Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[metis]

Too bad he didn't listen.
Really......too bad.

You can't blame him when you have repeatedly done exactly the same, namely virtually ignoring both the evidence and misrepresenting what's found in the coroner's report. So, why should I believe you in another area whereas you can't put forth any evidence to support yourself?

 

[Thief]

You can't blame him when you have repeatedly done exactly the same, namely virtually ignoring both the evidence and misrepresenting what's found in the coroner's report. So, why should I believe you in another area whereas you can't put forth any evidence to support yourself?

Blame?.....Not at all.
Just poor judgment on his part.
Too bad.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I actually favor the inspiration of the Carpenter FOR His parables.

I think the Sermon on the Mount is beautiful. I'm not sure that "God" is particularly relevant to it though.

 

[Thief]

So we look for hope and comfort. But is that at the expense of truth? Is the truth sometimes just too much to bear? Are we really just clutching a metaphysical straws? I'm not sure, but I do think these are questions that need to be asked.

and what answer do you anticipate?
One of comfort?

I suspect that last breath will be the ordeal.........good luck!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

One of comfort?

Who knows. Peace and acceptance would be worth having.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If I said that I can walk on water, would you believe me?

Some might, but I would want a demonstration.

 

[Thief]

Who knows. Peace and acceptance would be worth having.

and I do believe we gather to those of kindred spirit.
How else to be happy?
How else to be fair?

 

[metis]

Some might, but I would want a demonstration.

Well, if the water is shallow enough...

 

[godnotgod]

Not quite. We have us. Then our cells, then the molecules that make up those cells, then the elemental atoms that make up those molecules and then with each atom you have mesons and bosons (and hadrons are in this category but lets not get to complicated) and then from there they are made of quarks. But the big mystery of science today is the Higgs Boson which is the current theoretical particle believed to exist (and has been found) that would be the cause for the mass and "physical-ness" of our universe today.

I guess you missed this previous post, esp what it says of the Higgs boson:

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

• New Scientist November 2008 by Stephen Battersby

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.

The researchers simulated the frantic activity that goes on inside protons and neutrons. These particles provide almost all the mass of ordinary matter.

Each proton (or neutron) is made of three quarks - but the individual masses of these quarks only add up to about 1% of the proton's mass. So what accounts for the rest of it?

Theory says it is created by the force that binds quarks together, called the strong nuclear force. In quantum terms, the strong force is carried by a field of virtual particles called gluons, randomly popping into existence and disappearing again. The energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron.,,,,

,,,,The Higgs field is also thought to make a small contribution, giving mass to individual quarks as well as to electrons and some other particles. The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons. So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, it will mean all reality is virtual.

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations - physics-math - 20 November 2008 - New Scientist

'physical-ness' is in your head.

I honestly get where you are coming from but why do you believe that the pocket of "me" in the All is conscious means that the whole universe has a higher universal conscience? We can have all kinds of properties and qualities in pockets in the universe that are not necessarily universal.

Please see this post: Does the universe need intelligence to order it? | Page 101 | ReligiousForums.com

The specific properties and qualities are not universal, but the consciousness behind all properties and qualities is. The mistake we make is to assign consciousness to ourselves as a distinct "I" or self, ie 'my' consciousness. This is known as Identification. It is an illusion. You only think yourself to be an isolated pocket, but that is your delusion. If you think otherwise, then show me where this pocket called "I" exists, and while you are doing that, pay attention to who it is that is trying to do so. You see? 'I' is trying to find 'I', both of which are being observed by yet a third 'I'. It gets worse.

 

[godnotgod]

Spiney, you do need to get off his case you know. You don't have to read this thread. Whether he is helping you or not is not the point. The point is he IS supplying the information for you and others, inlcuding me, which can help our understanding. I for one am glad of it.

Life here in la la land is nice. I have Spiny on 'Ignore', so I can't see any of his Jerk of Knee, lunge for the jugular, Pavlovian Doggie, bell ringing salivating hate New Age responses. ggggrrrrrrr! ha ha ha

 

[godnotgod]

He can believe whatever he may chose to believe and I would never tell him he couldn't, but when one claims certain things and tells others they should believe as they do, and yet they cannot produce any evidence, then there simply is no reason why I nor anyone else necessarily has to believe them.

Excuse me. Where have I EVER told anyone they should believe as I do? You're making things up, or reading into things I've said.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Life here in la la land is nice. I have Spiny on 'Ignore', so I can't see any of his Jerk of Knee, lunge for the jugular, Pavlovian Doggie, bell ringing salivating hate New Age responses. ggggrrrrrrr! ha ha ha

haha..... he is not too bad. But he is atheist, so he sees what he sees.
I think he is a good man though.
I have not looked at the Sheldrake vid yet; poor reception. I have one of his books though, though I can't recall which one.

I like most of what you say, you probably gathered that. I don't know if I could repeat it though...haha. I think it has helped the thread a lot, certainly me.

 

[godnotgod]

No, just some evidence for me to contemplate versus just swallowing something because someone says it.

I already made it clear to you that universal consciousness cannot be proven via factual evidence. It is purely experiential. Secondly, no one is telling you to swallow anything, but only to go see for yourself. The door is wide open, with no doctrine attached to distort your view. All that is asked is that you leave your baggage behind for awhile. It will be there when you return.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations - physics-math - 20 November 2008 - New Scientist

What has any of this got to do with "cosmic consciousness" though?

QM relates to the sub-atomic world, the very small, and different rules apply to cosmology. Our everyday world is subject to Newtonian mechanics, not quantum mechanics. If you drop a brick on your foot it will still hurt.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is purely experiential

OK, so tell us about the experience then. Have you had an experience of cosmic consciousness, and if so what was it like? And how did you "access" it, was a particular method or approach involved?
I think a number of people here have experienced altered states of consciousness, so it would be interesting to compare impressions.

I have been asking you to talk about your personal experience for ages, so how about sharing it now?

 

[Robert.Evans]

This is interesting:

10 Mind-Bending Implications of the Many Worlds Theory - Listverse

 

[Aupmanyav]

With the greatest of respect sir, I still think that it is you who does not grasp the idea.

An idea should be based on some evidence. What is GNG's evidence for it.

 

[YmirGF]

There are different levels of enlightenment. It is common knowledge amongst Buddhists that the Buddha achieved the highest potential a human can achieve, which is Supreme Enlightenment.

Do you accept that the Buddha achieved Enlightenment, or was it merely a personal belief?

"I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment."

-- Gotama Buddha

I know that many human animals think that Buddha achieved so-called "enlightenment". Personally, though many thing are somewhat "enlightening", I no longer subscribe to the idea of "enlightenment". As you well know, likewise, I utterly and soundly reject all concepts that include the words "ultimate" and "absolute". For good measure, I suppose we can now add "Supreme" to the short list too, of words that should never be used to describe the perceptions of inner reality. It's just inner reality, there is no need to go all goofy about it.

 

[YmirGF]

Our everyday world is subject to Newtonian mechanics, not quantum mechanics.

This is an important fact that folks should endeavor to remember.

If you drop a brick on your foot it will still hurt.

Proof that impermanence is often a good thing.

 

[YmirGF]

OK, so tell us about the experience then. Have you had an experience of cosmic consciousness, and if so what was it like? And how did you "access" it, was a particular method or approach involved?
I think a number of people here have experienced altered states of consciousness, so it would be interesting to compare impressions.

I have been asking you to talk about your personal experience for ages, so how about sharing it now?

This could be settled so easily if godnotgod simply wrote of his vast array of experiences that led him down the rabbit hold of understanding. At least we would have some kind of evidence that he actually knows what he is talking about. Having had enough inner experience to satisfy a small village of human animals, I take umbrage with his somewhat superficial views and call him on them. Likewise, his penchant for quoting questionable sources like Chopra, Goswami, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh 2.0, and on and on really defeats his own assertions. To get around this he tries to warp the understanding of others to conform to his thinking. A fascinating case-study in denial, if anything else.

If some human animals think I am being too critical of their little hero, that I am mocking the finger pointing at the moon, while ignoring said celestial body, then perhaps godnotgod should offer his unblemished vision of said moon and drop the pretenses.

As I said before, I've written a significant amount about my own experiences on RF over that last 10 years and know that it is not hard to do so, though it does apparently take some courage and honesty. Equally apparently, as far as godnotgod is concerned, it IS too much to ask. He'd much rather prefer to be the pointing finger rather than dazzle us with his first hand accounts of what the moon was like.