Question on Intelligent Design

[Unveiled Artist]

That sounds kind of like buddhism or toaism.

I don't see what the problem is. There is nothing 'mysteous' here. The simplest way I can put this is to say that 'You are That', and that the way to realize it is to just see, without thought, that reality. That is all.

How can action be intillegent?

I wouldnt say, say creativity, is intelligent. Thats odd. Creativity is what it is. Why label it or try to describe what it is rather than live it.

"This" "that" and things like that is making something more complex than what it is. There are no labels inherit in life. It is what it is.

 

[Deeje]

Just these points as I can't see any reason to address all of your chosen views. They are yours and you are entitled to believe whatever you wish.

The christian faith belittles other religions because of the nature of the religion. It's very political and hierarchy that many other religions do not share. A communist religion.

Do you see Jesus as a teacher? Do you see him portrayed in scripture as someone "political" (John 18:36) or promoting "hierarchy" ? (Matthew 23:1-11) Did he belittle anyone? Yes he did, and with good reason.....the shepherds of God's flock were not doing their job and he let them know in no uncertain terms what his Father thought of them on account of their gross negligence. (Matthew 23:13-39) Truth exposes error, but not all can humbly accept correction, preferring instead to hold onto their erroneous views for their own reasons. It's what separates the "sheep" from the "goats"....

(Matthew 25:31-33)

It's one thing that there exists a belief like that. I can throw it in the trash or disregard. It's another to see a whole society, people, and friends promote this belief. Then don't see the nature of how it oppresses people. It's not intentional (in some cases) but I'm bethaweled that people believe it all because it makes them feel better. What about others?

Do you think God tip-toes around people's chosen beliefs so as not to hurt their feelings?

I have never heard of him or his son ever doing that. The truth is the truth and no amount of personal feeling or dedication to a belief can alter that. We are either right in God's eyes or we aren't. There is nothing in the middle......if what we believe is not true, then we will pay the ultimate price for what we choose to believe. The Bible tells us that God knows why we make our choices and where they come from in the interaction of our heart and mind. I personally think that makes his assessment of us very fair.

BTW....I think you just made up a new word..."bethaweled"

Did you mean to?

I can't imagine a religion that puts oneself (their own belief) over others. You think it's the other way around, but if I challenged your belief and told you you would wrong, and leave it to save someone else, most likely you'd defend yourself (which is your right) and keep your belief rather than disregard it for someone else's well being.

It's a selfish religion that goes out to make disciples rather than teach and let people believe what they do without telling them they are wrong about it.

I believe that God allows everyone the same freedom of choice. But no choice is worth making without all the information required to evaluate it fully. Informed choice is surely the best way to go.....but so many people reject the truth in favor of what they want to believe. How do any of us determine that what we believe is true with any certainty? That decision is made for us actually.
According to the apostle John, no one can come to an understanding of the truth of Christ's teachings unless God reveals it to a willing heart. (John 6:44) If there is no willing heart, there is no revealing....no invitation to get to know the God Jesus promoted. You can't form a meaningful relationship with someone you don't know.

I can understand why you'd think god created life since life exists in front of us and you haven't learned that life exists in and of itself without attributing it to something (which some say is human nature to do. I'm sure I'm human, but sometimes I wonder). It is still wrong, nonetheless. Believers will understand the nature behind your belief. I wouldn't.

Yes, it is the nature of believers to "believe"....but not blindly. Blind belief is empty and indefensible. It is easily undone. True faith based on knowledge is rock solid.

You guys literally wrote the bible. The Church picked which ones were sacred. Everyone had a hand in taking out and putting in what they thought was the best teachings of Christ. You guys figure you have the best bible. Yet, Christ taught orally

Who is "you guys"? The Catholic Church?

I can assure you that no member of the Catholic Church wrote a single syllable of scripture. Every word was recorded by a faithful Jew. The compilation of the finished or complete word of God was the work of the author, not the church. (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21)

Hebrew scriptures were not an idol. He taught by words and deeds that came from Moses and Moses from god. He didn't sit down in the room with his disciples, all with their books, and went through chapters and asked questions of inquire.

Jesus often quoted from the scriptures to authenticate what he taught. Even in his temptation by the devil he responded to each one with the words..."it is written". (Luke 4:1-13) He used questions and illustration in his teaching his disciples. (Matthew 13:51-52; Matthew 16:13-17) He trained them to preach to others. (Matthew 10:11-15)

Shrugs.

It's a wait and see...isn't it?

"Belief" a huge gamble with much at stake. Jesus told his disciples what to believe, what to do, and how to worship his God acceptably...all we have to do is obey his direction (all of it, not just the convenient bits) and follow his lead....do you see any of the churches doing that?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Do you see Jesus as a teacher?

Do you see him portrayed in scripture as someone "political" (John 18:36) or promoting "hierarchy" ? (Matthew 23:1-11) Did he belittle anyone?

Yes he did, and with good reason.....the shepherds of God's flock were not doing their job and he let them know in no uncertain terms what his Father thought of them on account of their gross negligence. (Matthew 23:13-39) Truth exposes error, but not all can humbly accept correction, preferring instead to hold onto their erroneous views for their own reasons. It's what separates the "sheep" from the "goats"....

(Matthew 25:31-33)

I know he is a human just as the rest of us. He believed in god just as a jew today believes in god. I don't see him on a pedestal and I don't see him as god. There are a lot of teachers of religious thought that lead people to spiritual wealth and wisdom.

He does promote (interesting word) or teach hierarchy. God first over all. Then brothers and sisters (that make up the body/spirit of christ). Nothing wrong in and of itself. I disagree with authoritative religions but that's my morals.

If I remember correctly, he does call people fools and other names when disciples do not understand his analogies and the Jews follow traditions rather than (in his view) god himself. I don't see him as a nice guy some of the times but then, as a human, who is nice all the time. We all have our biases.

Do you think God tip-toes around people's chosen beliefs so as not to hurt their feelings?

Hence why I said belittles, hierarchy, and authoritative belief. It is what it is. You may not see it that way, but that is the christian (and abrahamic faiths) set up. I'm glad that not all god-faiths have that point of view.

I have never heard of him or his son ever doing that. The truth is the truth and no amount of personal feeling or dedication to a belief can alter that. We are either right in God's eyes or we aren't. There is nothing in the middle......if what we believe is not true, then we will pay the ultimate price for what we choose to believe. The Bible tells us that God knows why we make our choices and where they come from in the interaction of our heart and mind. I personally think that makes his assessment of us very fair.

They as in people/believers. I am bethrawled that people do not see the nature of their faith and how it affects people.

I think you see it a bit more than many other Christians. I notice other Christians try to hide god's authoritative side through his grace and unconditional love. You may not express it as I do, but we do see it the same. You see good in it. I see the opposite.

BTW....I think you just made up a new word..."bethaweled"

Did you mean to?

LOL It sounded good that I didn't bother looking it up. Nope. I didn't mean to. Is it a word?

I believe that God allows everyone the same freedom of choice. But no choice is worth making without all the information required to evaluate it fully. Informed choice is surely the best way to go.....but so many people reject the truth in favor of what they want to believe. How do any of us determine that what we believe is true with any certainty? That decision is made for us actually.

Freedom of choice doesn't have reservations. It's not "you have a freedom of choice; and, if you choose to not believe in god, you suffer consequences. Yet, you can believe what you want, even though it's false by the way."

Or "You have a freedom of choice; and, if you choose not to believe in god, don't worry, you have the right to reject the truth even though we say it in a positive light."
It's an ultimatum not a freedom of choice. If you do not want to

just say "it's god or else." We'll understand. Really.

According to the apostle John, no one can come to an understanding of the truth of Christ's teachings unless God reveals it to a willing heart. (John 6:44) If there is no willing heart, there is no revealing....no invitation to get to know the God Jesus promoted. You can't form a meaningful relationship with someone you don't know.

Hence why the whole thing doesn't make sense. If god is convicting people who are not christians later on for not knowing him, then I'd think that is a contradiction on his part. The old testament god was pretty clear that people knew he exist and chose to disobey him.

You're giving non-believers an excuse not to believe. Yet, saying they are rejecting the truth. How can you reject the truth (and why is it your truth) if you don't know it exists???

Yes, it is the nature of believers to "believe"....but not blindly. Blind belief is empty and indefensible. It is easily undone. True faith based on knowledge is rock solid.

It's the nature of spirituality. Blind belief is not bad. It just means you have trust and faith in things you cannot prove. Why do you need to prove it, really? You believe it is true; and, that is all that matters, right?

I mean, I've had and still have experiences with the spirits and they are based on rock solid knowledge. Yet, I understand that spirituality is not something that I can prove but something I live. I gave up on giving explanations.

I rather know people's experiences. You're not Moses and John, so their experiences would be different than yours. Everyone's foundation of their beliefs are different. Just christianity has a foundation that is black and white. Not all beliefs are like that, thank gosh.

Who is "you guys"? The Catholic Church?

I can assure you that no member of the Catholic Church wrote a single syllable of scripture. Every word was recorded by a faithful Jew. The compilation of the finished or complete word of God was the work of the author, not the church. (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21)

Interesting, I looked up the authors of the bible and got this

The Bible was written by some 40 men over the course of 1,600 years. Some men were used to write more than one book of the Bible. In fact, the Bible is a miniature library of 66 books. It consists of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures, called by many the Old Testament, and the 27 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, often called the New Testament.
​

Then I found out it's on the JW.org site.

The bible is written by men. By actual people.

The Church decided what's sacred and what isn't.

Protestants seem to toss what's the right version and what's not.

I mean, if I had my say, I'd stick with the Torah and that's it. Though, I don't know if the Jews have their era where people didn't know what Torah is the right Torah. They say they never had that; and their writings came directly from Moses and Moses from god.

Christians writings are from the Apostles. It's an oral tradition written down.

The Bible isn't god.

Jesus often quoted from the scriptures to authenticate what he taught. Even in his temptation by the devil he responded to each one with the words..."it is written". (Luke 4:1-13) He used questions and illustration in his teaching his disciples. (Matthew 13:51-52; Matthew 16:13-17) He trained them to preach to others. (Matthew 10:11-15)

But then he says, "you look to scriptures as if they contain the truth. Even they testify to my behalf." John 5:39. Jesus didn't use scriptures as an idol. The words were written, yes but they were spoken first. (Hence the Word-spoken message) not words.

He never wrote anything down when he made analogies. All of what he taught was given to his disciples orally. Even when he quoted Moses, it was all spoke teachings. Moses had written words from god. Jesus did not. You are Christians following Christ not Moses. (Aka, you're not Jews)

"Belief" a huge gamble with much at stake. Jesus told his disciples what to believe, what to do, and how to worship his God acceptably...all we have to do is obey his direction (all of it, not just the convenient bits) and follow his lead....do you see any of the churches doing that?

Yes, I do. I experienced it. I lived it. I followed it. Studying scriptures doesn't beat living them. We'd have to disagree there. I love studying, really I do. I'd probably be a lifelong student, but living the teachings, devotion, and actual communication with god in prayer and action is much more than picking up a book and quoting a verse to defend a point.

I value experiences.

 

[shawn001]

Thats the thing. Whats wrong with disorder? What is the difference in and of itself between disorder and order that in terms one is more valuable than the other from natures view?

Just FYI

Life in the universe

"It is a matter of common experience, that things get more disordered and chaotic with time. This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says that the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always increases with time. However, the Law refers only to the total amount of disorder. The order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount. This is what happens in a living being. One can define Life to be an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder and can reproduce itself. That is, it can make similar, but independent ordered systems. To do these things, the system must convert energy in some ordered form, like food, sunlight, or electric power, into disordered energy, in the form of heat. In this way, the system can satisfy the requirement that the total amount of disorder increases, while, at the same time, increasing the order in itself and its offspring.

Life in the Universe

 

[godnotgod]

That sounds kind of like buddhism or toaism.



How can action be intillegent?

I wouldnt say, say creativity, is intelligent. Thats odd. Creativity is what it is. Why label it or try to describe what it is rather than live it.

"This" "that" and things like that is making something more complex than what it is. There are no labels inherit in life. It is what it is.

Were you to attempt to photosynthesize your own food, an action, would any intelligence be necessary on your part? Even if you could do it automatically as a blade of grass can do, you would still have an initial setup of all parameters and requirements. IOW, you would have to program it, which requires intelligence.

I will say it again, and if you don't get it, that is unfortunate: the action and the intelligence are one and the same. Can you SEE that, or not? The question you should be looking at is not whether the action is intelligent or not, but whether the notion that there exists an agent of action is the case.

You notice that I use the word 'That' with a capital T, indicating that it is The Absolute.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Just FYI

Life in the universe

"It is a matter of common experience, that things get more disordered and chaotic with time. This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says that the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always increases with time. However, the Law refers only to the total amount of disorder. The order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount. This is what happens in a living being. One can define Life to be an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder and can reproduce itself. That is, it can make similar, but independent ordered systems. To do these things, the system must convert energy in some ordered form, like food, sunlight, or electric power, into disordered energy, in the form of heat. In this way, the system can satisfy the requirement that the total amount of disorder increases, while, at the same time, increasing the order in itself and its offspring.

Life in the Universe

What makes order more valuable than disorder?

I don't separate order from disorder. Though other people do.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I will say it again, and if you don't get it, that is unfortunate: the action and the intelligence are one and the same. Can you SEE that, or not? The question you should be looking at is not whether the action is intelligent or not, but whether the notion that there exists an agent of action is the case.

I do not see action as intelligence. Unless, again, you have a mysterious connection between a verb and an adjective that are not there.

I don't see the universe as intelligent nor do I compare what I know by human criteria as if we define the universal laws of nature. Too much ego and less observation.

The last part, no. I did not want to ask that question because it's silly. There is no agent in this picture regardless if you want to make an action intelligent or not.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't see the universe as intelligent nor do I compare what I know by human criteria as if we define the universal laws of nature. Too much ego and less observation.
.

Can you tell me where your consciousness leaves off and The Universe begins?

 

[Darkstorn]

Can you tell me where your consciousness leaves off and The Universe begins?

If there were no conscious observer to observe the universe, would the universe exist or not?

I'm not actually looking for an answer: Rather... If it DOES exist independently of the observer, then consciousness has nothing to do with it.

And there would be no intelligence involved.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Can you tell me where your consciousness leaves off and The Universe begins?

There isnt such thing as consciousness in the universe. Its all the universe. We put definitions to these things when it is what it is.

Since the universe is universe thats it, how is it intelligent in and of itself?

 

[godnotgod]

There isnt such thing as consciousness in the universe. Its all the universe. We put definitions to these things when it is what it is.

Since the universe is universe thats it, how is it intelligent in and of itself?

I did not say that there is consciousness in the Universe; I asked you where YOUR consciousness leaves off (I assume you are conscious?) and The Universe, which you deny as having consciousness, begins.

Add to this a second question please:

Are you, yourself, integrated with The Universe?

You seem to be seeing The Universe as an unconscious object apart from yourself in a subject/object split, in a manner which sees 'this over here' and 'that over there'.

There are no 'things' IN The Universe; The Universe IS those very 'things'.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Let me see.

1. I don't see action and intelligence as one and the same. Action something we do. Intelligence (simple terms) is an attribute or adjective that describes what we have or are based on our skills. Actions can reflect our intelligence, maybe but they are not intelligent in and of itself.

2. I don't know what The Absolute is, really. Synonym for god?

3. I see our finding intelligence or a "god/design" in something and putting it above ourselves as a mysterious Absolute, god, or so be and then talking for it and describing it is more like ego talking. Some people just let it be but then that still doesn't answer the question.

4. Since the universe is just what it is, how can it be intelligent? Is it a person? Does it have feelings? (Some say the universe loves them)

I did not say that there is consciousness in the Universe; I asked you where YOUR consciousness leaves off (I assume you are conscious?) and The Universe, which you deny as having consciousness, begins.

I said the universe does not have consciousness; and, if it does, I asked you to show how it does.

You are assuming my consciousness/thoughts are the same as the universes. I do not see it that way. Everything has different attributes and so forth.

We do not need to keep putting ourselves as the center of the universe. Stop reflecting truth on ourselves. The universe is what it is. We can study it but to say it is consciousness is something else entirely.

So, I can't answer the question. It doesn't make sense. I have thoughts. The universe does not. There is no beginning or end.

Are you, yourself, integrated with The Universe?

As in what we are all made up of, yes, of course. As in thoughts, no. I never heard of the universe pondering if they should make a star or decide to throw meteors at earth. It does what it does without needing to "think" about it. That's why it's beautiful. The Zen nature of it is for us to be a part of that "just be" without needing to analyze it to death, put god-words on it, and dualize it as if humans know more than anyone else. It's really silly.

You seem to be seeing The Universe as an unconscious object apart from yourself in a subject/object split, in a manner which sees 'this over here' and 'that over there'.

The first part, yes. Why "The Universe" and not the universe? We are all part of the universe not above and not below nor the center of. Thoughts are just neurons processing recycled information for present and future use. Consciousness is being aware of this. I never heard of the universe being aware of it's thought process. Sounds creepy.

There are no 'things' IN The Universe; The Universe IS those very 'things'.

There isnt such thing as consciousness in the universe. It's all the universe. We put definitions to these things when it is what it is.

Since the universe is universe thats it, how is it intelligent in and of itself?

 

[godnotgod]

If there were no conscious observer to observe the universe, would the universe exist or not?

I'm not actually looking for an answer: Rather... If it DOES exist independently of the observer, then consciousness has nothing to do with it.

And there would be no intelligence involved.

Your question pre-supposes a separate observer, but what you call 'a conscious observer' emerged wholly from The Universe itself, did it not? So where do you see any separation from it?

 

[godnotgod]

Let me see.

1. I don't see action and intelligence as one and the same. Action something we do. Intelligence (simple terms) is an attribute or adjective that describes what we have or are based on our skills. Actions can reflect our intelligence, maybe but they are not intelligent in and of itself.

Where is the separation between action, intelligence and the act-or, if there be such an animal?

2. I don't know what The Absolute is, really. Synonym for god?

The Universe is The Absolute, because there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared. IOW, it is Everything there is in total. There is nothing outside of the Universe. Therefore, it is not only an absolute, but The Absolute.

3. I see our finding intelligence or a "god/design" in something and putting it above ourselves as a mysterious Absolute, god, or so be and then talking for it and describing it is more like ego talking. Some people just let it be but then that still doesn't answer the question.

While that is many times the case, if you have been paying attention, I have been saying that The Universe, which is an ACTION, is none other than Intelligence itself. There is no intelligent 'something' above anything; Reality is singular.

4. Since the universe is just what it is, how can it be intelligent? Is it a person? Does it have feelings? (Some say the universe loves them)

The Universe is the matrix for your being who and what you are, 100%, and continues to nurture and support you in every possible way, without interfering with your existence. You, an intelligent being, came out of The Universe. How is it that an intelligent being can come out of a dead Universe? At which point is there a shift from unconscious Universe to conscious Carlita?

I said the universe does not have consciousness; and, if it does, I asked you to show how it does.

I'm trying to do that by pointing out that there is no separation between you, a conscious being, and The Universe. Show me where this separation occurs.

You are assuming my consciousness/thoughts are the same as the universes. I do not see it that way. Everything has different attributes and so forth.

I assume nothing. All I am saying is that there is no sepration between you and The Universe. You only THINK, via your ego, that you are a separate entity acting upon the world, and that your consiousness belongs to something called 'I'. That is an illusion.

We do not need to keep putting ourselves as the center of the universe. Stop reflecting truth on ourselves. The universe is what it is. We can study it but to say it is consciousness is something else entirely.

You keep focusing on the ego. I am not pointing to the ego, but to the reality that you and I are without the ego. That reality is the same reality as The Universe. Stop thinking 'ego', and you might get a glimpse.

So, I can't answer the question. It doesn't make sense. I have thoughts. The universe does not. There is no beginning or end.

You assume The Universe has no thoughts because your thoughts tell you it does not, a closed system, which is called 'ego' or 'I', a product of your social indoctrination and your identity. But where does this 'I' that has 'thoughts' leave off and The Universe begin? A simple question. I don't see what your problem is.

As in what we are all made up of, yes, of course. As in thoughts, no. I never heard of the universe pondering if they should make a star or decide to throw meteors at earth. It does what it does without needing to "think" about it. That's why it's beautiful. The Zen nature of it is for us to be a part of that "just be" without needing to analyze it to death, put god-words on it, and dualize it as if humans know more than anyone else. It's really silly.

You keep reading things into the discussion that aren't there: I never said anything about any 'god'.

Now think, Carlita: if you agree that you (which includes your thoughts, right?) are integrated with The Universe, then thoughts are also part of The Universe. You cannot separate you from your thoughts, and you from The Universe, can you? Now it may be that what you call 'I' is an illusion that thinks thoughts, while the real you, being integrated with The Universe 100%, just 'does what it does' without needing to 'think' about it. But I think where you are confused is that the Universe does not need to think thoughts in order to be intelligent. Get that? And neither do you. You quote the Zen nature: so why the need to have thoughts, then? Why not just 'be', without thoughts? Will you die without thoughts?

The first part, yes. Why "The Universe" and not the universe? We are all part of the universe not above and not below nor the center of. Thoughts are just neurons processing recycled information for present and future use. Consciousness is being aware of this. I never heard of the universe being aware of it's thought process. Sounds creepy.

'The Universe' because it is The Absolute, and not some relative 'other'.

You are 100% integrated with The Universe and you are aware of thought processes. So you are none other than The Universe, deluded into thinking, via your ego, that you are some separate conscious observer observing a dead Universe.

There isnt such thing as consciousness in the universe. It's all the universe. We put definitions to these things when it is what it is.

Since the universe is universe thats it, how is it intelligent in and of itself?

That's not what I said; you're not paying attention, Carlita: I said: There are no 'things' IN the Universe; The Universe IS those very things. Understand? The Universe is not a vessel that contains 'things', like stars, planets, and people; those very things ARE what the Universe actually IS. It's a problem in language. It's sort of like thinking that trees are made of wood. They aren't; they ARE wood.

You do not have The Universe over here, and Intelligence over there; Reality is singular and seamless. Only the mind sets up constructs of 'self and other' in a subject/object split and then thinks those constructs to be reality, superimposed over Reality itself.

How are YOU intelligent 'in and of itself'?

 

[Darkstorn]

Your question pre-supposes a separate observer

No it doesn't. My question has a negative in it. "If there were no..." ETC.

but what you call 'a conscious observer' emerged wholly from The Universe itself, did it not?

Probably. I wasn't talking about that though at all. I was trying to make the point that IF the universe exists objectively apart from our observations of it, then it exists regardless of our consciousness. Therefore, nothing in it implies that the universe ITSELF is conscious, or that it requires consciousness to begin with. That's it.

So where do you see any separation from it?

I don't. But again, that doesn't imply that the universe itself is conscious, or has intelligence.

How is it that an intelligent being can come out of a dead Universe?

This was not addressed to me but i'll add it because i can continue hammering on my point using it.

1. You are using an argument from incredulity. Just because you can't imagine it to be possible, doesn't mean it's not possible. Some people don't have such limitations in their imaginations.

2. How do you define "dead" in this context?

/E: For example: A statue is not alive. It's just stone or marble or whatever. But it's not dead either: For it to be dead, it has to have lived.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't. But again, that doesn't imply that the universe itself is conscious, or has intelligence.

Well, DUH! If you agree that you are intelligent, and that you emerged from The Universe, and that there is no separation between you and The Universe, then The Universe must be intelligent.

It's like saying that waves emerged from the ocean, which is made of water, and therefore waves are also made of water. You are denying the source of your conscious intelligence as also being conscious and intelligent. Why?

Note that, although you, along with your intellect, emerged FROM The Universe, you never became separated from it in any way at any time. You did not come INTO this world; you came OUT of it.

 

[Darkstorn]

Well, DUH! If you agree that you are intelligent, and that you emerged from The Universe, and that there is no separation between you and The Universe, then The Universe must be intelligent.

The only way for that kind of logic to work would be if you believed what i said to be Absolute Reality.

But i could be wrong too you know. So my agreement doesn't prove anything about the universe itself.

Either way, i think that's circular reasoning and doesn't seem very logical to me in the first place. I don't agree with your assessment.

I only implied "no separation" in the way that we are within the universe rather than outside of it. Nothing more. It's an intricate part of our existence, or at least seems to be. It could even be a very convincing illusion.

How do you know that you are even truly conscious? How do you verify and test it?

It's like saying that waves emerged from the ocean, which is made of water, and therefore waves are also made of water. You are denying the source of your conscious intelligence as also being conscious and intelligent. Why?

False dichotomy. Waves are composed of water, yes. But who says conscious intelligence is composed of conscious intelligence?

Note that, although you, along with your intellect, emerged FROM The Universe, you never became separated from it in any way at any time. You did not come INTO this world; you came OUT of it.

I agree. Because of cause and effect. I'm composed of all the constituents that make up my being and my body. But those individual components are NOT synonymous to my being and my body. I am not composed of just "myself." I'm composed of many different things and phenomena of the universe. Therefore, me being conscious in NO way implies that the things and phenomena that gave rise to my consciousness had to have been consciousness itself.

It is not illogical to assume that life came from non-life. Chemistry supports this.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Where is the separation between action, intelligence and the act-or, if there be such an animal?

Action meaning something done? There are a lot of actions that doesn't involve intelligence in and of itself. Just dropping marbles on the floor or an artist at work, is a better example, doesn't involve intelligence at all. It stripes one of ego (yes, ego) and self citations. It lets you be In the Moment.

The Universe is The Absolute, because there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared. IOW, it is Everything there is in total. There is nothing outside of the Universe. Therefore, it is not only an absolute, but The Absolute.

This is a tongue twister. Do you just mean: There is only one universe and no other?

While that is many times the case, if you have been paying attention, I have been saying that The Universe, which is an ACTION, is none other than Intelligence itself. There is no intelligent 'something' above anything; Reality is singular.

How is the universe/action intelligent?

I do not understand how an action can be intelligent.

Everything else is like theist-talk with some Tao, some Hindu, and a bit of abrahamic.

The Universe is the matrix for your being who and what you are, 100%, and continues to nurture and support you in every possible way, without interfering with your existence. You, an intelligent being, came out of The Universe. How is it that an intelligent being can come out of a dead Universe? At which point is there a shift from unconscious Universe to conscious Carlita?

WOW Huge leap on metaphysics talk. Simplify this for the savage.

I'm trying to do that by pointing out that there is no separation between you, a conscious being, and The Universe. Show me where this separation occurs.

I said: "There isnt such thing as consciousness in the universe. It's all the universe. We put definitions to these things when it is what it is."

The question does not make sense.

Show me how the universe/action is intelligent then we can go from there. Until then, action is just what it is. Thoughts/awareness/consciousness is not an action.

It's a silly word in this context. Same with intelligent design. Hence, why I ask the question.

I assume nothing. All I am saying is that there is no sepration between you and The Universe. You only THINK, via your ego, that you are a separate entity acting upon the world, and that your consiousness belongs to something called 'I'. That is an illusion.

More Buddhist/Um... I don't know mixed together.

You think via your ego as well. That's the point of actual Buddhist thought is to separate yourself from that type of thinking. It's heavily unnecessary in nature and it isn't needed when discussing very simple topics. If you can't dumb it down for a child, it's just our ego talking and complicated the world were it does not need to be so complicated.

You keep focusing on the ego. I am not pointing to the ego, but to the reality that you and I are without the ego. That reality is the same reality as The Universe. Stop thinking 'ego', and you might get a glimpse.

You sound like someone else on these RF boards.

Drop the Ego-Talk, the I-talk and just talk. Dont separate yourself from others "you might get a glimpse" and talk to people. If you see yourself integrated with the universe and all there is, change your discourse to reflect that. Otherwise, it is not only confusing it is also ego talking at its best.

For example:

You assume The Universe has no thoughts because your thoughts tell you it does not, a closed system, which is called 'ego' or 'I', a product of your social indoctrination and your identity. But where does this 'I' that has 'thoughts' leave off and The Universe begin? A simple question. I don't see what your problem is.

Where are you from?

If the universe has thoughts, explain how it does.

I disagree that the universe has thoughts. The universe just is. I am "just is" as well as you and everyone and everything else. The more labels you put on to it (and the examples are all throughout this post) the less you get to "the truth" (if there is such a thing). We just Are.

If you haven't already, take up abstract art and leave the I's and Ego's at the door. You'll find you are your unique self just as the sun and just as little dog Sue.

You keep reading things into the discussion that aren't there: I never said anything about any 'god'.

God-words: The Absolute, Consciousness, Universe, Intelligent Designer, God, Cosmos, Mystery, Spirit...

these are god-words. The way you are expressing them (the context) is similar if not the same as some theist would describe god(s).

Now think, Carlita: if you agree that you (which includes your thoughts, right?) are integrated with The Universe, then thoughts are also part of The Universe. You cannot separate you from your thoughts, and you from The Universe, can you?

Now it may be that what you call 'I' is an illusion that thinks thoughts, while the real you, being integrated with The Universe 100%, just 'does what it does' without needing to 'think' about it. But I think where you are confused is that the Universe does not need to think thoughts in order to be intelligent. Get that?

And neither do you. You quote the Zen nature: so why the need to have thoughts, then? Why not just 'be', without thoughts? Will you die without thoughts?

Thoughts are just information processed by neurons and expressed through different areas of the brain. It's recycled information.

As such, everything is composed of energy. I just don't see how it's intelligent.

Zen is not about "not thinking" but not being attached to what you're thinking as if what you're thinking is some form of enlightenment or opposite.

 

[Darkstorn]

Action meaning something done? There are a lot of actions that doesn't involve intelligence in and of itself. Just dropping marbles on the floor or an artist at work, is a better example, doesn't involve intelligence at all. It stripes one of ego (yes, ego) and self citations. It lets you be In the Moment.

I would like to argue this a bit. As both a visual and musical artist, while it might "feel" "in the moment," you do still use muscle memory, hand movements, observations etc. All these involve your brain somehow.

You might not be *consciously* being intelligent. But your subconscious is.

I would have used something like "a stone blown in the wind by the Martian atmosphere." Truly no intelligence.

 

[osgart]

having a mechanism for life to arise is an over physicalization and none an explanation to the nature of what life is.

a mere pattern is just a pattern.

The mechanism may facilitate life, but it doesn't describe life itself.

a physic is just a physic, nothing more.

life must be elsewise than a physic.