I might add that your impudent implication of obstinacy is totally another reflection of your insistence that others view the world through your eyes.
Perhaps you are obstinate, did you ever think about that? On May 27, 9:02 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > There might not be individual souls but the soul of the whole universe > which people call Reality or God is a fact which is evident even to the > finite human mind. How will you explain otherwise the formation of the > universe which runs along certain laws. How does the universe then spring > from nothing. There has to be some prescience which you might not accept in > your obstinacy. > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > The universe didn't come out of nothing, it was formed from and of > > what elements existed. The spirit and the mind are merely perceptive > > elements of human nature and the non-existence of humanity does not in > > anyway negate the pre-existence of the universe(s). Needless to say > > as usual there are those who would make the universe dependent upon > > the existence of mankind; an anthropocentric view of the cosmos. > > There has never been any evidence that would substantiate the > > existence of a soul regardless of what some might think. Albert > > Einstein stated "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, > > and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no > > superhuman authority behind it." and "The mystical trend of our time, > > which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called > > Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of > > weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of > > reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of > > a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." > > I'm sure there is more along with commentary from other distinctive > > beings but the general conclusion would have to be in alignment unless > > of course you have some evidence of the emanation of which you speak > > and some proof of soul existence which you purport as factual. I > > personally detect what runs rampant within Internet circles that being > > comments from someone who thinks they are the "Enlightened One". > > Millions before you and millions after will try to explain what life > > and the universe is all about. > > > On May 27, 2:15 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The universe came out of nothing. But what is that nothing? It is the > > > Spirit, the Mind, and it is not made of any substance or energy; it does > > not > > > occupy any space and has no attribute except that it is the soul from > > which > > > the whole universe emanates , is governed and reclaimed. It is eternal > > and > > > uncreate. > > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Pat <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On 25 May, 18:30, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > LOL!! You know, I was up last night just hoping you'd have written > > > > > > something like this. OK, lets look at the atheistic alternative. > > > > > > This whole 'cause and effect' universe was an accident--an effect > > with > > > > > > no cause. > > > > > > But that's your presumption, Pat, about atheist belief or non - > > > > > belief ! Whoever said it is without cause. The scientific view would > > > > > be that both cause and effect are the same, only differentiated by > > > > > time. It's One, and it's nature. The same that is both cause and > > > > > effect. > > > > > The standard scientific view is that the Big Bang sprang forth from > > > > 'nothing'. I.e., no cause. Something from nothing. That is, simply > > > > put, absurd. And there is no evidence that anything can come from > > > > nothing. Rather, it is far more likely that 'everything' would, at > > > > some point, appear to be nothing, given a particular geometric > > > > configuration. Science purporting that cause and effect are the same > > > > is bordering on theology. Science (with respect to the Standard Model > > > > and/or Quantum Dynamics) does NOT purport Oneness, so, please, refrain > > > > from stating that it does. > > > > > > > There is no evidence whatsoever that would lead any > > > > > > rational thinker to believe in an effect without a cause. With > > > > > > respect to 'purpose', this whole universe is without one (by > > atheistic > > > > > > viewpoint). > > > > > > The only purpose is anthropomorphic, as we humans can fathom. And > > that > > > > > should be perfectly acceptable, compared to anything delusional you > > > > > may be convinced of ! > > > > > LOL!! More animosity. Response: yes, perhaps the purpose for US > > > > would be anthropomorphic, but, for any creature, it would be > > > > creaturomorphic, if you can get your head around that. If you think > > > > that delusional rather than objective and egalitarian to all species, > > > > then, I can live with that. > > > > > > > Yet, as an intelligent entity, when you do something, is > > > > > > it 'without purpose'? > > > > > > Yes. Much of it, that is ! > > > > > Actually, there is nothing done in this universe without purpose. > > > > Every effect is the purpose of the cause. And, if, as you state > > > > above, both cause and effect are the same, then there could be NO > > > > differentiation as your 'much of it' implies. Rather, it's an all or > > > > nothing. Simple logic without the emotional content. > > > > > > > As for there being nothing that suggests consequential outcomes to > > > > > > action, I refer you to Newton's 3rd Law of motion: For every action > > > > > > there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you think you have > > > > > > disproven THAT by mere disbelief, then I applaud you. However, I'm > > > > > > not clapping, because I think you see, quite clearly, just how > > > > > > ridiculous your argument sounds. Effects without causes and no > > > > > > reactions to actions? What universe do you live in? > > > > > > What has the Newton's Third Law do with your delusional talk, Pat ? > > > > > Why are you bringing it up ? > > > > > The third law of motion is for 'bodies in motion'. Newton did NOT > > > > state that those bodies had to be 'physical' and, as he was an > > > > alchemist, I seriously doubt that he really believed that his laws > > > > were bound to the physical; however, of course, a carefully couched > > > > statement as "a body in motion..." covers himself and allows the > > > > reader to make false inferences. And why do you insist that what I > > > > say is delusional? Disprove me! Or are you going to hide behind the > > > > "I don't have to back up my negative statement" argument that is, so > > > > often bandied about by those who have no argument? > > > > > > Yes, the Law works in Newtonian mechanical universe, but perhaps not > > > > > in photonic dimensions, in EM environment ! But, so what ? > > > > > Uh, I think you'll find that a photon in motion will react in > > > > accordance with Newton's laws of reaction to other bodies. And, of > > > > course, you won't find a photon at rest. What are'photonic > > > > dimensions', BTW? Or are you obfuscating on purpose? > > > > > > Stop beating about the bush, Pat ! Just state what do you know, as > > is > > > > > evident. Also, state what you believe, as against know. It's > > important > > > > > for you to segregate the two to eliminate the delusional effects > > > > > heavily settled upon you. > > > > > I'm not deluded. Prove that I am! Just state what you know and > > > > believe...all of it. In 3 lines. LOL!! No, of course I won't hold > > > > you to that, it would be grossly unfair. So why do you insist on > > > > being unfair to me? Rationality? More likely you fear your paradigm > > > > being shifted. Good. Many people will. Others will welcome it. I > > > > expect a spectrum of reactions and yours are well within tolerance. > > > > You have now asked me to 'state what I believe'. Do you really think > > > > I have time to do that? Not even my book will cover all of what I > > > > believe as most of what I believe ( for example, what my sister thinks > > > > about her nephews) is completely irrelevant to what you are enquiring > > > > about. It's important for you that I fit into a compartment for you > > > > so that you can discriminate according to your preconceived > > > > notions...that's one thing that I now believe. I also believe that > > > > you believe that I'm deluded. I'm not. Prove otherwise. You've made > > > > the positive statement that I'm deluded. Back it up. And, by the > > > > way, use as much time and effort as you like. However, if I were in > > > > your position, I wouldn't waste a single moment on it because ANY > > > > amount of time spent on trying to prove me deluded will be, by your > > > > own view, wasted time. > > > > > > > > On May 24, 6:30 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 21 May, 22:36, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any work on > > me. > > > > Why > > > > > > > > > do I have to have a god to something to me? > > > > > > > > > > Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want people > > to > > > > enjoy > > > > > > > > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" > > trying > > > > to > > > > > > > > > kiss god's ass? > > > > > > > > > If He did, He would have said so...but that's NOT what He said. > > > > > > > > > > I find it all so pathetic. > > > > > > > > > You're supposed to. It's a test. You may be failing. How > > would > > > > you > > > > > > > > know? > > > > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:57 am, DarkwaterBlight < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that there are many unanswered > > questions/unexplained > > > > phenomena > > > > > > > > > > and the like which can easily be fit into a nice little man > > > > made "God > > > > > > > > > > box". It does seem all too convienient while looking at the > > > > world > > > > > > > > > > through eyes such as yours. I also look for "proof" and I > > often > > > > find > > > > > > > > > > it in the human experience. Truly I do not count this as > > > > empirical > > > > > > > > > > though the numbers are convincing.HA! One might conclude > > this > > > > is mass > > > > > > > > > > dilusions of grandure on a global scale but the diversity > > of > > > > the > > ... > > read more »
