Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death

reply to post by BlueMule


Our methods call for just 2-3 hours a day and no change in lifestyle. For example, you can stay with your family and keep your job, and still gain spiritual powers.

God Himself advises family life for humans, and advises to gain knowledge of skills and trade. Scientific knowledge is in accordance with God's wishes for humans. Gaining scientific knowledge is a good thing.

However science should not become a cult. Experiments devised to prove a theory (often by using incorrect methods) and shutting out opposition is not science.

The biggest fraud in science is "theory of evolution" which has consistently proven to be false in experiments. Microbiologists with years of experience and 'open mind' (not tainted by atheism) readily accept it.

Todays science is very advanced. Believe me, if Darwin's theory was provable, many weird creatures would be walking the streets. It is not due to lack of trying.

The problem is fetus dies when injected with non-compatible DNA. Ask microbiologists.

The soul enters a body which is compatible with the 'karmas' and stays in that body until that remains true. Because body is a vehicle to experience result of 'karmas'. If the body is not suitable, God takes away the soul and then places it in another body.

Humans have no control over birth and death. Humans think they understand the process, but in reality, the knowledge is imperfect and there is no certainty of results.

God has made this creation in such a way that He always remains hidden though his powers are working everywhere. Humans seem to be in control as they can do certain things. This is an illusion created by God Himself, as He has given humans freedom of action (ability to create new 'karmas').

There is only one Universe. Though this universe is full of mysteries and surprises.

Human in his ego thinks he understands everything. The Vedic teacher says it is impossible.

The reason is God has given human body only limited capability. Human body can see and understand only gross matter (matter formed from non-alive 'prakriti'). So a non-spiritual human can only see and understand objects formed from gross matter. This limits human capability as instruments made from gross matter cannot resolve (or see) smaller objects, and objects created from finer matter than the particles of gross matter.

This causes confusion in the realm of understanding many basic powers of nature - like energy and light. The model of the universe created from limited understanding can never be correct.

Without understanding God and His powers, the creation of Universe can never be understood. Without understanding Creation, the great powers of Universe cannot be harnessed.

There is a difference in spiritual and non-spiritual humans.

This is the reason why we shun experiments to prove 'spiritual powers'.

I have healed people through yogic power, and the healed person was amazed. However yogis hide as I also hid my experiment by mixing with traditional medicine, though medicine was used only as a placebo.

The person got sick again (due to his actions), and took the same medicine on his own. This time, medicine did not work.

There is a reason 'faith' exists in the world. Because people see events in their own life they cannot understand/explain.

The current rulers of the world are 'atheists' and want everybody to be similar. 'Atheism' is a cult. It is not about science. Cults are about greed and power.

Here is an interesting article about consciousness. www.sciencedaily.com...

GargIndia
The current rulers of the world are 'atheists' and want everybody to be similar. 'Atheism' is a cult. It is not about science. Cults are about greed and power.

I am a spiritual atheist because I have a faith in myself that I can will my universe. It is what I make of it. I need not rely on a higher deity or scientific knowledge to experience nature through my own five senses.

Atheism is not a cult, though I'm sure there are atheists in cults.

*Edit* I still like seeing cool sciency things on ATS though, especially the ones I won't see in person. I want science, but do not need it. We are built with reasoning to draw our own conclusions without the help of others.

Soylent Green Is People

angryhulk

tencap77
ok. besides the fact we KNOW that quantum physics DOES NOT WORK! (another evolutionary dead end, like bicameral governments or the betamax) you can prove this how? with math? ok. gothca. So what your saying is, when I kick, my "id" can transfer to a Universe that quantum physics says might exist in a fold of a racoons rectum! Gotcha! Now, please pass that bong and the chicken wings, oh , and don't forget the hot sauce and hit play on the quantum porn in the betamax would ya !

You see if you read the book before contributing to this thread you wouldn't sound like such a tool.

I'm half way through it and yet to see any 'math'. Instead what is being presented is simple observations, documented and proven observations on how particles behave whilst being observed.

Loving the book by the way.

It seems a lot of this idea that consciousness can transfer to another universe pre-supposes that consciousness is a separate thing to begin with -- i.e., some "thing" that exists separate from brain functions (a "soul" if you will). Others see consciousness as not a real thing, but as something that the brain perceives; a product of brain functions.

I admit I did not read the book, but from what I heard and read from other sources claiming that "consciousness" or "the soul" are real things, the evidence promoting these things as real was circumstantial.

Granted -- the evidence is also only circumstantial promoting that consciousness is NOT real, and is simply a imagined construct of our brains doing its thing -- i.e., something that the brain perceives as real, but isn't. When our brains die, and the chemicals in the brain stop moving around, then the perceived "consciousnesses" just ceases, along with the brain.

The point is that nobody (yet) knows for sure. When we die, we may then discover that we have a separate consciousness and/or soul. Or maybe when we die, we won't find out anything at all.

here is an interesting little article about "What is Consciousness". It doesn't give any evidence one way or the other, but asks the broad questions:

www.psychologytoday.com...

edit on 1/16/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

I haven't reached that point in the book yet, regarding what happens when we die however the main idea he is trying to sell (so far) is that without conciousness the universe would cease to exist, at least as we know it. Without a concious observer everything we see around us would be exist only as probability waves. He has demonstrated this using the double slit experiment, and numerous variations of the experiment to solidify the result. I tell you what, when I get time after work tonight or this weekend I'll see about putting the entire procedure he used on this thread. It will play with your mind.

So, the hall of judgement may not have been myth.
Long live the god king who reincarnated into Sirius constellation as a star.
Our true Earth history is probably the greatest story never told..

Part 1

John 11
“25 Jesus told her, "I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

A wise philosophy professor of mine once posed the question to us: what are the physical laws that govern the Universe? The science student in the room replies ",why they are mathematical descriptions of the movements and interactions of the Universe." Being a former NASA physicist one would think this was the answer he was looking for, but he wasn't satisfied with the response. Perhaps what he meant to ask was "what are the physical laws that govern the Universe made of?" He went on to explain that laws are ideas; they are principles in essence. Then he asked us where we would find them if we were to look.”

It is a peculiar thing that the universe, in all its splendor, is governed by these laws. If you don't think so imagine you are watching a boulder the size of a mountain sitting in the valley. Amazed by its enormity you wonder in awe where in the heavens it came from. Just as you ponder this the boulder begins to roll. "What in the heavens!?" The sheer shock of the sight causes you to ask out loud. How can this imaginary circumstance be explained? Suppose I told you I could explain how the giant boulder suddenly started rolling. You wouldn't believe it; the boulder started moving because a giant invisible man pushed it! "Why is this man invisible?", you might ask. The man is obviously invisible for one reason and one reason only-because he is a ghost! Being a ghost he has no body, and so you can not see him.

With this said recall how peculiar it is that we so readily accept that the physical universe is governed by laws of physics. That the things in the Universe, as vast and massive as they are, should give way to something as elusive as an idea, isn't much different then the idea of a ghost pushing giant boulders, yet we categorically dismiss that as even possible.

To say the Universe is governed by physical laws is worse than euphemism or irony, it is an it obfuscating misnomer. Can we see, taste, feel, hear, or smell the physical laws of the Universe? Do the physical laws really govern anything at all? If the physical laws govern the Universe then we should start talking about invisible elections. Do the laws of physics govern the Universe, or merely describe it? I would argue the latter.

Newton describes the movements of celestial bodies-planets and stuff. While the mathematics seemingly describe how heavenly bodies move and interact, it does not answer why the planets move as they do. A hypothesis as to why the planets move as they do is because of the invisible tug-boat pulling it. Why is it so hard to believe in invisible men and tug-boats when we so easily believe in invisible laws?

So the physical laws describe how the stuff in the Universe is (from our finite and skewed perspective), and how the stuff moves and interacts with other stuff; the 'physical laws' are not physical at all; they do not govern; and they don't describe why the Universe is the way we perceive it to be. Personally I was under the assumption the physical laws could do all these things and much more.

For a language that is allegedly very precise in describing the Universe, it is a strange thing that it should be so vague, arbitrary, and inaccurate. Zealous proponents of science will reply condescendingly to enlighten my ignorance-no doubt. Nevertheless, I stand firm. How can science precisely and accurately describe the Universe if it can not even communicate basic truths about itself without deception and absurdity?

With this digression against sciences' implicit 'presupposition of anti-supernaturalism' aside, lets return to the matter at hand. Belief in the immaterial, incorruptible, and immortal Human soul go back as far as history records. These age old ideas exist -without exception even, I dare- universally as recorded in the stories and texts of our ancestors. Closely related to these questions are more fundamental ones pertaining to origins and questions about God. From the fact that these ideas and stories, in their various forms, persist throughout the world, and up to the present, is cause to conclude one of three things: either these questions and ideas are inscribed in us in some way, the majesty of the Universe that we perceive somehow communicates these ideas to us, or the possibility that both explanations are true.

Sociologists and social psychologists may attempt to circumvent this conclusion by retorting that the origins and propagation of these ideas are a function (or byproduct) of civilization. However this seems insufficient an explanation because civilizations are comprised of people, and it is first in the mind of a person that these ideas are aroused. The person always precedes society.

Naturalists, like anthropologists or paleontologists, may attempt to defend their position and explain these pervasive metaphysical questions and ideas differently. Yes, they would agree, the person precedes society, but 'nature' precedes the person. Origins of the belief in and yearning for eternal life, for example, may be described away as an extrapolation that arises from the dissonance between life and death; the convergence of mankinds aversion to death and suffering, with the biological imperative to reproduce, and the ideas implicit therein. An evolutionary biologist like Richard Dawkins might add that these ideas are memes, and propagate according to the ideas espoused in that theory. However even if this was true, even if these metaphysical questions and ideas have become encoded and transcribed into our DNA by some process described by the natural sciences, it would not undermine my position that either these ideas are inscribed inside us, they are communicated to us by this experience in the Universe called life, or both.

It should come as no surprise that there is contention between strict naturalism, if such a thing truly exists, and a dualistic temperance that allows for both the physical and the metaphysical. Please recall that the physical laws and principles the science fanatics (strict naturalists) will attempt to beat me with are of no consequence. By the constructs defined in the natural sciences physical laws are principles; principles, ideas; ideas, immaterial things; immaterial things do not exist."

Part 2

P1/The Universe described by natural science carry’s on in a orderly, meaningful, and steadfast manner.
P2/The order and predictability of the Universe described by science continges upon a fundamental normative constant, laws, or principles.
C1:.
Principles(physical laws) inextricably entwined with the Universe described by science exist.

P3/Either the physical laws that guide the Universe described by science are material, immaterial, or both.
P4/In the Universe described by natural science there exists nothing immaterial.
C2:.
Immaterial principles do not exist in the Universe described by natural science
v
Only material principles exist in the Universe described by natural science

P5/The perception of a material thing is distinct from the object itself.
P6/The physical laws (material principles) described by the physical sciences, as guiding the Universe, are necessarily perceived.
C3:./The physical laws (material principles) described by the physical sciences, as guiding the Universe, are distinct from the physical laws guiding the Universe.

P6/Thought & perception are described by the physical sciences, as a function of complex material principles that guide neurophysiological structures and processes, such as neuronal impulses.
P7/The subjective experience of thought & perception is distinct from the complex material principles, structures, and processes, that science describes thought and perception as contingent upon.
P8/The difference between a physical thing and the idea of that thing is a difference of essence.
P9/The essence of a material thing is material.
C4:.The essence of an idea about a material thing is immaterial.

P10/The Universe described by the physical sciences are ideas about material things.
P11(P10 u C4)/The physical laws (material principles) described by the physical sciences are immaterial.
R(C2)/ Immaterial principles do not exist in the Universe described by natural science.
C5(P11 u C2)⊥ The physical laws (material principles) described by the physical sciences, as guiding the Universe, do not exist in the Universe natural science describes.

The conclusions soundness rests upon the validity of the premises, and the soundness of the logic. Constructive criticism is appreciated!

The aforementioned absurdity that results from strict naturalism is shown here as the inevitable conclusion of a semi-formalized system of logic. It is equally absurd to approach the earnest questions attempted by metaphysics within the confines of strict naturalism. The strict naturalism of science is limited by a cartesian boundry, and is unable to conclude anything definitely pertaining to that which is beyond the observable physical('material') Universe. This is most unfortunate as the rigor of the scientific method is a useful tool in discerning truths. A tempered approach is prudent in truth seeking, and it is the truth we are after.

Again returning to the topic of discussion, does reason, and the other disciplines of human inquiry have any compelling arguments to offer for the existence of the immaterial and immortal soul?

The human experience of consciousness is inarticulately profound. While science has discovered a tremendous amount in neurophysiology, genetics & epigenetics, biophysics, organic chemistry, artificial intelligence and the various niche disciplines of scientific inquiry interested in better understanding what Human consciousness is, and how it is possible, it may prove to be true that what science has learned raises more questions than it answers.

The human person is capable of many different altered states of consciousness: REM sleep & dreaming, daydreaming & imagination, meditation & prayer, hypnosis, various altered states of consciousness induced by psychoactive drugs, etc.. These altered states of consciousness are differentiable from each other by EKG, fMRI, simple tests of the autonomic nervous system for pulse and heart rates, etc.. It is well documented that in altered states of consciousness people report experiences that give cause to ponder the existence of the soul, heaven & hell, life after death, etc.



Dreaming is a perfect example. When we close our eyes and rest our heads down and fall asleep our body begins to change. Heart rate and breathing decrease, neurotransmitters and hormones regulating sleep and wake cycles influx, the body shuts down, as our mind drifts away. About 3 or 4 times a night, for the average sleeper, the brain will cycle through a series of altered states. These distinct stages of sleep are differentiated by electrical wave frequencies in the brain. At the ebb of this cycle the electrical frequencies are markedly different then the brains activity during the waking state of consciousness, as a low frequency delta wave takes over and the sleeping person enters into REM sleep. It is in this relaxed low frequency state when dreaming occurs.

A vivid dream, or nightmare, is the most perplexing thing. The constructs of the dream world are unlike those experienced in a waking state. Space and time all but disappear, laws of entropy, gravity, and causality give way to the power of the mind, and the minds imagination. It is here that we find our first real evidence for the existence of the immaterial soul! The constructs described in this dream world is precisely the sort we would expect for an immaterial soul free from the encumbrances of the physical body with its limitations, as well as the physical Universe and its laws. This dream state we all experience is nothing short of proof that the mind is immaterial. If there is indeed an essential part of us that exists beyond the corruptibility of the physical laws, then the immortality of the soul is close behind. While entropy and causality may wither away our physical bodies over space and time as a flower in the mid day sun, it is reasonable to suggest our immaterial essence would not be subject to Edens curse. The dream world is precisely the sort we would expect to experience as an immaterial soul traversing the blank canvas of a metaphysical aether, free from physical limitations, constructs, laws, and even logic, then why shouldn't this also give reason to believe in life after death, as the immaterial soul is no longer subjected to entropy, causality, or the frailties of the physical body?

A second evidence arises when considering the dream state. The vivid clarity of a lucid dream stands out in the minds eye. People distinctly experience in their dreams abstract visceral sensation and perception like we experience in our physical bodies in a waking state of consciousness. It is easy to take this for granted and miss the miracle. With our eyes closed in the pitch of night with what light do we get our sight? With what eyes do we see in our dreams?

“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
(Jesus the Christ, “The Gospel According to John”, Ch. 1, New American Bible)


According to St. John life itself is the light that shines through the darkness. This light and life is Divine in origin, and flows down from Heaven above by and through Christ Jesus. St. John seems to have been inspired by the idea of Forms espoused by ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Socrates. For St. John, Christ is the very embodiment of the true spiritual Light; He is the Source and Form of the immaterial soul-the true Life; He is the very Word of God through whom all things came to exist.

Any serious discussion about the existence or immortality of the soul, or life after death, is not complete without examining the teachings of Christ Jesus who is the way to everlasting life. This is the earnest testimony of those who followed Him to the Cross, yet would rather have laid down their lives then deny “He is risen indeed!”


22 "The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light;
23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be in darkness. And if the light in you is darkness, how great will the darkness be.” (Jesus the Christ, “The Gospel According to Matthew”, Ch. 6, New American Bible)


The pineal gland has been the fascination of science and spiritualists going back as far as the ancient Indian civilization. Rene Descartes was fascinated by the age old metaphysical questions like does the immaterial soul exist, and if so how could it possibly interact with the physical body. Descartes esteemed the tiny organ so much as to say this in his 'Treatise of Man':

“My view is that this gland is the principal seat of the soul, and the place in which all our thoughts are formed.”

While Descartes anatomical descriptions and theories about the pineal gland proved to be incorrect, the questions he posed are as pertinent today as ever. How can an immaterial soul/mind interface with the material structures of the body?

part 3: tbc

GargIndia
The biggest fraud in science is "theory of evolution" which has consistently proven to be false in experiments. Microbiologists with years of experience and 'open mind' (not tainted by atheism) readily accept it.

Can you please point to those experiments that have 'proven' theory of evolution to be false? I know of many and all of them proving evolution to be true. Many of them I have posted here in threads like this, but never found one that would show otherwise.

Only thing that is happening today is that some microbiologist are trying to use quantum physic and came to very wrong conclusion, for example Chopra believes that atoms have consciousness.

GargIndia
Todays science is very advanced. Believe me, if Darwin's theory was provable, many weird creatures would be walking the streets. It is not due to lack of trying.

This show size of your misunderstanding of ToE. Why there would be 'weird creatures' walking the streets?

GargIndia
The problem is fetus dies when injected with non-compatible DNA. Ask microbiologists.

You are kind of jumping from thing to thing...

GargIndia
The soul enters a body which is compatible with the 'karmas' and stays in that body until that remains true. Because body is a vehicle to experience result of 'karmas'. If the body is not suitable, God takes away the soul and then places it in another body.

Humans have no control over birth and death. Humans think they understand the process, but in reality, the knowledge is imperfect and there is no certainty of results.

God has made this creation in such a way that He always remains hidden though his powers are working everywhere. Humans seem to be in control as they can do certain things. This is an illusion created by God Himself, as He has given humans freedom of action (ability to create new 'karmas').

And this theory about god being traffic controller for souls, what kind of evidence we have for this?

It looks like as very immature being, hiding and creating illusions, but what is most flooded with this idea, if soul is sent to body because of 'karma' and supposed to die in some horrific way (some bad soul), what freedom of action are you talking then??

Whole 'karma' mechanism was implemented just to ensure that people would do 'good things' as opposed to bad things, as if they don't do it, their soul will have to pay the price...

If number of souls is limitless, why would God care about few souls that are not good? ( I always forget that it is all about US - humans - God created ALL stars in the world just for us to have wonderful night sky'.

GargIndia
There is a difference in spiritual and non-spiritual humans.

This is the reason why we shun experiments to prove 'spiritual powers'.

I have healed people through yogic power, and the healed person was amazed. However yogis hide as I also hid my experiment by mixing with traditional medicine, though medicine was used only as a placebo.

The person got sick again (due to his actions), and took the same medicine on his own. This time, medicine did not work.

There is a reason 'faith' exists in the world. Because people see events in their own life they cannot understand/explain.

The current rulers of the world are 'atheists' and want everybody to be similar. 'Atheism' is a cult. It is not about science. Cults are about greed and power.

Ohh, now not only your wife has powers, but you are also a healer, with bare hand I assume...

Traditional medicine is placebo, but your powers are not, I assume.

I agree, there is a reason faith exist in the world - to help those unable to think on their own. We humans are creators, doers, but we also sometimes very lazy...

I wonder how did you get to that that current ruler of the world are atheists? Most of them, if not all belong to some sort of organized religions.

Atheism is not a cult, but as many have noticed it is on rise. Thanks to media and easy access to information, people are starting to question their belief. I was surprised when young hairstylist in conversation with me said that her family still goes every Sunday to church. Her husband's family does the same, but 2 of them talked and they agreed that they don't agree on any of teachings, and that they can live without faith. Biggest reason according to her is age of universe, as science proves it is much older then their priest is telling them. The same priest that ask them not to believe in science and that Bible is only answer to all question.

Young people like that are danger that current religious institution see as huge problem.

SuperFrog
Only thing that is happening today is that some microbiologist are trying to use quantum physic and came to very wrong conclusion

Robert Lanza is considered one of the worlds leading scientists (without exaggeration), what's your occupation? It would be interesting to note how you know more than he does.

In fact, since the primary purpose of this thread is to discuss his theory and the book he's published, maybe you would like to quote a few areas of the book that you disagree with? Then we can discuss it, instead of you throwing pointless statements around essentially de-railing the thread.

angryhulk
Robert Lanza is considered one of the worlds leading scientists (without exaggeration), what's your occupation? It would be interesting to note how you know more than he does.

In fact, since the primary purpose of this thread is to discuss his theory and the book he's published, maybe you would like to quote a few areas of the book that you disagree with? Then we can discuss it, instead of you throwing pointless statements around essentially de-railing the thread.

Exactly, leading scientist in field of medicine and micro-biology, but NOT physics or for that matter quantum physics. Just the same as his friend Chopra, who was so much frustrated once real theoretical physicist asked him following: "would you want to have short curse in Quantum Mechanics sometimes, so that we can straighten out your slight misuse of quantum notation."



Please note that Lanza and Chopra are fiends and working on the same theory... big flaw imho.

Both of them are going far away from real science with misuse of a field of science that they are not mastering.

Now, what I really find interesting - how come you are willing to take for granted this 'leading' scientist opinion, while disregarding rest of scientist, including people who are mastering field of quantum mechanics??

More about Chopra...



What your poorly made ad hominem has to do with this discussion?

I just posted a thread about the topic of consciousness earlier; Maybe there are some similarities or ideas that can bridge these findings?

Why Physicists are Saying Consciousness Is A State of Matter; Like a Solid, a Liquid, or a Gas

Link to Thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

angryhulk

SuperFrog
Only thing that is happening today is that some microbiologist are trying to use quantum physic and came to very wrong conclusion

Robert Lanza is considered one of the worlds leading scientists (without exaggeration), what's your occupation? It would be interesting to note how you know more than he does.

In fact, since the primary purpose of this thread is to discuss his theory and the book he's published, maybe you would like to quote a few areas of the book that you disagree with? Then we can discuss it, instead of you throwing pointless statements around essentially de-railing the thread.

In general, I do not fall for the "appeal to authority" fallacy. What I mean is, I'm not going to be more likely to believe what someone tells me ONLY because that person is a "leading expert".

Obviously being an expert should carry some weight, and it does...HOWEVER, that expert will still need to provide me with enough back-up information for me to connect the dots to reach my own conclusion. A person -- no matter how many doctorates and diplomas that person may have -- cannot reach conclusions for me that I will just blindly believe.

Having said that, I have read some of the back-up evidence for consciousness being a separate entity, as some people are claiming, and some of it does intrigue me (but just to a point). Conversely, I have read the evidence supporting the idea that consciousness is not "real", and is simply imagined by the brain/a product of brain functions, and I seem to be more convinced by that evidence.

I mean, both sides of this issue have "leading scientists", so spouting that "this leading scientist claims XYZ, which is likely true because he has doctorates and diplomas" is not relevant. Both sides can make that claim.

That's one reason why "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. I appeal to the evidence itself, not the person who makes claims about the evidence.

replies to SuperFrog

"Only thing that is happening today is that some microbiologist are trying to use quantum physic and came to very wrong conclusion, for example Chopra believes that atoms have consciousness."

Chopra is wrong.

"This show size of your misunderstanding of ToE. Why there would be 'weird creatures' walking the streets?"

Would like to know your understanding of TOE. A false and political theory can have many versions. Would like to know which one you believe in. Also tell the 'experiments' which prove this theory right.

My problem is I am forced to prove you wrong rather than offer you result of experiments due to highly political nature of this subject and shutting out of people who would want to run experiments to prove this theory false.

"And this theory about god being traffic controller for souls, what kind of evidence we have for this?"

Wow. God being traffic controller? Did I use these words.

"It looks like as very immature being, hiding and creating illusions, but what is most flooded with this idea, if soul is sent to body because of 'karma' and supposed to die in some horrific way (some bad soul), what freedom of action are you talking then?? "

Each soul gets born in a human, animal or plant body as per karmas. Yes many deaths are horrible (not all). People die in accidents, by disease etc. Many animals are slaughtered or are killed due to violence. This is a fact of life.

"Whole 'karma' mechanism was implemented just to ensure that people would do 'good things' as opposed to bad things, as if they don't do it, their soul will have to pay the price... "

No. Humans are free to do good or bad deeds. God does not force you. However every soul has to face result of actions.

"If number of souls is limitless, why would God care about few souls that are not good? ( I always forget that it is all about US - humans - God created ALL stars in the world just for us to have wonderful night sky'."

The Creation is for souls, and souls get born in animal and plant species as well. The creation is not only for humans. You write these words due to your ego - a human centric nature.

"Ohh, now not only your wife has powers, but you are also a healer, with bare hand I assume... "

This is the exact reason we do not tell our experiences. This is the reason why spiritual people avoid the society, and people do not get the benefit of such knowledge. You can say such words, and I appreciate where you are coming from.

"Traditional medicine is placebo, but your powers are not, I assume."

No. But medicine does not always work. Too many examples - you can talk to doctors.

"I agree, there is a reason faith exist in the world - to help those unable to think on their own. We humans are creators, doers, but we also sometimes very lazy... "

You are crazy. Branding people who have seen spiritual powers as "unable to think on their own". It is a fact that some people have taken advantage of religion. Does not mean all of it is imagination.

"I wonder how did you get to that that current ruler of the world are atheists? Most of them, if not all belong to some sort of organized religions."

Atheism is a cult which has penetrated Christian church and several other religions. People pretend to be religious but they are not.

"Atheism is not a cult"

Atheism is very much a cult. People who deny so much of reality around them and believe only in things selectively cannot be anything but a cult.

"Biggest reason according to her is age of universe, as science proves it is much older then their priest is telling them."

Well, learned of India have been shouting from the rooftops about the age of Universe in billions of years for a very long time. Did you listen? For you, Christian church is the only religion.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I agree with you. Let us cut out the political part of people given positions of power and authority.

This forum should be for people who want to seek the truth. Let us discuss things openly and present our arguments freely.

reply to post by GargIndia

"Only thing that is happening today is that some microbiologist are trying to use quantum physic and came to very wrong conclusion, for example Chopra believes that atoms have consciousness."

Chopra is wrong.

Please demonstrate this claim.

My problem is I am forced to prove you wrong rather than offer you result of experiments due to highly political nature of this subject and shutting out of people who would want to run experiments to prove this theory false.

In short, you're forced to do the experiment yourself rather than rely on other unbiased parties to perform such experiments on behalf of the public. It would be such a shame if you actually learned something first hand.

Each soul gets born in a human, animal or plant body as per karmas. Yes many deaths are horrible (not all). People die in accidents, by disease etc. Many animals are slaughtered or are killed due to violence. This is a fact of life.

Wait, wait, wait. According to you, suggesting that an atom might have consciousness is folly. But it's perfectly acceptable to take karma as a fact? Again, I'd like to see you demonstrate the validity of your claims.

This is the exact reason we do not tell our experiences. This is the reason why spiritual people avoid the society, and people do not get the benefit of such knowledge. You can say such words, and I appreciate where you are coming from.

I find exclusionary division a tactic of ill taste. It fosters arrogance and resentment, and cannot help but breed conflict rather than develop resolution. Someone spiritual would understand this and try to avoid making that mistake.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


"Atoms have consciousness"

Ok. I need to understand your 'definition' of consciousness. When any term can be used arbitrarily, one must be sure of the ground one stands on.

"TOE/Experiments"

As for TOE, I shall give you plenty of defects in the methods adopted and wrong conclusions of the experiments.
Let us start from your proof, as this is the 'official' theory, so you must not have any dearth of evidence.

I am a single person on one side; and you have the whole establishment on your side. Why worry?

GargIndia
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

"Atoms have consciousness"

Ok. I need to understand your 'definition' of consciousness. When any term can be used arbitrarily, one must be sure of the ground one stands on.

"TOE/Experiments"

As for TOE, I shall give you plenty of defects in the methods adopted and wrong conclusions of the experiments.
Let us start from your proof, as this is the 'official' theory, so you must not have any dearth of evidence.

I am a single person on one side; and you have the whole establishment on your side. Why worry?

First of all, I never claimed atoms have consciousness. You said that they didn't and I asked you to prove it. Standard procedure in scientific investigation: never take an answer for granted. So you can stop quoting me out of context and making it sound like I was stating an opinion.

Second, my definition of consciousness is self-awareness. Being aware of being aware.

Third, I don't have to prove something that you have failed to disprove. If you want to ask a question and provide an answer, and prove that your answer is a fitting conclusion to that question, be my guest. But don't run your operations by assuming that an established scientific theory is inferior to your armchair expertise, please. Assumptions are your enemy.

After all, it sounds to me as though you have no "dearth" of rebuttals regarding the theory. So present your rebuttals, if you would.