Eva Avyana…Divine Ignorance, is how Osho describes it. It seems to be a
difference in ignorance that I’m referring to, like… knowledge that veils the ego.

Eva Avyana makes logical sense though, that what it boils down to is that
we as humans do not know what we think we know, when breaking things
down to their most basic parts. If we don’t even know the most basic parts
what makes us think we know the thing just by labeling it this or that.

Blessings. 🙂

Here is an ebooks link for, Osho.

http://www.oshoworld.com/onlinebooks/index.asp

Blessings to all

Awesome, I’ve actually been looking for some Osho. I hadn’t gotten
around to reading thoughts through him, but i heard stuff that he has
written was good.

I’ve read a lot of Nisargardatta, Jean Klein, and Anthony De Mello
Infact… Nisargadatta…

http://nisargadatta.we.bs/index.html (this link seems to not be working
for me for whatever reason but it has his ebooks on it)

Thanks for the heads up buddy.

@tdrunk,
death of little ones…. Hmm, well i can say that they are probably
closer to their True Nature than the older generation. You live
with the little ones and you die along with them, since we are all
made from the same Divine Nature, this does not exclude the young.
Life is never abolished, it always is, always has, and will never cease to
exist. The easiest way to put it (at the loss of truth) is that We ARE life,
we don’t own it. So how can you lose something you do not have?
That life force that is within the child merely travels to something else that
needs its force, it is all part of that Absolute force, which is probably
why you still have a sense of presence from family members.
Its not that they are gone, how can they be gone. That force is your force
(not in a possessive sense) but as in an Absolute sense.

Losing a little one as opposed to a bigger one really has no greater value
and why mourne for something that has recollected into the Absolute again
is this not a greater thing then being constrained inside of a body?

What we feel when something is loss, is more or less selfish, now hear
me out… i know it sounds cold hearted, but the body that is deceased is
no longer afflicted by suffering, so why does humanity feel so bad. Maybe
for the fact that subconsciousley the mind is saying, “I will not be happy
because this thing I’m attached to that I feel i need for my own happiness
is no longer here.” This is selfish, the deceased is back to its True Nature,
or Eternal State, while we the mourning feel that we cannot live in happiness
because we’ve relied on that person for our own happiness.

Even though that notion is silly, it can’t be true, the moment the body drifts
into sleep it forgets that it was unhappy, or when you go to a movie and
your mind is totally absorbed in the thrill of the movie, it forgets it is unhappy
or that it needed this or that to be happy. Also in the company of good
friends, this is also the case.

Hmm.. maybe more will be written later, i have some work to do soon lol.

Blessings to the both of you. 🙂

The sheer love of being here
from moment to moment. How
simple it all is when I open to
it.

You remind me of, Osho.

I was reading him this morning…

Extinguishing ignorance…Deva Agyana?

http://www.oshoworld.com/onlinebooks/BookXMLMain.asp?BookName=darshan+diaries/blessed%20are%20the%20ignorant.txt

Blessing to you my friend. 🙂

why thank you, very humbling to see those
words.

Vasistha is a good pointer indeed.

Is there anything you’ve stumbled on, that would
be of interest lately is Vasistha, anything that has
struck that chord for you?

I also have an inquiry of you,
How do we allow the ego to discover what it
really is. By merely knowing and understanding
its own chains, because it is also seen that by
fighting the current, only makes the bonds stronger
so it isn’t ideal to tell the ego how to act because then again
this is the ego regulating the ego. Does merely acknowledging
and knowing our True Nature allow the ego to slowly fade.
I’ve noticed a change in myself but there are still worldly things
that it clings to. So maybe something you might of picked up
that I have not considered to extinguishing ignorance?

Blessing to you my friend. 🙂

Which gave rise to which..
Prana to Mind?
Mind to Prana?
Karma to Mind?
Mind to Karma.?

Cannot be determined.

You arrived at the same place
as the rishis and sages.

You are wise to see.

Have a good one.

peace

That was very intriguing to read, what it comes down to then
is the problem of the body in respect to time. I knew there would
have to be some kind of conclusion drawn around the body
and its very existence and whether the egos attachment
to it has anything to do with it, and time and time again
through reading or experience, it has alot to do with its stance on
time.

There were a lot of good arguments but they still include the problem
that “I am the body.” I wonder why we as humans decide that
we are a body, even though we have no direct proof of this
ever happening. As soon as that assumption is made, we are then
bound in psychological time and space as it were, doomed to meet
“death” at some point. “We live to die” as they say it coming
from a bodily point of view, but lets take a look at how we
are not the body.

We are made up of billions of cells (billions is only a place
holder as i don’t read up on science etc., so i don’t really know)
all of which die selflessly at the expense of other cells living. The
body goes through every old cell every 7 years, meaning
it does not have one old cell in its body after 7 years of living. So this
means the body is not constant. The body starts as a baby and then
becomes a teenager, and then an adult, and then it becomes old.
It structure is subject to change constantly… Not only this but
how can it be said it is the individual body when it was constructed
through two other bodies, and from those two bodies, two other bodies
constructed that body and so on. So in reality there is no individuality
to that body, but merely part of all of humanity, would be more correct
if even that wasn’t a distortion of the truth. 5 days before you were born
obviously there has to be something there to sustain life but we
cannot name it, it is the known unknown, but you were not there as
the body but you cannot say you remember your birth. So where
does the idea that you are the body come in?

There seems to be some conflict however that by even knowing this
there is a knower knowing it, when the knower can’t possibly know himself
It is like I heard, “Can a knife cut itself?”

So those thoughts although there still give rise somewhere to where
this ego (for the time being i’m calling it the ego) is not able
to just drop that idea that its the body. That there is still something
there that blocks it from deprogramming itself. This is what needs to be
looked at because as soon as thats found, and the ego is dropped,
time no longer absolutely matters?

Or maybe I’m going about it backwards, maybe the drop of time must
come first.

Although I know that this is all for not, that I’m in the state of being
this very moment, that there is no becoming because I am already
what I’m striving for, to not search but to merely look and see what I am.
Bless human nature to want to know though. =P

Then I come here this morning, and Time is the
topic once more……

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2008/02/does_time_exist_4.html

Although in my previous post, I stated that most of humanity
is asleep which is ignorance (the process of not having
the Truth). I think that although argumentation is useless
it serves to also rattle ignorance free, but you have to realize
that you are ignorant in the first place or you are an irrational being.
Which I don’t see how anyone could deny this, as we agree
to things that others tells us with blind conviction daily
without realizing how irrational it is (even if it is the minds demands).

But by seeing we are irrational to begin with, then something begins
to happen I feel. At some point something begins to re-orchestrate
the body in which you are aware of this irrationality and how it does
not further the discovery process of who we actually are. Who would
of thought by merely being aware of that truth, ignorance begins to
diminish like shining light to darkness.

I’ve read a lot of books on what could be the cause of this ignorance,
but the more the intellect is fed the more deluded things become. It ‘
basically just comes down to being aware of the bodies beliefs,
concepts, societal values, habits, etc. of which has been programmed
into it since birth. Then being aware of this, you realize you no longer
need to take part in it, that it merely is what it is, understanding the
mechanism is all you need to do. This isn’t to say its not going to throw
a trantrum which I can come up with a bunch of similes for it like:

“Human programming is like a child in a toy store, when he doesn’t
get what he wants he throws a tantrum.”

This can be said about the human body can’t it? When it desires something
and cannot get it, does it not flood itself with negative emotions?
Does it not say, “I will withhold my happiness from myself because I cannot
have such and such.” Maybe no ones ever looked at it this way, but i certainly
have, its silly and selfish how the body reacts when its looking out for its
own best interest, but its not the bodies fault that it acts this way. I think it
comes more from the fact that its the programming that acts this way.
The body manifests out of its True Nature to Love Unconditionally, that is its
purpose, what other purpose could be more important?

Jiddu Krishnamurti (to sorta get back on subject) suspected that all this
conflict comes from the idea of psychological time and space itself. It was
really interesting to read his observation of it, and his logical take on it. The
existence of present, past, and future, and how this creates a dilemna by
believe that they are three different things and not just one.

Anyway thats all i have for now. Feel free to add
or to question any of this. Its not really intended to prove a point
as much as its to just provoke thought. I don’t know why you
guys are here but if you are like me, then you are here to shed light
on ignorance within yourself. 🙂

Catchme

catchme,
Congratulations, you are becoming more artful in your posts, but sadly,
you are starting to bore me, so I am planing to make this my last reply
(unless you say something outrageous I can’t help but comment on).

I give you a widely accepted and plausible mechanism and you dismiss
it saying it is lacking support. Science is a process. There are many things
we don’t know. Nothing in science is 100% certain, so sometimes for the
sake of progress we must accept things that are 97% or 99.99% certain.
It is all faith based to some extent. By your argument, I could say “I don’t
believe in gravity there just isn’t enough evidence,” and to some extent
that would be correct, because as we know gravity breaks sown around
black holes. There is always something yet to be explained or some caveat.

Next, you play semantics, and nitpick the word “discounts” yet again
dodging the question. O.K. how do you ACCOUNT for all of these easily
observable phenomenon, and this bull about shaping evidence to fit a
hypothesis doesn’t count? YES, I admit it. We implanted every whale
with hipbones and rewrote the the entire chimp genome to more closely
resemble ours. We did it. You have a confession.

yes, a f***ing typo. You know I have stated this correctly in previous posts.
ANSWER THE QUESTION! And according to your religion an eye for an eye,
so lets go back to the first time you replied to me. Where you implied energy
was either ordered or disordered. Remember that. So, yes none of us are
perfect.

Congratulations again. It is truly astounding. I don’t know how you did it,
but you have managed to make the first point of common ground seem
like a point of contention. Was it not obvious, could you not infer that I
quite obviously don’t view life as simply a test? We agree at last on
something! finally, you get it god is a deeply personal concept (FYI part
of my personal beef with organized religion). Your concept of god and my
concept of god obviously differ as everyones god does. (because I don’t think
I can put it any better I am going to quote something Colin C. said earlier)
“Nobody has an omnipotent viewpoint, we’re all subject to a subjective human
viewpoint.” How do you know your viewpoint is the correct one? That there
is a correct one? Be a Christian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, whatever, but
understand why you are what you are ( I agian give credit where credit is
due John hit on this earlier) don’t blindly follow a religion, because that was
how you were raised. As established earlier, these questions that affect our
views of god and life are deeply personal. Don’t take someone else’s. Find
your own.

I think that is it. Oh, and just to put things in perspective: you have been arguing
with an 18 year old who had AP Biology three years ago. I am done chasing
you to honestly answer my questions instead of dodge them. It was fun for
awhile, “but is not life a thousand times to short for us to bore ourselves”
–Nietzsche

Yes, irony in a quirky way was the intent.

I was poking fun at me. I hope you didn’t
take offense, either. It was more about
how easy it is to get knocked off balance
by the intellect when going about one’s
purpose.

Which I see was picked up on by another
poster here.:)

Yesterday was an interesting day for me, and
I too will be writing more about that from a
perspective of openess- Vashistha, and Life
after Death, as Time makes itself available.

By the way, I enjoy your writing very much.

liberatedself-
I enjoyed reading you also this morning,
and am looking forward to reading more
on the balancing act within Life from you.

Vashistha- Happens sometimes (OMG!!
Where did the rest of me just go?!)

🙂

catchme,
Yes, that was a typo. Sorry. I generally don’t do mornings.
I don’t know how you do it, but like you said order to disorder.
I don’t have a lot of time right now, but I will address the rest of
your post tomorrow, hopefully. I look forward to it.

webster,
I hope you didn’t take offense. You have been posting some
very beautiful stuff. The carbon atoms to coal to eating donuts in
the parking lot sort of through me, though. Question: how deep
are we suppose to read into your anecdotal coal burning protest?
you seem capable of quoting very deep and beautiful stuff, and then
you put out something completely different. I can’t seem to gauge
you. Is your anecdote just quirky, ironic, or something else?

You’ve delved in Vasistha’s Yoga as well?

However I agree with the others that the discussion is
definitely an interesting one.

I just want to try and answer some of the questions that earlier
posters have made and maybe propose some other thought
on some things.

Catchmeifyoucan: So this charlatan claims to be “enlightened”, and
people just accept this nonsense?

I agree, following blindly is to put yourself in delusion.
Even the Buddha states, “Believe nothing, no matter
where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it,
unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. ”

Also life after death, The thought that death exists seems
more of a comfort blanket, it depends from what stand point
you look at it, from the body maybe there is this thing called death,
but from a point of view that you go beyond the body, how can
you possibly die, or even be born for that matter? Where does
the question of either ever come in. This energy that is
although distorted, can more better be described as emptiness
but in that emptiness all potential energy resides within it is us,
that thing that has always stayed constant, has never been born
so it not subject to the confinements of death, time, and space.

I also know that words do not do the Absolute justice or the Truth
justice for you cannot make a whole out of a fraction (Words being
a fraction of the Truth)

All I’ve come to know is that Truth lies beyond the intellect or the
mind, and that our True Nature as a whole is unanswerable in
words, but to know that it goes beyond the mind allows one to
be receptive to the Truth. I think the intellect is a very clever thing,
it allows for earthly advancement but at the same time it deludes
human beings from finding out What they actually are.

When did the intellect become the king of human existence and why,
with its inconsistencies. Intelligence is only true for a short while
until something changes and then that becomes true until that again
changes. If something is constantly changing it cannot possibly be the
Truth in which we are seeking. That is just what irks me about
arguing in general, that we all argue these concepts as if they are the truth
but they are all subject to change based on times, your mood, your bias,
how you were raised. So its not that anyone is every really right or wrong
its just that we are all asleep and ignorant of the Truth.

So if this is the case, then I am in agreement that humans are irrational
in their thinking, but there is something there that wants to b e rational if
it has pointed out that there is irrationality. So I am prepared to have a
reasonable conversation.

Any feedback? 🙂

webster,
Random much?
………………………….

Hardly..

“Death is ever keeping a watch
over our life.”-Vashistha

I can relate to That.

Relationship is about hearing,
feeling, seeing…..acting.

Have a good weekend.

“Just a few quick questions: how do you discount that wales have hipbones?
that humans are 98% genetically identical to chimps? That dog, chicken and
human embryos look identical early in development? ”

I don’t “discount” any of that… I just think that to come to the conclusion that they
suggest an evolutionary process means you have are shaping the evidence
to fit the hypothesis.

I don’t know if you typo’d an error in your comments on the second law. But if you
truly think that it says energy moves from disorder to order than we
don’t have any common ground in which to further discuss this topic.
The second law unequivocally states the opposite.

“Why would god put you hear? To test you? ”
No God says he put you here to to love Him as He has loved you. Before coming
to faith in Christ I believed also that God is impersonal and detached from our lives. I later realized that the Bible reveals a personal God.

And actually, it goes back farther than
that. What about the carbon atoms? Human
life could not exist without carbon. So, is it
possible that maybe we shouldn’t be burning
all this coal?

I mean, it is a discussion about

Life AFTER Death…

“I’d like you to meet, webster.”

“Oh…Hi webster…You’re the one who
was eating donuts in the parking lot
after the rest of us boarded, then left on
the bus for the D.C protest against coal
burning….”

“I was distracted by Christian conservatives?”

Yeah, that should probably get me a new incarnation
as a speech therapist / ranch hand in, Crawford, Texas…

🙂

As said before we both know how to use a computer, so feel free to
verify any of this on your own. I believe punctuated gradualism one of
the most accepted theories of evolution more than adequately explains
the apparent lack of intermediate steps in the fossil record. This makes
sense when compared to the geologic history of the earth with
earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteors… driving evolution relatively
quickly due to the massive external pressures created over short periods
of time. Causing relatively few intermediate organisms to exist while
the relative bulk of the organisms were in a relative stasis for extended
amounts of time before and after the short lived intermediate. Perhaps
this lends some degree of credence to your assertion that intermediary
lifeforms are not as fit for survival as their counterparts that either those with
either a more or a less developed appendage or feature. No offense but
I have little respect for your biology teacher, because punctuated gradualism
was one of the first things addressed in my bio class while discussing
the fossil record.

Just a few quick questions: how do you discount that wales have hipbones?
that humans are 98% genetically identical to chimps? That dog, chicken and
human embryos look identical early in development? To me all of these
similarities seem to suggest to me that there was a common ancestor
somewhere.

E equals m c squared does in fact relate energy(E) and Mass(m) and one
can be transformed into another but they are not the same thing you seem
to be forgeting the speed of light(c) in the equation. I am trying very hard not
to be rude, but I think your understanding of thermodynamics is flawed.
“organisms generally organize matter relative to their disordered
environment, and the overall quality of energy in the universe is decreasing.
The first of the statements is true of all living organisms and not only if one
accepts evolution. I would like to add that this is in conflict with the second law
if you do not consider the energy spent by each organism to create and maintain
their relative order, because essentially the second law states that ‘naturally’
everything will move from disorder to order. organisms, however, ‘artificially’
maintain order. I believe the source of your confusion lies in thinking of
organisms as ‘artificially’ maintaining order.

Perhaps my final statement about evolution and heaven wasn’t conveyed
in the right way. My point is that evolution and intelegent design are not
incompatible, and that I believe not considering evolution as a valid
mechanism for intelligent design is as superficial as characterizing
heaven as so idyllic that it approaches trite blandness (lazing about on
a cloud). And no, I never thought that this was your (or all of Christianity’s)
vision of heaven.

I am probably going to catch a massive amount of flack for this, but
I still take issue with the heaven you described. It bores me. I particularly
hate the the constant ‘Christian’ deference to the afterlife I prefer to live hear
and now. Why would god put you hear? To test you? I say live.
Live the way you want to live (that includes being moral, so don’t attack
me for being amoral). If you wish to delve further into the argument that
Christianity as it is practiced now is the exact opposite of a life affirming
religion you can read what Nietzsche has to say, but if you think Deepak
singles out Christians you are in for a rude awakening. (I am in no way
advocating any of Nietzsche’s other philosophies. Take it all with a grain
of salt)

John
Thanks for the post I agree with most of what you said, and I think the
same thing about blindly accepting the religion of those around you,
but I will kindly ask you not to tell me who I can and cannot call (infer
to be) an idiot.
Thanks
Feel free to join in provided you have something worth saying.

🙂

On Morphology;
I don’t really think there is much to know… When this notion was proposed
to me, (and I by the way was arguing from your side) I realized that such an
obvious dilemma had never been raised by all my science teachers. I just
thought about numerous scenarios and came to the conclusion that,
“survival of the fittest” should never have been given credibility at all
without first providing to explanation to this problem.
I would also add that there is an extensive fossil record and there are no
clearly, unmistakable examples of these transitional life forms. Even
evolutionary scientists recognize this problem and have endeavored
to explain why.

On the second law;
Again, I don’t want to “preach” my views to you as the information is
available to you on the net.
I maintain that Einstein proved that matter is just a form of energy
and therefore it is subject to the law of increasing entropy. This is
observable and because everything in the universe breaks down
to the simple elements it is applies to everything in the universe.

On Deepak:
I don’t regret calling Deepak a “whack job”. He has taken on the
practice of “dropping bombs” of intolerant rhetoric while preaching
the same. He seems to single out those like myself who believe
in the Judeo-Christian God. I find this offensive, and he will not avail
himself to those he levels the attacks. He is hypocritical and either
arrogant or cowardly. Because he promotes himself as “enlightened”,
many accept his statements as having “authority” and not needing to
be defended.
I believe he is a charlatan and a heretic, and deserving of the
“whack job” label.

Harps and clouds?
that’s from cartoons or something, right?
The Bible refers to heaven as place where we will spend eternity with our
eternal Creator. It describes this place as a very desirable place, no
war, no hate, no sickness, disease or death. Just eternity spent
with a Holy loving God. Hasn’t man been searching for this for
a long time… He calls it Utopia, Nirvanna and other names?
It’s not so “out there” as to deserve that kind of description, is it?

For a man who teaches tranquility, peace and love, Dr. Chopra’s adherents seem
very narrow minded and hostile toward dissenting, or even questioning, attitudes.

If the three of y’all ever have a website of your own – A Syskal, Ebert & Roper
of Life, the Universe and Everything, I’d be the first in line to log on.

You know, come to think of it… I believe that all religious/metaphysical dogma
should be open for discussion and thoroughly scrutinized. If we BLINDLY
choose to be Christian, Hindu, Judaic, Scientologist, or whatever, then we really
haven’t made a choice, it was made for us, usually by our parents.

It’s kind of like the baptism of babies. If they aren’t CHOOSING to
be baptized, isn’t the whole thing a farce put on for the benefit of the
family?

SO… I put forth the motion that we stop calling each other idiots, and
actually discuss these issues. (Catchme – I’m not looking for common
ground, just hoping that each of us is able to accurately, calmly and
intelligently express our views so that we can move TOGETHER
toward an understanding of the TRUTH (whatever that may prove to be)).

Truthfully, I will have to concede that I truthfully don’t know enough to
give you a thorough answer to your evolutionary morphology question
pertaining to the wing, but i suspect the key is in the underwater rudiments
of the wing. In the water, the nascent wing could act as a flipper.

Your rationale over the second law still evades me. I agree that
organisms generally organize matter relative to their disordered
environment, and that the overall quality of energy in the universe
is decreasing, and that E does in fact equal m c squared. But I don’t
see how these concepts are in conflict as one pertains to an organism
and the other pertains to the universe as a whole.

Hey now, you have to admit calling Deepak “a certifiable whack job”
right off the bat sounds a little intolerant. I most certainly don’t agree
with everything the man says, but I do enjoy hearing some of his logic.
and his assertion that we live in a field of infinite possibility is certainly
intriguing as it contains many parallels to what we know of quantum
mechanics. Ex: heisenberg uncertainty principle

Agian sorry for my first post. You seemed pretty argumentative and I
kinda felt like arguing; plus, I kinda like the idea of evolution. I feel
like if there is an intelligent creator that a mechanism like evolution
makes much more sense( to me at least), because living in a static
unchanging world seems about as exhilarating as a heaven where
all you do is play the harp while sitting on a cloud. I look forward to a
response.

Hmm,
I did not forget you. I agree that there will never be a definitive answer
to most (probably all) of the questions we are discussing. Silence
is indeed a wonderful tool; but what is wrong with some discussion?
I am enjoying this discussion very much, and while perhaps futile I
cannot resign myself to not look for answers. I despise such defeatism.
Call it a flaw if you will, but I will continue contemplating the world in my
own way.

You see,

I too have experienced It,
as “death” drew near for
ten weeks.
It is not what we believe It
to be.

It begins as
a stirring,
and then,
a reminisce

An exchange
of heart and

There is only
One
Heart

And then one day,
as the moment
arrives,
It
unfolds…

Everything slows
Expansiveness
grows…

Peace-
beyond understanding,
and fear

A Presence,
so Full…

You
cannot
imagine

And
three,
became
One

In that moment
I knew,
beyond
understanding…

If anyone here ever has the opportunity to
participate in hospice with a loved
one…

Accept it.

And you too will know…

Death is a myth.

Your response to the eye, wing, limb argument is a valid one, but unfortunately
it appears to me to work only for the eye. The wing for instance remains a
hindrance up until flight is accomplished. Until then, considering the size
of the body part, trying to escape a predator by dragging them around is
a bit of a problem, aye? I think we could spend days on this issue alone
and I (respectfully) you will have a hard time applying this type of rationale
to most of the cases.

On statistics;
Come up with any option you like for the genesis of the first cell…..
I’ll let you give me the probability… And by the way, you accuse me of
shoddy science? We agree that probability studies are scientific?

On the Second Law,
Isn’t it obvious that Evolution depends on a organisms (energy)
moving in a trend of disorder to order? And, doesn’t the 2nd Law
maintain that energy does the opposite?
Einstein proved that energy and matter were one and the same,
correct?

Yeah, some of your post is a bit insulting, To be quite honest, I wish
I had a dime for the amount of times I have been accused of being
“intolerant” while receiving a response like this…. I like this discussion
as well and would like to continue it.
By the way, I am not a scientist, but have studied this a bit. I don’t have
enough time for the 1-4 laws. I will have to respond later.

You are bugging me, so…

First, let me say you are not fooling anyone.
It is quite evident your entire proof of god, heaven,
and hell (the question you were asked to address)
consists of a singular diatribe designed to attack
opposing viewpoints instead of validating your own
assertions.

Now … I will address your attack on evolution.
I know Evolution is just a theory, but in the scientific
community it is largely accepted as fact. Yes,
abiogenesis is big science word. I wonder if you
know it is an entire field of science… Well?

That being said there are several accepted
models for the origin of amino acids, the
building blocks of life, encompassed by a
biogenesis. So, which model is your assertion,
“statistically close to impossible even if you
assume a 200 billion year old earth,” based on?

Now for your brief stint in evolutionary morphology:
“How is a transitional life form more fit with part of
a limb, wing, or eye before it has reached the point
of usefulness?” Your grasp on the subject is
obviously superficial at best. Small genetic variations
aggregate over time in a group of organisms driving
differentiation and ultimately speciation. Here, I will
explain using one of your own examples the eye.
There are extraordinarily simple organisms I down
to the unicellular level with eye spots. The eye as
you know it is a long way up the evolutionary scale.
Small genetic changes over time probably caused
the formation of the eye spot, and as it ‘proved’ its
fitness in evolutionary terms and minor random
changes in its composition were selected for, it
evolved into the eye as you know it. And obviously
any kind of light perception is advantageous allowing
detection of predators, movement,…

“There are only two options for the origin of life, right?”
Wrong. This is an either or logical fallacy: “either natural
processes or intelligent design.” Look that up if you have
to. Who is to say that both are not the case; that evolution
is not a mechanism of intelligent design.

“I maintain that Intelligent design is consistent with
the 2 laws of thermodynamics” Are you aware that
there are 4 laws of thermodynamics: 0,1,2, and 3?
Look them up too if you have to. By omitting two of
the laws are you implying the other two don’t support
your point? That you don’t know what your talking
about? What? And what is the point of stating two
laws when your entire premise is that “The second
law is in direct conflict with evolution but not with
intelligent design?” One law or all of them, please.
Also, you state that the second law is in conflict with
evolution with no support whatsoever. I honestly
would like to know your reasoning.

“No Bible Quotes… Just (shoddy) science”– Catchme

I would like to apologize in advance. This post may be
a tad strong. I hope this does not deter you from posting
again. I would like to hear your ideas I just hope you can
be a little more tolerant. Your stuff sounded quite good
in parts, but notice I purposely refrained from attacking
your beliefs. I only attacked your science and sometimes
questioned your intelligence. Sorry.

btw What is with this post cutting off the last few words of
a line?

You are bugging me, so…

First, let me say you are not fooling anyone. It is quite evident your entire proof of god, heaven, and hell (the question you were asked to address) consists of a singular diatribe designed to attack opposing viewpoints instead of validating your own assertions.

Now … I will address your attack on evolution. I know Evolution is just a theory, but in the scientific community it is largely accepted as fact. Yes, abiogenesis is big science word. I wonder if you know it is an entire field of science… Well?

That being said there are several accepted models for the origin of amino acids, the building blocks of life, encompassed by abiogenesis. So, which model is your assertion, “statistically close to impossible even if you assume a 200 billion year old earth,” based on?

Now for your brief stint in evolutionary morphology: “How is a transitional life form more fit with part of a limb, wing, or eye before it has reached the point of usefulness?” Your grasp on the subject is obviously superficial at best. Small genetic variations aggregate over time in a group of organisms driving differentiation and ultimately speciation. Here, I will explain using one of your own examples the eye. There are extraordinarily simple organisms I down to the unicellular level with eye spots. The eye as you know it is a long way up the evolutionary scale. Small genetic changes over time probably caused the formation of the eye spot, and as it ‘proved’ its fitness in evolutionary terms and minor random changes in its composition were selected for, it evolved into the eye as you know it. And obviously any kind of light perception is advantageous allowing detection of predators, movement,…

“There are only two options for the origin of life, right?” Wrong. This is an either or logical fallacy: “either natural processes or intelligent design.” Look that up if you have to. Who is to say that both are not the case; that evolution is not a mechanism of intelligent design.

“I maintain that Intelligent design is consistent with the 2 laws of thermodynamics” Are you aware that there are 4 laws of thermodynamics: 0,1,2, and 3? Look them up too if you have to. By omitting two of the laws are you implying the other two don’t support your point? That you don’t know what your talking about? What? And what is the point of stating two laws when your entire premise is that “The second law is in direct conflict with evolution but not with intelligent design?” One law or all of them, please. Also, you state that the second law is in conflict with evolution with no support whatsoever. I honestly would like to know your reasoning.

“No Bible Quotes… Just (shoddy) science”– Catchme

I would like to apologize in advance. This post may be a tad strong. I hope this does not deter you from posting again. I would like to hear your ideas I just hope you can be a little more tolerant. Your stuff sounded quite good in parts, but notice I purposely refrained from attacking your beliefs. I only attacked your science and sometimes questioned your intelligence. Sorry.

Ed, you put a lot of stuff here. I’ll take a shot at your first post.

I will agree that neither of us have empirical evidence with which
to support our positions.
I do believe that inasmuch a case can be proven in a court of law
on circumstantial evidence, so can the God of the Judeo-Christian
Bible be proven. I believe also that Deepak’s world view can be
refuted.
This could be a long dialogue and will not be fully stated in this post.

Your statement,
“looking at other natural processes in the universe allows this theory to
makes much more sense than any other.”

Can you elaborate, what/which process? For relevance perhaps you
should explain to me, from the Deepak worldview, how did life originate?

I will presume that you are a believer in evolutionary processes and
that life (the first living cell) sprang forth through abiogenesis?

I maintain that observable natural processes are opposed to the
processes necessary to for evolution to occur and that abiogenesis
is statistically close to impossible even if you assume a 200 billion
year old earth. I would also argue from a logical standpoint in that
the Darwinian model was built upon “survival of the fittest”. How is
a transitional life form more fit with part of a limb, wing, or eye before
it has reached the point of usefulness?

I think it is important that we agree that there are only two options
for the origin of life, right? It is either natural processes or intelligent
design. If you disagree with that premise, let me know what other
options that I am not aware of.

I maintain that Intelligent design is consistent with the 2 laws of
thermodynamics,
the law of conservation- that energy (and matter) are a constant, neither
increasing or decreasing,
and the law of increasing entropy – that energy is in a constant state of decay.
The second law is in direct conflict with evolution but not with intelligent design.

No Bible Quotes… Just science.
Remember, no “faith based arguments from your side either.

One more thing, Catchme. Have you ever fully read any of Deepaks books?
Or the Koran? or the Tao? or the Bahgvad Gita? Any of them?
Because if you havent, you have no idea what is actually inside of them.
You condemn and condemn and condemn, but you have not even bothered to
educate yourself about what you are condemning.
You have no idea of how close you are to being something that you hate,
by compromising 90% of Jesus’ teachings for the sake of protecting something
that needs no protection.
God has no ego that needs defence. It exists with or without
your thoughts and feelings, and your war on spiritual evolution will
only leave you frustrated and full of hate for people who only love.
I completely withdraw from any exchage from this point on.
Reply what you like, it matters not.

No one knows for sure what happens after you die.

The only thing one can do his have faith.

My father told me that when you die you fall asleep, in the same way as
you fall asleep each night and wake up in the morning.

I just have faith that when I fall asleep for good I will do so after having led
a fulfilling life and die in the way my mother said it last year, and these were
her last words: “Had a good life”.

And for having a good life she only needed one thing: love.

So let’s be understanding because that is the first thing you
are when you give love.

Being able to replace yourself into the situation of others.

Love to you!

Can anyone tell me where the evidence to support this lunacy comes from?

So this charlatan claims to be “enlightened”, and people just accept this
nonsense?

And just think he’s getting wealthy off of it…. My goodness folks, you need to
wake up!

It’s true, their are “suckers born every minute”!