In a universe where creationists defend how nothing comes from nothing

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Live a dogs nature and you shall know... can it think to not go on a carpet unless tis trained to save it's owner trouble? Mu!

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Live a dogs nature and you shall know... can it think to not go on a carpet unless tis trained to save it's owner trouble? Mu!

That's a very human centric view. There are many instances where the same could be said of humans (perhaps the dog's existing in war zones wonder wtf?).

I have never seen any reason to consider we are more than an (ir)rational mammal. Our only difference seems to be an intellect, derived through a more advanced nervous system (we evolved in a slightly different way).

Though as to the "Buddha nature", it is at least interesting. There are certain things pertaining to consciousness itself that stops me being an atheist (not where religious ideology is concerned though). A fascinating subject.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

A sum of it's parts? Sounds robotic.

If the Star Trek Enterprise where to stop at every star base and replace all deflector shields and every other part, in all the parts in battles everyday for 5 years then a continuing mission would it still be the same ship, before it was replaced as it was when it first launched it's photon torpedo or fired a phaser array? Replication is no substitution for wisdom of the middle of repairs, where the ship existed and the ship did not exist at the same time and became infinite. That is something and that is nothing.

a reply to: Danny85

they decided to blow themselves up and from their deaths came the universe.

Your niece is a poet, and perhaps a little bit of a prophet.

I, also, find these papers rather unconvincing. Eternity and infinity seem like purely conceptual entities to me, and it should be noted that no infinite quantities (or eternal ones) have ever been found in nature. The way theoretical physicists and cosmologists come up with these ideas is by playing with the relevant equations and seeing what falls out. I don't mean to make it sound silly or frivolous; it's very hard work. But does it reflect reality to any meaningful approximation?

I looked at the conclusions of both papers to see whether there were any ingenious suggestions as to how these hypotheses might be tested empirically, rather than mathematically. I drew two blanks. I don't think we'll be needing to scrap the Big Bang, or black holes, any time soon.

Agreed, also, with stosh64 about the futility of trying to prove or disprove God through science. God is too slippery a concept to be pinned down with proofs. Besides, God is not the problem. Even belief in God is not the problem. The problem is what people believe God wants them to do, or not to do. You can blame religion for some of that, but really it's just people.

a reply to: Astyanax

So is impermanence

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Eh?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Eh?

Your fame for editing precedes you. Into the next life.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

A sum of it's parts? Sounds robotic.

If the Star Trek Enterprise where to stop at every star base and replace all deflector shields and every other part, in all the parts in battles everyday for 5 years then a continuing mission would it still be the same ship, before it was replaced as it was when it first launched it's photon torpedo or fired a phaser array? Replication is no substitution for wisdom of the middle of repairs, where the ship existed and the ship did not exist at the same time and became infinite. That is something and that is nothing.

Was this a reply to moi? If so, I'm not sure what you are saying re my replies.

The concept of anything being infinite is a fascinating one, though it is probably more relevant to speculation and philosophy at this stage. Usually when something is given an "infinite" property (infinite mass, infinite density, infinite time etc) you could easily substitute that word for a "?" and probably not lose much in the way of understanding IMO.

Can such a thing as "nothing" really exist (in the literal philosophical sense)? What properties would you give it, to define it? To be able to be quantified in some way, wouldn't it necessarily therefore be "something"?

Though I'm still not sure what you are replying to?

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

ps. What is confusing me (not always hard to do), is how we got from "Buddha nature">>>star trek>>>mission>>>wisdom to effect deflector shield repairs>>>infinite>>>both something and nothing?

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Your fame for editing precedes you. Into the next life.

It's what I do for a living.

It seems you could do with a bit of editing yourself, though. 'So is impermanence' means 'impermanence is the the same as something you just mentioned'. What was the thing in my post you were comparing impermanence with?

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Though I'm still not sure what you are replying to?

I think what we have here is a case of PUI.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Though I'm still not sure what you are replying to?

I think what we have here is a case of PUI.

Lol. I had to look that one up. A strong possibility.

a reply to: Astyanax

If you conscience can live with the falsehood and karmic effects thereof are they really my responsibility? No you make your own karma that binds. It is however my responsibility to clarify, since your duty appears to misead.

The post to which so is impermanence was referring too, is how much you admonished the person for all these notions of everything is impermanent yadda yadda yadda... /dualism, parrot, parrot. Current status of mind firmly closed is pretty pointed of your intents and purposes.

Impermanence itself is a duality is what I referenced to your admonishment, of the other. So you would no longer mislead, another a mirror of admonishment shined a truth upon you. Yet, you out of whatever of the three poisons(hate/greed/delusion) decided to take it as a nugget of gold unto yourself for some purpose, of ease, yet your dishonesty and redaction, for whatever selfish purpose will only bring you disease and unease.

Those jealous or greedy for release can often assume the position out of hate and act cross purposely against others liberation, the motives are out of some sort of happiness and self satisfaction. Trying to satisfy oneself, at the expense of others is a very poor mode of living... and in doing so only serves to continue the cycle.

It's as if the pit is home yes? So comfortable in materials and nonsense, yet void of any life worth living... so instead of reaching for the hand that is trying to help one out and free them from the loneliness and chaos within the consciousness, it yanks them into the pit with them and convinces them, hey... it's not such a bad pace is it?

Tis my job to sap the hands and say watch out, beware of intents and purposes involved in such a partnership. Then point the way equally to those involved.

Of course you may change your status, your text if one does not quote, every action revels your true self... to one that can see it even when you yourself does not. There is no house for you to inhabit, no energy to drain, nothing to corrupt. The vain attempt to hide truth to save a face that was not the same as before it was born, is a vessel indeed but it is temporary. The energy however is not, so the animation and manipulation of this energy is a sad, hungry existence.

I offer compassion by pointing to release, not sharing it by convolution it's message harms only oneself.

It is much like trying to covet the flavor of saltiness for oneself, so no others can taste salt by drinking in the worlds oceans with a tiny straw. This will take many more human incarnations than this world has to exist.

Tis fine if you wish to come back and pay dumb, or something else in some recourse to share some sort of pain, in protection of the grand ignorance... I can empathize with this sort of behavior, but condone it I do not. You do have a personal choice, to act as such or not act as such... the preference in biological lodgings is an interesting one.

The sharing and spreading of pain for happiness is also an extreme in the world of duality, and it will get you not closer to what is feared but desired. It is inevitable though, whether you fear it, loath it, or not, the last blade of grass will eventually become liberated, and no matter how many material heaps are stacked, or bones animated for such a purpose... it will occur. What goes up must come down, what runs in a circle eventually exhausts itself and sits in the middle of the storm unaffected, dispassionate, and worn down from the dis-satisfaction.

So, there is not reason to hate or despise such.

It is my sincerest hope that such poor fruits gained from such manipulations be abandoned. So one may find release sooner, please take another pursuit counter to the one currently striving on. Yes there is a current in-habitation, if you must use it use it for release. SaHa!

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

A sum of it's parts? Sounds robotic.

If the Star Trek Enterprise where to stop at every star base and replace all deflector shields and every other part, in all the parts in battles everyday for 5 years then a continuing mission would it still be the same ship, before it was replaced as it was when it first launched it's photon torpedo or fired a phaser array? Replication is no substitution for wisdom of the middle of repairs, where the ship existed and the ship did not exist at the same time and became infinite. That is something and that is nothing.

Was this a reply to moi? If so, I'm not sure what you are saying re my replies.

The concept of anything being infinite is a fascinating one, though it is probably more relevant to speculation and philosophy at this stage. Usually when something is given an "infinite" property (infinite mass, infinite density, infinite time etc) you could easily substitute that word for a "?" and probably not lose much in the way of understanding IMO.

Can such a thing as "nothing" really exist (in the literal philosophical sense)? What properties would you give it, to define it? To be able to be quantified in some way, wouldn't it necessarily therefore be "something"?

Though I'm still not sure what you are replying to?

In between being the original ship and whole new ship there is a point where it is neither, new or old... it just is, but what it is cannot be described, it neither is nor isn't. This is not a concept to ponder, but realize for it is reality.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Cogito, Ero Sum: I have never seen any reason to consider we are more than an (ir)rational mammal. Our only difference seems to be an intellect, derived through a more advanced nervous system (we evolved in a slightly different way).
Though as to the "Buddha nature", it is at least interesting. There are certain things pertaining to consciousness itself that stops me being an atheist (not where religious ideology is concerned though). A fascinating subject.

We THINK we as individuals have 'freewill', we do not. We are God's ambassadors and so being are acting out HIS freewill (weather we like it or not) its called our intrinsic nature. Sin comes into play when one acts outside/warps the truism of ones nature (if your nature is to be evil be the best evil you can be). Remember, you are only playing out Gods freewill as the human expression of ITSELF. All is accepted unless you go against your nature and try to change it; (USING SELF WILL) as the abstract "freewill" notion is not decided by the human alone. Its an ego thing.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Free will is a made up concept. You don't need a magical force placed on you to allow you to make your own decisions and choices. If I specifically choose an action and can face consequences for it as a result, it is MY will. Otherwise it renders the whole heaven/hell thing invalid and purposeless. Free will is an inheritant property of all self aware conscious intelligent life. It comes from intelligence, and the ability to rationalize things and weight out the various factors involved in a decision. It doesn't need to be enabled or disabled.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Free will is a made up concept. You don't need a magical force placed on you to allow you to make your own decisions and choices. If I specifically choose an action and can face consequences for it as a result, it is MY will. Otherwise it renders the whole heaven/hell thing invalid and purposeless. Free will is an inheritant property of all self aware conscious intelligent life. It comes from intelligence, and the ability to rationalize things and weight out the various factors involved in a decision. It doesn't need to be enabled or disabled.

Indeed! So many people do not want to take any responsibility for the things they place in the world, through their body, speech, and mind... tis a sad shame of a sham indeed, the scapegoating and placing blame elsewhere than ones own choice of action that arose from mental intent, is just wiping a mirror with an oily cloth and calling it spotless.

many are so quick to act out of animal instinct, they cannot see the gap for what raises their hand to strike another down in self protection. Intention to action whether it be positive or negative has a gap for intent... but the reaction time between positive with intent or negative with intent is conditioned.

It's the same as taking a 5 dollar bill out of ones wallet and placing it on the ground so another may find it, and have a lucky day, vs. finding it. Some may say hey that's a nice idea and think about it for hours days maybe years... but how fast would the same person be in reaction to snatch it up for themselves if they saw one? That ninja zen like reflex to snatch it up out of greed or hate to hurt is so honed in society... it seems it was beyond thought or intention or not of one's own will to do so.