Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Monk Of Reason]

Reference Goswami or Hagelin. I know they are not accepted mainstream, but it is still a theory, in the one sense of the word.

Unfortunately that doesn't mean much till there is evidence behind it. But I will look into it later. I know Sam Harris (you may know as a famous atheist) who once debated that it was possible for all matter to be sentient but unintelligent. But I don't think it ever took ground and I don't recall his argument being all that persuasive.

Yes, he did, Monk. Go back and read his response.

I did go back to read it for funzies. And no he did not. He gave his baseless opinion on the matter much as you have the whole thread.

The laws were inherited from Christianity. Science simply eliminated the lawgiver.

The laws of physics are not from Christianity. This is total bull. The laws of physics exists reguardless if we know about them or not so they didn't come from "anywhere" from the commonly understood term. Science explained the phenomenon of the universe. Christianity has never touched on it.

Science itself requires consciousness in order to perform science.

Not in the way that you seem to suggest. It requires sentience and intelligence but not some cosmic consciousness or any kind of universal consciousness. And it still isn't proven to be non-physical.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I am neither evading, nor not-evading

So the question was asked: "Are you claiming to be enlightened?" It's actually a very straightforward question with a yes/no answer.

Replies so far:
"Have I ever?"
"Everyone is already enlightened."
"Am I?"
"Are you claiming to be fixated on the jerk of a knee?"
"Is not making a claim being deluded?"
"I am not making the claim to being enlightened, but that does not translate to being deluded."
"I have never made such a claim either way."
"Are you claiming that I am enlightened?"
"I am neither evading, nor not-evading."

 

[YmirGF]

Would you like some candy?

I'm not a fan of candy. Thanks all the same.

 

[godnotgod]

I just did. Actually Theravada doesn't teach Buddha nature....

Does Theravada teach that you are Buddha, or can become a buddha?

BTW, did you know that THE Buddha was also A buddha?

 

[godnotgod]

I'm not a fan of candy. Thanks all the same.

You're welcome.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Would you like some candy?

I'm not a fan of candy. Thanks all the same.

May I have his candy?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Does Theravada teach that you are Buddha?

No. If you're seriously interested in learning more about Theravada I could make some suggestions. Otherwise could you stop playing games and just get to the point?

I do hope this isn't another of your diversionary tactics to avoid telling us about your personal experience of spiritual insight, and whether you are a mystic, and whether you claim to be enlightened, and all those other unanswered questions.

 

[godnotgod]

May I have his candy?

Oh, look! You've already got it in your mouth! You devil, you!

 

[godnotgod]

No.

So who/what are you in relation to the Buddha, in terms of Theravada doctrine?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Does it never occur to you what generates the sarcasm? Seriously, it's not like creationists have a leg to stand on.

It's a nonsense the evolutionists are generally sarcastic about everything. That's the culture around evolution theory.

Creationism only requires the fact that freedom is real and relevant.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So who/what are you in relation to the Buddha, in terms of Theravada doctrine?

I don't understand the question. How do you mean "in relation to the Buddha?"

Please ask a clear question and come to the point.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Yes it means to know. I agree. But know what? Everything? Of course not. I shall tell you. It means to know the self relative to all time. Did you hear what I said? When it happens it effects the person before and after. Enlightenment is like a flash of light that reaches to conception and to death. It doesn't originate at conception because the person must find it before it takes over. Babies can't find it. Children probably can.

From what I understand enlightenment is a permanent thing. One doesn't become "unenlightened" otherwise what is the point of achieving it?

It's like a fish born into the sea. It's always been in the sea, but does not realize it.

Then I would not call the fish enlightened.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't understand the question. How do you mean "in relation to the Buddha?"

Please ask a clear question and come to the point.

Uh, Theravada IS Buddhism, isn;t it? It follows Buddha's teachings?

 

[godnotgod]

Then I would not call the fish enlightened.

Being in the sea is a metaphor for Enlightenment.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Uh, Theravada IS Buddhism, isn;t it? It follows Buddha's teachings?

Of course, but the question you asked still doesn't make any sense.

So will you ever tell us about your personal experience of spiritual insight? Will you ever tell us whether you claim to enlightened, whether you are a mystic, and all those many other unanswered questions?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Being in the sea is a metaphor for Enlightenment.

How is a fish being in the sea a metaphor for enlightenment? It would make more sense if the fish got onto land one day and had a radically new experience.

 

[Sapiens]

The only people here producing nonsense are evolutionists denying freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

... and how does he answer? Why, with yet another unsupported claim, of course.

The boy is just full of unsupported claims. So full of unsupported claims that it is amazing he can stand vertically.

 

[savagewind]

From what I understand enlightenment is a permanent thing. One doesn't become "unenlightened" otherwise what is the point of achieving it?

I don't think it is possible to become unenlightened. Although I think it might be possible to lie to one's own self about it. Some people might even be persuaded by someone or something else that they are not enlightened. Matthew 24:24

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

... and how does he answer? Why, with yet another unsupported claim, or course.

The boy is just full of unsupported claims. So full of unsupported claims that it is amazing he can stand vertically.

It is atheists, evolutionists, nazi's and communists who don't accept freedom is real and relevant.

 

[godnotgod]

How is a fish being in the sea a metaphor for enlightenment? It would make more sense if the fish got onto land one day and had a radically new experience.

Spiny, you're not paying attention. The fish is in the sea, was born into the sea (ie; Enlightenment), but he does not KNOW he is in the sea. From the very beginning, his focus was on the FOREGROUND, that is to say, food and predators, while ignoring the BACKGROUND, which is the sea. Our focus, since inception, has been on the FOREGROUND of life, ie; food, shelter, clothing, pleasure, etc., while ignoring the BACKGROUND, which is what creates and sustains the FOREGROUND. The background is passive; the foreground active. Our attention, like that of the fish, is captured by the foreground. When it is VERY captured, we call that Enslaved Attention, like people's attention being locked onto the action on the football field.