In the case where it is, you can design a certain structure which has unique and distinct macroscopic observables. for instance self-assembling polymers. I can eventually just stick my hand in the fluid and take out a single strand of polymers."

No, no, no. If you design a certain structure which has unique and distinct microscopic observables then you are supporting the belief that somebody actually designed the universe, not the other way around. Because in your example there is a designer, you. In your example, it did not happen by chance. It necessitated for someone to do it deliberately.

"The 'I' Is a somehow conscious part of a physical body. capable of being creative. I do not know where he originated from. Do know that he wasn't there before the governemental birth date he was given. And if he was, he doesn't know he was. And I do not know much more about him. Do you"

Yes, and you do as well. The thing is you are negating the only logical rationale due to heavy indoctrination. Your "scientific" indoctrination is as strong as religious indoctrination. I would be happy to clarify things with you. It seems that you have a problem accepting religion because it is not integral to your psychoemotional foundation. In my view that is even better. Religion is bound to be wrong somewhere, in the same way that so-called science is. They are both cults, they both assume too much, they both believe too much, and they both regard themselves a billion times more important than what they're actually worth. Both of them present evidences to support their beliefs, but their evidences are puny, they do not satisfy the immensity of their assumptions.

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:50:07 GMT

"**In other words, you don’t know... find this to be some conspiracy? **"
No I do not, 'not know'. For that sentence simply pre-assumes that somegoal must exist. My words are perhaps somewhat poorly chosen. Because I have written this before, And again. And after time it lingers. Perhaps I should have said; there is no set purpose.
In essence I don't think there is a set or pre-thought of purpose for anyone. I do not want to say that people cannot find one. Or not fine one at all in their lives.
I have a copy of the bible, and the Kuran actually.
But I have only read the exodus.
I know of many books. Different bibles, sacret scriptures. myths and legends from everywhere. Lots about classical polytheisms. And more and more and much more of deitic scriptures. It was part of my classical education. And I have actually translated roman scriptures that neatly descripe the rise of cristianity for instance.
And I do not think it to be a conspiracy. I would rather call it dogmatic religion.

**What is this based upon? Observation? Of course not!**
see the reply made below to 'man of the east'

**No, I dispute some theory that I find to be nonsense. Just like if I
dispute the Tthe answer.
I agree letting something come from nothing Is very peculiar at the least. And I have no explanation if that is even true. For I have never had need for the hypothesis. But I wondered, often, just what 'nothing' is. And I would like it if you would like to define that. For I have found it impossible to observe nothing at all at any given time in my life. So basicly I have no need to think of 'nothing'
It is easily explainable how life has come about and evolved from matter. And given boundry conditions. Where matter itself came from, I do not know. But if it is from the 'big bang' I will never know, for it is outside my possible field of observation. outside anyone's field of observation. It wouldn't be part of space-time.

Causuality, or 'everything needs a cause' Is the 'classical' way of science. But that hasn't been used since a hundred years or so?
Causuality is no longer a requirement of science. because it is observed not to be at all.

I follow what reasoning you just made.

But as to your reasoning applies. As 'everything' must have a cause. and 'nothing can come from nothing'
Then what made this 'higher entity'?

**You see, you aren’t even seeing what I’ve written. Your mind is just
editing out what you don’t want to believe in. This is a problem you
need to address.**
no I am just having trouble finding it, for it seems somewhat criptic in hundreds of pages of writing.

If a person is allergic to orange juice it isn't very healthy to them.
And I see not why my logic is wrong anywhere. I didn't spend 3 months getting the hang of it on university for nothing.

If nothing doesn't exist. Then how can we compare something? As 'not being nothing' ?

I can also remember “Is it logical to believe in God”
And remember I didn't see that logical reasoning at all. unless you assume things I had proven bad assumptions.

Ow yes, I will die, and my body will rot away, for I have no need for it. I will one day seize to be able of doing anything or think anything at all. And perhaps I then find nothingness.
Either way.
This realisation makes me value life so, so, so damn much more. Then If I knew I had a second chance later on in my life.
And I cheer you, if in your believes you have several lives to achieve some goal.
I cheer myself to, for trying to do all I want in a single lifetime.
And living my life as free and liberating as I possibly can.

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:18:44 GMT

"Isn't that what you may call a purpose?"

not nessecairrly, we may for instance choose Not to pursue anything. And still be in a state of mind of your choice. But yes many people choose goals. The most important part of the quotations in my belief is. That we choose it ourselves. And are not getting our heads meddled up with stories or even just suggestions of other people. It makes choosing a goal in itself very very hard, because you will have to think of it for yourself. And many people I see, simply do not think about the idea's, reasons and effects of their actions and thoughts.

"Those simple atoms that somehow self-assembled, where did they come from?"

Where did the atoms come from? Good question, we can see until somewhere a few seconds before the big bang, if that hypothesis is even true. They at least originated from energy from the big bang if they did. And how that came to be, we do not know. There is simply no way of ever proofing. And if something is unprovable, and thus un-falsefiable it is unscientific in its purest form. And open for any speculation whatsoever. You can think of anything. Perhaps it was just a giant dragon fart. Any hypothesis about this has same origin, imagination. the reason that big bang is accepted, is because it explains and predicted (and confirmed) many observations done in the world. Which makes it a good theory. For it is falsifiable. It doesn't however explain the 'why' about the big bang. Because this is the speculative part.

"Since there is no way for you to .... by combining lifeless chemicals?"

Sure for me there is no direct way to watch the self assembly of molecules. Even though sometimes it is. But not all.
In the case where it is, you can design a certain structure which has unique and distinct macroscopic observables. for instance self-assembling polymers. I can eventually just stick my hand in the fluid and take out a single strand of polymers.
As for the other not-directly visable things;
This is science, in a science you build or basicly down scale from the observable. You have for instance the ability to see every relevant law of nature you use in your machines observation. You can construct the machine for yourself. And by doing so, make sure that up to a relevant, but in advance knowable , inaccuracy, you have a machine that can lift microscopic things up to a macroscopic level. And yeah, being a physicist, and in fact being able of actually making these machines myself. And being able to confirm every law of nature till a certain length myself. I am able to understand, and if I would get paid to do so, build a machine that is able to enlarge the effects to a scale that is observable for my naked eye.
In essence you have made something observable that you can confirm (up till a certain accuracy) is true. That is the entire idea of science.
And yes I have seen self assembly to a molecular level, and my my, it is seriously impressive to see such simple particles assemble themselves again and again, exactly the same!
I have even made a solar cell out of blackberry juice. but that isn't really relevant. But it was part of the course of self-assembly.

The 'I' Is a somehow conscious part of a physical body. capable of being creative. I do not know where he originated from. Do know that he wasn't there before the governemental birth date he was given. And if he was, he doesn't know he was. And I do not know much more about him. Do you?

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://silent-observer.gaia.com — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:49:25 GMT

Hi Domus,

I am happy to find out that there is still activity in this pod and that the discussions are of satisfactory quality.

You made a lot of interesting points and I just want to ask some questions. This is not necessarily to disagree or argue with you but just honest questions:

"In my opinion, and for what I see in the world. there is no purpose. There is no higher goal, or level to achieve. There is no definite end. And there is no-one we need to devote to. We are utterly free to choose to pursuit happiness love in whatever way we please."

Isn't that what you may call a purpose?

"As to origin, we as we are, and as the entire world is based up is simply a thermodynamic lowest equilibrium. Life is found out of simple self assembly of simple atoms, that due to self assembly form greater supra-molecules."

Those simple atoms that somehow self-assembled, where did they come from?

"I will say again, in my life I have made one decision: that is to believe what I can perceive with my own senses."

Since there is no way for you to perceive with your own senses this supposed self-assembly of simple atoms to highly-complex life forms over billions of years, why do you believe it? Given the current advancement of science and the things that many scientists believe they know and understand have you ever observed with your own senses anyone who was able to create the simplest of life form, like a plasmodium or a diatom for example, by combining lifeless chemicals?

"I am currently In a state, where I understand, the world, the systems, the people and nature itself."

Who is this "I" that believes he is currently in a state that understands the world, etc and where did he originate?

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://DanielDevoteeAndMystic.gaia.com — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:45:00 GMT

**What is your explanation for our origin and purpose according to your studies?**

In
my opinion, and for what I see in the world. there is no purpose. There
is no higher goal, or level to achieve. There is no definite end. And
there is no-one we need to devote to. We are utterly free to choose to
pursuit happiness love in whatever way we please.

**In other words, you don't know. You don't perceive how people try so hard to find happiness and fulfillment. You don't see the power of those who become wise from learning? You don't see even your own attempts at learning how things work? You haven't read in scripture concerning thousands of years of man interracting with God? You haven't heard of the books where people have outlined their mystical experiences in detail? You have to be damn near blind to miss out on what's happening here. What is it that you think? You think that some sadistic individuals fooled the Jewish people into believing that they have been interracting with God for thousands of years? What exists in the scriptures is something unprecidented. Do you think as well that all the books where people have outlined amazing mystical experiences are all some great big hoax to get you to meditate for no reason. For thousands of years Gurus have been accepting disciples and bringing them to these experiences. Do you find this to be some conspiracy? **

And eventually due to the better and more better
specifiec interactions between molecules. more and more complex
chemical bonds are formed. Until after about 4 billion years of
thermodynamic equilibrium we arrive (just like evolution) into a state
where our arrangements in our brain favour our existence.

**What is this based upon? Observation? Of course not!**

You
probably don’t have anything to do with science no, but you do adress
my illogic, and as being a scientist myself, (a Physicist) I try to
relate to you as a porthole of (my) science. And thus by seriously
doubting my own logical reasoning, you are basicly also questioning
scientific reasoning.

**No, I dispute some theory that I find to be nonsense. Just like if I dispute the Trinity it doesn't mean that I'm disputing religion. I'm pointed out the misuse of logic, not any problem with logic itself. I see a very clear problem with your reasoning, which you don't see, because you can't step outside yourself. I dispute for one thing, the idea that something can come from nothing. I dispute that the answer for complexity is chance. Did a bundle of materials pop up out of nothing, and just explode and start inexplicably forming complex systems? You will never find an answer to how life started because you can't. Your means of observation will never find the answer.

Everything created needs a cause. This is the scientic way. All this phenominal reality here is bound by cause and effect. The question for you is how did it all start? The big bang materials cannot have caused themselves. Why can you not theorise where they came from?

We need an original cause, and we can't have something coming from nothing. These things are obvious, to me at least. The Bible actually claims that we were "brought forth", or made from existing materials. This creation must have arisen from something that exists, but isn't possesed of the same qualities, and there must have been a reason for it, and this reason, or cause, needs to be able to design things of incredible complexity.

So this creation has as its original substance, this higher reality. Mysticism makes just this claim. The claim is that we are really composed of something higher, and we can connect with it, because we are of it. This satisfies my logical inquiry perfectly. And as to a designer, scripture details thousands of years of interraction with God. A problem that exists though, is that there are many mystics who fall prey to illogical thinking and assume that there is no personal God. They have the same problem as you. In the end, they cannot answer how and why they exist.

As my name implies, I am both a believer in God as a personal entity, and a believer in God as an omnipresent impersonal God as well. My position satisfies all the logic that must be satisfied. Tell me, can you understand what I've just told you?**

Could you quote that logical reasoning again,
because I am having trouble finding it and I would like to make a
serious answer.

**You see, you aren't even seeing what I've written. Your mind is just editing out what you don't want to believe in. This is a problem you need to address.**

that your ways are mind enriching.
And others are not. This generalisation also implies that atheists, who
are not part of your vision are not mind enriching. And thus depicted
as far more empty as your own.

**You don't even know how to use logic, brother. To say that my ideas are mind enriching, doesn't say that other ideas aren't mind enriching. This is a falacy. It's like if I say milk is healthy, and some fool stands up and says, "look! this evil person is saying that orange juice isn't healthy." You have a comprehension problem and you come to strange conclusions. An atheist can have many enriching ideas.**

You
attacked me personally, and since I have got my diploma, I carry a
large responsibilty on my shoulders if society comes and ask my opinion
about problems and issues that go about in the world.

**I don't think society is relying on you, brother.**

Also things create from nothing,
and it is proved by experiment.

**Nothing doesn't exist, so you can't create from it. Creation is done by taking one thing and creating something new from it.**

IF god creates everything and everyone. Then howcome we humans can create other humans, in exaclty the way we want to?

**What do you mean by "creates?" Everything is already created that you're speaking about. Do you understand the concept of past tense? According to the Bible, "In the beginning God brought forth..." After all the systems are set into place, we are free to have children using what is already here.**

I
am beginning to become fet-up with such ad-hominem arguments (or
fallacy as called in argumentation). I have been watching my
argumentation carefully to not make names or fowl to much. Yes I have
assumed, that you seemed to be something, but I never state that you
are of such. If you can’t find real arguments, I would like you to
refrain from then at all.

**If something is wrong with someone and I say, "something is wrong with you" due to pointing out mistakes, I see that as fine, personally. However, as I now see that you are a very sensitive individual, I apologize and will now refrain from it.**

What
I meant with my argument is the following: It is a statement of
pressumed truth. There is no argumentation in it whatsoever. And it
hasn’t even been formulated as an opinion either. It isn’t an argument.

**I seem to recall previously in the "Is it logical to believe in God" topic that it was shown that it is logical to believe in God and actually it is the only logical answer. This is the reason why I speak to you as I do. Why do you act like this never happened? I am curious as to why you can't recall this entire conversation. You're acting as if we just began talking with this conversation. This is an ongoing topic here.**

I will say again, in my life I have made one decision: that is to believe what I can perceive with my own senses.

**The perception of God will take place after you search, not before. This is exactly what I am involved with. Something appears logical to me and I am aware of the methods that are used and the only thing I need do is utilize them. Is this not the same things a scientist would do? The existence of God is the most logical cause I have heard of, and therefore I am searching for Him, because I am passionate about the truth, and am not satisfied by religious fundamentalism. I'm not one of these that thinks merely dying will reveal the truth.**

I ask of you, why is my way of thinking bad in your way of life?

**I'm not content to leave truth to chance. I believe that we reincarnate in order to learn and find God. Those who don't enter the Path will not find Him, in my belief. In your belief system, you will search endlessly through doing experiments, and no matter what you achieve, in the end you will die and rot in the ground. In my way, I will evolve endlessly gaining knowledge and power and live eternally in a loving relationship with my Creator. And you don't see your way as a limitation? Honestly, bother. Now, is there anything wrong, or evil with your way. It is a limitation upon what you will achieve. Is it bad to place a limitation upon yourself? That's for you to decide in the end**

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:18:38 GMT

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://DanielDevoteeAndMystic.gaia.com — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:48:10 GMT

No,
it might be hard for you to realise this. But I don’t see such a need
at all. Remember I was raised without any religion or spiritual tone
Whatsoever.

**That is perfectly understandable that you weren't raised with religion. That is simple. I honestly don't care how you were raised. I wasn't raised to be spiritual or religious. All that I know, I have learned because I had passion for truth, not because of any pressure from anyone. **

And even though I was educated in all 5 great religions of this world
already when I was 7.

**And that is probably why you don't seem to have a good grasp of religion. You never got it.**

And have never needed it in any way whatsoever in my life. To explain
anything I didn’t understand.

**What is your explanation for our origin and purpose according to your studies?**

There lies no
illogic there. And once it is used to understand life. Which is done.
General people find great satisfaction in it.

**What's the problem with you, brother? I have no issue with science. You don't seem to understand anything I say. And this is probably because you don't want to. You have already come to a decision based upon some flimsy reasoning and you stick to it. What was your reason for not embracing spirituality? "What are people doing groping about while they are doing the same?" What kind of a sentence is that? I think you mean their lives appear to be the same as the life of everyone else?**

I have never encountered anything too complex to not be understood by a simple chronical events of basic physics. Not even Life.

**What do you mean by even life? Do you understand the origin and purpose of creation? What is you explanation for that? God is the only one, yet you don't believe. In my previous post, I gave you some simple logic to determine the existence of what is transcendent. Did you understand it, or do you gloss over everything spiritual I tell you?**

You
seem to think that atheists life in some sort of meaningless void.

**When the hell did I say that? How did I seem to say it when I never said it? My position is that spirituality is very enriching, not that everyone non spiritual is living some type of meaningless existence. How can you come to such conclusions? What is the problem with your comrehension?**

I need to
strongly object.

**Object to what? Why don't you quote what I said?**

Then any book has ever done for them.
I science I find such marvelous wonders which can be used in creativity
to create things that are not even in the logical grasps of so many
people.

**I'm not attacking science, brother. I'm disputing your stance on not believing in anything and not seeing need for it. When did I attack science? Why do you keep trying to justify your interest in science when I've never attacked science in any way? **

That people will deny that it exists, even though they have
been doing it, and applying it for years and years in their lives.

**Kind of like you, with your very life being possible because of God having manifested every cell in your body from His own being. Everyone should believe just for that reason.**

My
life isn’t meaningless.

**Something is really wrong with you.**

you see
that none of the reasoning relevance in it is actually related to the
being of god. I can just switch it, for it has no arguments referring
to a possible being of your spedific entity.

**Being of God? being or your specific entity? It takes some effort to understand you, but I think you're saying that what I wrote doesn't have to do with God as a personal being. Everything has to do with God, because God is everything. Again, you understand little if anything at all that I say to you. God's being is everywhere, He isn't only a male deity. The personal aspect of God, that religious people accept is only one aspect. Everything has to do with Him, because nothing exists without Him. Understand? Everything I'm saying to you has to do with Him, but you can't seem to understand anything.**

I am too indecisive? And what exactyl do you base this insult?.

**Because you have already been shown previously that God is the only logical explanation for our existence yet you remain in your decision based on some sad attempt at reasoning.**

You are telling me that I need to think for myself. Whereas in the following words you tell me to think like you.

**I am telling you that you have made a decision to think in a certain manner and because of this you seem unable to adapt to new ideas I'm presenting.**

Thing is, humans are
always convinced that their mind is ‘correct’.

**You are free to point out anything illogical about my beliefs. I'm not a religious fundamentalist so I'm free to believe whatever I like.**

Because
for me I do not ‘not want it’ but more see no sense in it whatsoever
compared with the point of understanding I am already at.

**Then let's speak truthfully about these things. Explain to me why you don't think there's a need and I will explain the need.**

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:10:02 GMT

-- "*What you are saying is that you don’t “see” a need but I think it is
more that you “don’t want” to see a need." --

No, it might be hard for you to realise this. But I don't see such a need at all. Remember I was raised without any religion or spiritual tone Whatsoever. My friends were (most of them) not religious. And 'baptised' people were just people who well had a label on their had. And even though I was educated in all 5 great religions of this world already when I was 7, it was just this, that made me wonder horribly, what on earth people are doing grouping about awhilst they are all doing exactly the same. I do not see such a need, never think about it. And have never needed it in any way whatsoever in my life. To explain anything I didn't understand.

As you adress to my 'illogic' I must disagree. A scientist builds up his entire scientific world out of far, far less assumption then a religious person. And above all can predict future events to some of the greatest accuracies. There lies no illogic there. And once it is used to understand life. Which is done. General people find great satisfaction in it.

I have never encountered anything too complex to not be understood by a simple chronical events of basic physics. Not even Life.

You seem to think that atheists life in some sort of meaningless void. In which their lives are 'obviously' deprived of deeper meaning. I need to strongly object. Though I don't know why, I appearently give people more to think of in their lives. Then any book has ever done for them. I science I find such marvelous wonders which can be used in creativity to create things that are not even in the logical grasps of so many people. That people will deny that it exists, even though they have been doing it, and applying it for years and years in their lives.
My life isn't meaningless. I live and incredibly rich life, with hundreds of people with some of the greatest and most different minds. And yes, some of those are religious. But that doesn't mean they do no contribute to my diversity of thinking. No, even more.
You seem to be convinced that the atheist community is horrible! I must Ask you;
Just how many Atheists Do you know?

-- "You don’t see a need to move beyond confusion and a body that dies so
easily and find Girtle. You don’t see the need to be with our Sister who
loves us and is devoted to us? You wouldn’t like to know Her? How can
you not see, unless you just refuse to? " -- This is an empty sentence, and by simple replacing the words, you see that none of the reasoning relevance in it is actually related to the being of god. I can just switch it, for it has no arguments referring to a possible being of your spedific entity.
-- "You are too indecisive, and rather than thinking for yourself, maybe you can learn to think like someone who knows how to think correctly. Your way is no good, to be honest, and seems to have just left you indecisive, unable to “see.”"--
I am too indecisive? And what exactyl do you base this insult?.
Hihi;
Read this: Seriously read this:
"and rather than thinking for
yourself, maybe you can learn to think like someone who knows how to
think correctly. Your way is no good, to be honest, and seems to have
just left you indecisive,"
You are telling me that I need to think for myself. Whereas in the following words you tell me to think like you. Seriously, that is awfully contradictive you know.

As for your last paragraph, I couldn't agree more. But try and realise to yourself. That you yourself are appearentyl subject to this aswell. And maybe it isn't a person. But just a book.
Thing is, humans are always convinced that their mind is 'correct'. I don't, yes I do to predict. But I test that whenever I can. It gets either confirmed or rejected on a high daily basis. My entire image of life is just a continues way of improving the vision I have upon this world/society/life And I challange it again and again, with more and more stronger and oppossing concepts. But you know what? It becomes hard to reject it by now. For I have been doing it half of my life.

I wish you good luck in finding your god, and in trying to perceive just how 'I can't see the need' without thinking I don't want it. Because for me I do not 'not want it' but more see no sense in it whatsoever compared with the point of understanding I am already at.

As for your last paragraph, ponder how you yourself are subject to this.

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://DanielDevoteeAndMystic.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:20:45 GMT

And even though, I do not believe
in any religion or god. Or even think there is something ‘more’ let
alone see any need to even have such a concept.

**What you are saying is that you don't "see" a need but I think it is
more that you "don't want" to see a need. According to the bible we
were created so that we may search for Him and find Him. There is
absolutely something more. Our reality is bound by cause and effect.
Every bit of it needs to have been caused. The only thing you need to
concern yourself with at that point is, what is that cause? It couldn't
have caused itself. However, it couldn't have come from nothing either.
So, you must accept that this reality was caused, and it wasn't caused
from nothing, because something cannot come from nothing. This reality
must have been manifested from another reality that wasn't bound by
cause and effect or time and space. And meditation is made for just
that. You remove your senses from the gross physical and this allows
you to experience the deeper reality. All of this is so logical and non
of it is actually confusing at all.

This reality, has a personality as well as being infinite. This
personality of God is who is responsible for planing out our existence,
and creating everything and everyone. Imagine looking at something
complex beyond our ability to comprehend and coming to the conclusion
that it was an accident that just popped up out of nothing. Atheist
refuse to be open minded, and they therefore don't "see" the illogic
that they have embraced.

What is the need for the Path? It is why we exist. The Path offers us
the ability to evolve endlessly. We can find our creator and enter a
loving relationship with Him. And with the power that we gain we can
help many people. There is no limit to how much good we could do for
others with more power. Instead of being someone who "can't see" you
can begin to see all kinds of things. Instead of reincarnating
endlessly never knowing your purpose you can know God, and the greater
you become, the more you can do for others.

You don't see a need to move beyond confusion and a body that dies so
easily and find God. You don't see the need to be with our Father who
loves us and is devoted to us? You wouldn't like to know Him? How can
you not see, unless you just refuse to? You are too indecisive, and
rather than thinking for yourself, maybe you can learn to think like
someone who knows how to think correctly. Your way is no good, to be
honest, and seems to have just left you indecisive, unable to "see."

The problem is that everywhere we turn we find people who have idea how
to use their mind correctly and they end up believing in nonsense, or
nothing, and in the end, many people actually turn from religion
because of the illogical things that are present. And this isn't
because God's teachings aren't logical, but because people get screwed
up as soon as a prophet isn't present to explain things.**

Re: The world is full of relationships, and so I realized...

http://Domus-ulixes.gaia.com — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:55:04 GMT

I thought about it yesterday.

And even though, I do not believe in any religion or god. Or even think there is something 'more' let alone see any need to even have such a concept.
I think you are doing a good job.

Is there is anything this mankind needs, it is impuls to think for themselves.
And if I look at the mindless dogmatic belief of so many religious people. I cheer your attempts to make them think. Let them think, keep them thinking and questioning!