The big question..

Well i think actions are seen as positive or negative only according to ego, and rather than 'judgement day' at the end of each life (the end of an ego state of judgement and separation), instead it is 'non-judgement day'.

This is my experience.

 

Actually, its the ego that is judged because most people are unable to see any other reality other than what they see through the ego. Its what gives you the sense of I, me, and mine.

Therefore its the doer of deeds in life, and deeds are what you're graded on.

The ego is like a child of the higher self, except this child is totally responsible for it's own actions.


x

 

Ok we're at an impasse here. I can't see how the ego can be judged by something that doesn't judge. By it's very nature, the ego IS irresponsible, so why expect anything otherwise?

 

Yes, this goes right along with the previous post... Xenon, I always read how you post about your karmaic debt..... Who/what power exactly judges it in you thought?

 

That part of you elected to play the game when it came here. And it is a kind of game. The ego is just the gamepiece that moves around the board.

This whole world is nothing more than an entertainment park. The tallying part of this creation in built into this world. It doesn't take place outside of it. Karma, and the accounting process itself belongs to this world.


x

 

Maybe you're hanging up on the word "judge". Let's try adding machine.

Its an impartial thing, with no ability to do anything other than count. You get the bill at the end of your life. Karma then hands you a payment plan.


x

 

It's a question of seeing for whose entertainment.........

 

Love, ultimately. But in this case, the individual soul.

You love the power of creation. You love all the things that you create. They are your children. You love them as you love yourself. Because they ARE you. Just an extension of yourself.

Thats what creation is. A trail of extension that leads all the way back to the singular creator most would call God. You're aware that in Hinduism this has been compared with a spider casting it's web and then taking it back inside itself. Same principal.



x

 

And i was begining to think the word 'love' was missing from this thread

 

It's God's Lila. His play. His amusement park.
I'm sure you know that the individual is not what we think it is....

 

Endosymbiosis seems extremely far-fetched, in my opinion. If mitochondrion and chloroplast are present only because they used to be their own organisms, then how did they come into the cell in the first place?
Phagocytosis? wouldn't either the host cell or the mitochondrion be destroyed? it doesn't make sense that they would immediately begin to function together.



Sometimes I think the alternatives to theism are even more hard to sell. Actually a lot of the times.

Just like the origins of the universe. Have you two heard of the dark energy term?
It basically states that if the big bang had caused to universe to expand a little faster, we would have a gazillion particles of dust that would speed into infinity and never produce a single star. If it had expanded too slowly, then gravity would have caused everything to clump back into itself.
To achieve a perfect balance between too fast and too slow, the force of expansion had to be absolutly perfect. the figure is

0.000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000001

there is no way all of this is an accident.
but the common rebuttal of there has been an infinite number of universes so it was bound to happen sooner or later makes no more sense than "who done it"
that's like saying not only is everything possible, but everything has actually happened.
not satisfying at all.

 

I'm just a leaf on the God tree.


x

 

I have the feeling we covered some of this ground before in a previous goaround:

Do these answer your question? Of course, it's "just a theory" because nobody was around at the time observing the process, but it seems plausible to me (and apparently convinced a skeptical bunch of scientific peers).

You didn't ask the hard questions: how did living material form from non-living chemicals? how could a small number of nucleotides hook up in the waters of early earth to form self-replicating chains of nucleic acids? and where did the enzymes come from for this process? Freaker?

Recently, one of Britain's leading atheist scientists, Anthony Flew, converted to Deism because of his conclusion that it was impossible to provide a naturalistic theory of how the first reproducing organisms got their DNA.

I've not only heard of this argument, but have brought it up more than once with Freaker. There are lots of other similar relationships that make our universe seem "too good to be true". The basic parameters of the universe seem remarkably "fine tuned" to produce recurring harmonic ratios and statistically improbable conditions. Dawkins says these arguments for "fine tuning" are the most powerful supporting theism, but his replies, as I understand them, are : (1) there may be naturalistic principles or forces at work we don't know about that account for this; in particular, the parameters may not be as independent as they seem;(2) other universes may be really messed up so that our coherent one is just one out of numerous coin flips; (3) the "weak anthropic argument": "of course the characteristics of our universe favor intelligent life, because if they didn't, we wouldn't be here having this discussion, but so what?" (my paraphrase). To me, the first of these arguments is the most plausible. There are lots of regularities we couldn't explain 200 years ago that we can explain now. The "other universes" argument is less persuasive. We don't know of a single universe other than ours, so invoking them to explain the unexplainable is convenient but lame. The weak anthropic argument is weak in more ways than one; it seems to be saying that something fantastically improbable must have "just happened", because otherwise it wouldn't--or am I missing something? As I see it, we're either here by design or incredilby good luck--in either case, pretty cool!

 

Some people believe in God with a capital G.
Some people believe in Chance with a capital C.

 

are you guys familiar with the argument of information is proof of God?

I'll post what I read and you can comment on what you think.


Messages are not energy even though they can be carried
by energy (like the sound of my voice.)

Messages are immaterial. Information is itself a unique
kind of entity. It can be stored and transmitted and copied
in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.

Messages can be in English, French or Chinese.
Or Morse Code. Or mating calls of birds. Or the Internet.
Or radio or television. Or computer programs or architect
blueprints or stone carvings. Every cell in your body
contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete
plan for you.

OK, so what does this have to do with God?

It's very simple. Messages, languages, and coded
information ONLY come from a mind. A mind that
agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and
sentences. A mind that expresses both desire and
intent.

Whether I use the simplest possible explanation,
such as the one I'm giving you here, or if we analyze
language with advanced mathematics and engineering
communication theory, we can say this with total
confidence:

"Messages, languages and coded information never,
ever come from anything else besides a mind.
No one has ever produced a single example of a message
that did not come from a mind."

Nature can create fascinating patterns - snowflakes,
sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites. Tornados
and turbulence and cloud formations.

But non-living things cannot create language. They
*cannot* create codes. Rocks cannot think and they
cannot talk. And they cannot create information.

It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose
accidentally from the "primordial soup," the early ocean which
produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.

But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to
answer the question, 'Where did the information come from?'

DNA is not merely a molecule. Nor is it simply a "pattern."
Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals
are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way
that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.

DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar
to words, sentences and paragraphs. With very precise
instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them.

To the person who says that life arose naturally,
you need only ask: "Where did the information come from?
Show me just ONE example of a language that didn't come
from a mind."

 

Doesn't that argument beg the question? In order for me to be able to say "this 'message' did not come from a mind," you have to be unable to say "God is responsible for that." I think that by definition it is an impossible task.

Who is to decide what constitutes a message or information? Some examples are straightforward (a letter, a sculpture), but some are less so, like DNA, which is really nothing like English or Chinese or HTML. If DNA is a language, what are all the introns for? It would be like static while you talk or scribbling behind a note. Does it really code for who you are? Only sort of. Me born in the US is quite different from the me that would result if I were born in the Philippines. So no, it is not a complete plan for you. AND, in order to make any sense of it, it must be interpreted. And isn't a message really just a pattern that can be interpreted?

Here is an inorganic message: pi. As Cliff Pickover says, you are immortal in pi, and can have anything you want. Explanation? Pi has infinite and patternless digits. If you were to plug these into a decoder to make pictures, movies, scenarios for the entire universe, or really any decoder you like, probability has it that somewhere within pi you are whatever you could possibly dream of. All you need to do is decode it and find the scenario.

Why does there need to be a producer of information? Especially if it is immaterial. Where is the point at which non-information becomes information?

 

interesting logic above by neodude
​

 

somtimes i ask myself "where did this stuff came from(ie; the universe)?" there has to be some kind of a producer or creator. and it seems like non-info becomes info when one applies order or direction to chaos.:sunny:

 

Why does there have to be a creator? There doesn't seem to be a reason for that assertion, just a feeling that people tend to have.

Does it become info, or does it become a pattern? Chaos is only chaos if you look at it right. Or wrong. If you look differently, there is plenty of order in chaos.

 

I have 2 views on how matter/all things exist.

1. There is very interenting information on parrallel universes, how they were created, etc. Modern physicists have proven that it it certainly possible.

2. Everything is. There was no creator, we are here, and it will continue for all eternity.

....or maybe I'm only brought up to believe I am 'soul'. Maybe I'm a heap of skin and will rot away in the sands of time...