God is not intelligent

The existence of any-thing denotes order. Order denotes design. Design denotes intelligence. Thus intelligence design is a given----at least logically. But this does not require a "God", which is where religion and science clash. If both sides would consider the Oneness of All, it would settle the "missing piece" conundrums they present to one another.

The movement & change is merely an experience----the experience of movement/change. The Oneness of All denotes there is no fundamental separation between the observer & object. Hence, nothing is actually happening other than the experience of "moving" through multiple static picture frames like when we watch a movie by passing a reel of film in front of a light source. One might say spirit (infinite consciousness/ego-less observer) is the light source, the projector is the brain/mind/ego, the film reel is infinite potential, and the projected picture is reality.

 

So all you had really meant to say, was that no change in the dynamic of interrelationship, was possible?

EDIT: Even to say this, is assuming a lot. What if, for example, there were differences in the roles of different parts of the Whole, but these roles could switch? I am forced to give such vague examples, BTW, because of the lack of specificity of your general "descriptions," which only come into sharper focus, when you give analogies, like the one, above. If, however, I developed a detailed critique, based on the technology of film projectors, you would, no doubt, say that this image had been given, simply as a means to understanding a general concept. Is this not so?

 

Imagine yourself observing a tree. No matter from what different angles you observe the tree, the tree remains the same tree, unchanged. You may begin at the base and work your way up and around, while another person may begin at the top and work their way down and around. Both experience the same thing but from different sequences of perspectives which form their unique & individual paths. This path can be viewed as one's journey through life.

As you can see, the potential number of unique paths in observing a single tree is infinite, and thus so are our potential journeys.

Likewise, what we experience remains the same, but from different perspectives. Just as we do, Oneness experiences it-self from infinite perspectives through ALL its infinite "parts". Oneness it-self thus becomes infinite, but remains unchanged & unchangeable.

There are indeed different roles, and they are infinite in number. But these roles do not represent changes of or within the Whole, but rather infinite aspects of the Whole.

The observer & object are one and the same. All that we experience is a mirror/reflection of the infinite, unknowable self. The computer monitor you're staring at is an aspect of self/you. If this sounds weird, simply ask yourself: What exactly are you if not ALL that you experience? How do you define your-self if not from/for your experiences? Where does your sense of self/identify come from if not purely from your experiences? You cannot thus know your-self, but you can experience your-self. Likewise, Oneness cannot know it-self absolutely. It can only experience it-self.

As the saying goes, "as above so below", which simply means that there is no-thing that is not influenced by or cannot influence all other things. In other words, all levels of experience/awareness represent a manifestation of the Whole and will thus express common patterns. (Consider holographic images & fractals as examples.) So there are literally infinite analogies one can use. The clues and answers are everywhere. No science lab, math, or fanciful philosophical rhetoric is needed to see the obvious.

Through the journey of physical life we form (through individual choices) sequences of moments/frames, as well as space/time connections, between perceived past/present/future experiences, which then creates the illusion of linear cause/effect.

Each aspect/perspective of Oneness can be viewed as a unique frequency or vibration. Frequencies delineate one moment/frame from another, while within the frame infinite frequencies delineate infinite "points" of every object. (It must, logically, be this way if All is One.) Each frame is not a small 2-D frame, but an infinite 3-D frame. Think of a flickering holographic 3-D chamber.

On a physical/material level, what each person can be aware of is determined by the nature of one's brain/mind----that is, to what level does the brain/mind filter infinite Oneness.

As far as your statement about the "image being given as a means to understanding a general concept": it's not that anything is given, but rather is a natural manifestation of Oneness. The deeper one looks the more the hard sciences & predictability fall away and gives way to what only consciousness can fathom. It takes consciousness to fully grasp the nature of consciousness. In this sense, science acts as a rather cumbersome middle-man, where one manifestation of consciousness (tools) is used to study another manifestation of consciousness (objects). And, all this under the scrutiny of another manifestation of consciousness----the brain/mind.

Modern science needs to expand its paradigm towards subtler & higher (ie, unquantifiable/unmeasurable) forms of consciousness if it is to become more productive/progressive in both its academic & technological development.

 

Perhaps the fewer words the better. Even, "God is," misses the mark.

Huang Po, a beloved Zen master in Tang dynasty China, said it best...
"Open your mouth and you have already lost it."

 

Thing is, Zen koans, etc., rarely have meaning until one has been meditating for a long time and has a few significant spiritual epiphanies.

since there is little of that around here, longer discussions are required.

 

...and hence the paradox of living in the intellectual world while "being" in the non-intellectual.

These discussions [although paramount to reaching consensus] are the source of a great deal of negative energy, a result of individuals attached to points of view which have no basis in reality what-so-ever, and those that prevent the same folks from being able to go with the flow of change.

 

Well, 'negativity' is a relative thing, is it not? It's very similar to polarity in electronics. What makes a given point in an electrical circuit 'negative' or 'positive'? It depends on what other point in the circuit you are comparing it to. To a point more negative than the point in comparison, that comparative point is positive. To a point more positive than the point in comparison, that comparative point is negative.

In life, it's no different, or rather, from a zen-like point of view.

However, to your average bloke, these intellectual arguments are rather silly, despite the contradictory fact that intellectualism is not zen, nor is consensus.

 

Although certainly Zen is non-intellectual, I am not sure I understand your assertion that consensus can be formed outside of intellectualism [or am I misunderstanding you?].

 

No, I just said that nether intellectualism nor consensus has anything to do with Zen.

Nothing more than that, really. But, notably, one could take it a step further and assert that Zen has nothing to do with anything. For example, if I stated that Zen is all about achieving 'enlightenment', I would, in fact, be moving you farther away from enlightenment by giving you that instruction.

 

I've been a serious Zen student for over 30 years now so I believe we have found common ground.

 

I embrace all the eastern philosophical concepts, Zen, Buddhism, Sufism, Hassidism, etc.

My present spiritual guide is Sadhguru, (Osho Rajneesh/Ramana Maharshi, before him) who has many lectures on YouTube. He is a living enlightened master, and they are rare. There are enlightened masters, and then there are enlightened masters. Krishnamurti was a master, but he didn't resonate with me that much. I must say that I'm not a sannyasin or initiate, or anyone who has surrendered to any particular teaching, I'm basically home brew.

 

One of my favorite concepts is that enlightenment can be likened to the dancer disappearing and only the dance remains. I forget who said it.

That idea will annoy the mind, profusely, which is the whole point.

Another one I like, is one by Osho, who basically restated a famous quote by Soren Kierkegaard:

Life is not a problem to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived.


Kierkegaard's was:

Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.

I like Osho's better.

 

Seriously, are you trying to refute the theory of evolution, or what?

 

It is my view that all intelligent sources ( souls, which inhabit all life forms ) reincarnate. A soul, an intelligence source,
starts off very small, inhabiting a one celled creature, and over millions of years, works it's way up the genetic line until it become a human. It is at the human level that enlightenment is possible. In this way, all living things, lower creatures on up, will eventually reach the 'godhead' ( nirvana, samadhi, etc ).

It is entirely a natural phenomenon. It is one of the central features of nature, in my view.

We are a dynamic entity, so, quite possibility this is true. However, we do not reincarnate in pieces, only as a whole, noting that terms like 'subconscious' is the province of psychology/psychiatry. I do believe we have a subconscious mind, but it's not part of the soul, it's a part of the mind. For the soul, the mind serves similar to how a cocoon serves a catapillar. When the catapillar builds a cocoon around it, it eventually breaks out and becomes a butterfly, with wings.

It happens similar to the human soul. We need a 'mind' (and a body) to shield us from the turbulent harsh reality of the universe until we are ready to drop the mind and the body and get our 'wings', i.e., achieve 'enlightenment' (nirvana, samadhi, the 'godhead' etc).

 

I like the moth/flame metaphor better than the 'mosquito/light' metaphor.

Just sayin'

 

My mother was a big J Campbell fan.

 

That wasn't my intention. Only to illustrate the "physics" of reality/consciousness on a conceptual, logical level in simple terms.

But since you mentioned it, the Oneness of all doesn't refute the theory of evolution. But it does point out that evolution cannot occur by chance/randomness. There is intelligence & willful intention behind the direction that evolution takes.

And just look around you. Look at all the animals and plants and other beautiful things----the variety, the colors, the patterns, the shapes & sizes, and funny & weird behaviors. One cannot help but be struck by the feeling of infinite, creative intelligence beings playing around with energy to form everything from rudimentary atoms & minerals to complex organic creatures to planets, stars and even entire galaxies & universes for the purpose of experiencing what life would be like within them----and just for the fun of it. (Perhaps stars, galaxies & universes would be designed by groups of intelligences that have advanced further). I do believe honestly that we all helped create (as co-creators) the material reality that we have incarnated into. If true, it would explain why pursuing creative activities gives us so much joy. Being creative is in our soul.

 

A central part of evolution is in selection. People who want to dispute evolution tend to try to pitch it as luck. But, the selection process involves very little luck. And, selection processes don't require intelligence.

Creativity was a factor in selection, as those with slightly better brains figured out how to survive. We don't survive due to our foot speed or strength or visual acuity or naturally impenetrable body armor, etc.

Humans depend on having huge brain power, including the creativity, persistence, etc., to figure out and communicate solutions.

Serious question:
Why would you reject out of hand what humans have learned about this universe?

 

Logically, luck/chance/randomness are not possible as long as some-thing exists. What we observe in nature may appear to be random, but this is only because we're unaware of the infinite (and orderly) cause/effect relationships that brought the event/experience into awareness.

Recall I stated that the existence of any-thing denotes intelligence, for existence itself denotes order which denotes design. There's no order without design, and no design without intelligence. Thus, as Christians and physical anthropologists battle one another over micro- and macro-evolution, in truth the mere existence of even a photon or a sub-atomic "particle" cannot exist without intelligence.

The absence of intelligence would thus denote the absence of design & order, which would leave pure randomness as the only mechanism behind all evolutionary changes----which means evolution would have no direction, and could not even be called "evolution". Ergo, there can no "selection process"----only randomness, and nothing but randomness. (Of course this is purely hypothetical & also misleading because order is a pre-requisite for the existence of even randomness. In other words, there's no disorder without order.)

Logically then, if we assume that change is due to randomness, then everything from the quantum level of matter to the universe itself has come to exist by randomness. But, like the roll of the dice, the chance of "failure" (disorder) would be about equal to the chance of "success" (order). This would beg the question of why/how there is a substantially disproportionate number of "successes" (in terms of progressive order) throughout earth's history? How did even a quantum-level particle manage to form (and even to remain intact long enough) if all that exists is due to randomness? Would not randomness cause the immediate destruction of a particle almost as soon as it was created? How could such a chaotic environment of randomness ever lead to even the formation of a functional cell?

So, to speak of "natural selection" in terms of observable evolutionary changes leaves a ton of questions unanswered. Evolutionary biologists believe randomness is at work (regardless of their use of the term "selection"). But if true, are they considering the roll of randomness at the quantum level of matter? Is there "natural selection" at the quantum level? This needs to be asked because observable changes must begin first at the non-observable quantum level.

With all that said, we need to be careful with the terms scientists commonly throw around without any clear understanding of what is going on. Often these terms are used to hide ignorance & large gaps in their understanding.

For example, the term "natural selection" is used by scientists to label a mechanism for change they don't understand. What exactly do they mean by "natural"? What exactly is behind the "natural order" of things? "Selection" also is a term that's neither scientific, nor does it demonstrate any clear understanding of what they call "evolution".

Stephen Hawking found himself in the same dilemma when he could not explain the origin of the universe other than to coin the term "spontaneous creation". He stated, "I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science. If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?" Hawking's position on this matter is logically & scientifically untenable.

Yes, the prosimians, lower primates, hominids, and anatomically modern humans certainly had an advantage in reasoning/cognitive ability & social behavior. Unfortunately, the ability of humans to transcend pure survival instinct has led to a major disruption in an otherwise finely-tuned, thriving ecosystem.

Evolutionary biologists also like to use the term "survival of the fittest". In truth, it's not fitness that guarantees survival of the species. Rather, survival is guaranteed for those that can find a niche.

Hence, even the most delicate & fragile species of flower can thrive as long it can find a niche. Transplant that flower to a different location and it may not survive. Bacteria, fungi & parasites also have their optimal niches. We humans are not the fittest, but are certainly the most adaptable, which allows us to survive in virtually any niche we choose. Various insects also have great adaptability. The cockroach can be eaten by many predators, stepped on, and poisoned. But it can survive virtually anywhere. The same for flies, and also rats. The ability to rapidly reproduce is also an advantage (although humans, being at the top of the food chain and the greatest consumer of resources, need to be careful not to over-populate. There should be more nature & wildlife, and fewer humans. Over-population wouldn't be an issue if we were able to leave the confines of earth and live independently on other planets.

What exactly have we learned? We have nothing but ideas & theories based on very peripheral observations made from the confines of our planet.

We have no idea how we, the universe, or anything else came to exist. We haven't visited even the nearest planet, let alone star. We don't even know from where/how our moon originated. We're still uncertain about what the inner earth is composed of or how it generates a magnetic field. We don't know how lightening is generated & sparked. The list is long.

 

As I previously mentioned, the important part you are missing is the selection process that is absolutely NOT random.

There are two issues here. One is abiogenesis. Evolution does not answer abiogenesis.

But, evolution includes selection processes that cause continuing improvement - which is what we see in nature.

Yes. Evolution does not have some long term direction - like, creating humans, or elephants, or whatever. Evolution causes constant improvement and the weeding out of failure. Humans are one part of life that has been successful.

Also, humans have not stopped evolving. It's currently quite slow, as interconnection of all humans on Earth is an impediment. There may be other impediments, too.

Randomness plays a role.

But, the order we see is due to selection.

Also, biological evolution shouldn't be extended to include cosmology or particle physics. The processes are not the same.

Randomness does provide the raw material, but you want to understand order. And, that order is due to selection processes - processes that you continue to ignore.

Also, you are leaving the issue of biological evolution when you start to consider quantum mechanics, etc. And, biological evolution does not appear to require quantum mechanics.

"Selection" and "Natural selection" are very well defined in biology.

Physicists do not have a lot of direct evidence of the causation of the initial singularity. Everybody knows that. I'm not sure what your point is about Hawking.

Hmm. Here you seem to get closer to understanding evolution!

But, let's remember that evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis or the causation of the initial singularity that expanded into the universe we see around us.

I wouldn't agree with some of that last paragraph. Unlike many here, I don't believe human travel to other planets or asteroids is important - it's stupendously expensive when compared to exploring using instrumentation. And, I don't believe we're going to have any real population on ANY body within our solar system, at least for a very long time. Space and these planets are seemingly designed to kill humans with even short term radiation, temperature extremes and lack of needed resources such as food. Plus, they are stupendously boring compare to Earth. Why would any population want to huddle inside a cave on Mars, hoping that the next cargo ship from Earth arrives before time expires??

Attempting to make a list of what we don't know isn't very meaningful. If humans need to know more about lightening or the dynamo that creates our magnetosphere, humans can do that.

 

Yes, this is science bullshit. "The laws of science," do not account for "spontaneous creation." Don't get me wrong, I do believe in matter coming into being, out of nothingness. There have been experiments that have shown actual things-- though I don't recall if they were physical particles, or if they were some form of Electromagnetism, so energy, a force-- produced within a vacuum, proceeding out of a "void"-- abracadabra! But science currently has no real, logical explanation for them, and will not, until it takes into account the force that I believe must be their origin: consciousness.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. The mechanism of, specifically, natural selection of traits, is well understood, in its basic idea. What I have pointed to, as the lapse in scientific thinking, is in the actual production of these features, from among which, to be naturally selected, initially, through what is erroneously considered to be, simply random mutation.

 

Humans can't create a volume of nothingness. Everything in our universe is space-time. We can only reduce the number of particles in a volume making a vacuum, but we can't make it exempt from being space-time.

You are absolutely right that physicists have frequently demonstrated particles coming in and out of existence in a vacuum, but a vacuum is not "nothingness". The materialization and dematerialization of particles in a vacuum conforms to physics.

I'm not sure what you are leading to here.

 

Highly theoretical, quantum physics. What you are saying, essentially, is that we have figured out an explanation that could account for it, not that we have proven that this is the actual explanation. There is a big difference between those two things. Earlier in the thread, I cited the understanding which, at one time, seemed a perfectly sensible explanation, to the ancient Greeks, for the phenomenon of the wind: the trees called it. This was observably "true," since one could always witness trees, bending their branches, and then feel the responding wind. Lesson: the first explanation isn't always the best, or even necessarily correct.

 

Well, quantum field theory is constantly being tested in numerous ways every day, because it is so incredibly useful and so far has given what has been shown to be solid results. There is the Schrodinger equation and other concrete work that makes strong positive statements about what is expected. This has lasted for nearly100 years.

You are right that it isn't really known why it works, just THAT it works.

But, that's enough for the question at hand. Proposing that quantum field theory is wrong in this one case would clearly require significant evidence.

 

Fine. Then I was saying that what makes it work, is CONSCIOUSNESS. But my particle collider is in the shop right now, so I unfortunately can't prove this idea, which would revolutionize all scientific thought. So, if you wished to discuss the concept, you would need to be comfortable with considering things, through a strictly speculative prism.