Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I watched a movie called Lucy this weekend and it got me thinking


Since i was small I asked my mum this question, who is god and what does he look like? I know this might be far from right but could God be a super being using 100% of his brain capacity?

It is an interesting thought, for me.

Nope, God is a super-junkie.

You're still small.

I believe so.

One of an infinite hierarchy of Gods.

God is Morgan Freeman.

God is that something we cannot understand.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
God is that something we cannot understand. Not with that attitude.

God is Dr. Doom.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Not with that attitude.

I can't understand that, so it must be God.

Yes, an insecure super being that demands we believe in him.

As a super being, God has a super bass. When he come up in the club, he'll be blazin' up. Got stacks on deck like he savin' up.

Originally posted by Mindset
God is Dr. Doom.
God is a cute little tween girl. Is Doom a cute little tween girl? No? I thought so.

Originally posted by Epicurus
God is a cute little tween girl. Is Doom a cute little tween girl? No? I thought so.

We know you got the short end of the stick on looks and in life, don't blame others or God for you're short comings

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
We know you got the short end of the stick on looks and in life, don't blame others or God for you're short comings

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Yes, an insecure super being that demands we believe in him.

God doesn't demand anything. It's up to the individual to choose to do so.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
God doesn't demand anything. It's up to the individual to choose to do so.

To do so or what? What if the individual chooses not to?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To do so or what? What if the individual chooses not to?

Then he forgives you.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
Then he forgives you.

For what?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
For what?

Not believing.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
Not believing.

LOL. Why would God care about what I believed?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
LOL. Why would God care about what I believed?

Because apparently he cares about everyone.

God creates man to perfection

Man choses Satan over God

God sends Jesus to atone for man

Man kills Jesus

I mean serious, Ill be happy just going to heaven to hear this story.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
Because apparently he cares about everyone.

But I'm a Buddhist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But I'm a Buddhist.

He still cares.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
He still cares.

He? I just find that too funny.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But I'm a Buddhist.

There are Christian Buddhists Buddhism is actually very open to religions coexisting with it as it is more a way of being then relying on an omnipotent being to explain existence. Unless its like Mahayana Buddhism which considers the Bodhisattva as gods.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He? I just find that too funny.

If God was a woman and made the universe she wouldn't of left her saucepan in the stars.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
If God was a woman and made the universe she wouldn't of left her saucepan in the stars. Instead she'd leave passive aggressive notes about how you need to improve. Which is arguably more useful than a couple of inscribed tablets.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Instead she'd leave passive aggressive notes about how you need to improve. Which is arguably more useful than a couple of inscribed tablets.

Sounds like much of the bible. ;-)

God's obsession with size cancels the theory of it being feminie. I always imagine a bearded man anyway.

Spiritual beings are neither male nor female. The Hebrew names referring to God are all masculine nouns, hence why the the Bible refers to Him as male. Angels have no sex and the Bible says redeemed humans are not identified by sex in Heaven. Sex is only assigned to mortal beings for the purpose of pro-creation.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Spiritual beings are neither male nor female. The Hebrew names referring to God are all masculine nouns, hence why the the Bible refers to Him as male. Angels have no sex and the Bible says redeemed humans are not identified by sex in Heaven. Sex is only assigned to mortal beings for the purpose of pro-creation.

I don't want to go to the afterlife anymore.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
God's obsession with size cancels the theory of it being feminie. I always imagine a bearded man anyway.

Are you talking about something in the bible? I didn't know God had an obsession with size.

God is not a sex. Saying God is a male or female is a personification, and personifications are not real. They are a way to envision something. God the father or God the mother is just a way to describe a relationship. I don't think it is ever meant to be taken literally.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
I don't want to go to the afterlife anymore.

You have no choice lol. We all die. I assure you it will be better than you think. Having sex will not be hotwired into our subconscience, so you wouldn't miss it lol.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You have no choice lol. We all die. I assure you it will be better than you think. Having sex will not be hotwired into our subconscience, so you wouldn't miss it lol.

I believe we just return here. In my belief, both heaven and hell (and 8 other worlds) are states of mind in this life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe we just return here. In my belief, both heaven and hell (and 8 other worlds) are states of mind in this life.

That's cool. What 8 worlds are you referring to?

What is your belief for the future when Earth is no longer habitable or no longer here? In essence, how does reincarnation work in those scenarios. I haven't studied Buddhism at length, so just curious.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I assure you How?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That's cool. What 8 worlds are you referring to?

The ten worlds:

http://www.sgi.org/buddhism/buddhist-concepts/ten-worlds.html

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
What is your belief for the future when Earth is no longer habitable or no longer here? In essence, how does reincarnation work in those scenarios. I haven't studied Buddhism at length, so just curious.

I am not a Buddhist teacher, so I can only tell you what I believe.

All phenomena have the same experience of birth, life and death. There will come a time when we will no longer reincarnate. At that time we will no longer experience birth, life and death. In Buddhist text this is called Extinction of the Dharma. However, the Suitra says that after a very long time we will return. Not as we are now, but as something different. It is a cycle that is forever repeated.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
How?

I don't think he can assure you.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
How?

Because if a place like that exists, isn't that assurance enough? I was referring to Gecko as if he was there or going to be there.

I can't assure an atheist of anything regarding faith in response to your question.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
God doesn't demand anything. It's up to the individual to choose to do so.

Accept Him as our Saviour or be condemned to Hell...

I think the word, "demand" kinda fits in that logic.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Because if a place like that exists, isn't that assurance enough? I was referring to Gecko as if he was there or going to be there.

I can't assure an atheist of anything regarding faith in response to your question. You said that you could assure him that it will be better than he thinks. That you could assure him. As a living mortal, what assurances can you give?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Accept Him as our Saviour or be condemned to Hell...

I think the word, "demand" kinda fits in that logic.

You are free to choose. You choose your own fate. If you were fixing to drown and I threw you a life preserver, it would be your choice to use it or not. I'm not demanding that you use it, I'm offering to save your life. That is what salvation in Jesus is. He is offering you a life line.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You said that you could assure him that it will be better than he thinks. That you could assure him. As a living mortal, what assurances can you give?

I can't give assurances unless someone has faith. The only thing I can assure anyone of that does not require faith is that death is inevitable. What happens after that, well yhat just depends on what you choose to believe.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You are free to choose. You choose your own fate. If you were fixing to drown and I threw you a life preserver, it would be your choice to use it or not. I'm not demanding that you use it, I'm offering to save your life. That is what salvation in Jesus is. He is offering you a life line. Given that God is the one who created Hell and the rules we have to obey, yeah, he IS demanding it of us. He made the game, made the rules, made the players, and gave them only two options: my way or Hell. I can demand of you to give me all you own and threaten to burn down your house if you don't do it, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm demanding it. Choices don't stop the fact that God is making demands and threatening you with punishment if you don't acquiesce.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I can't give assurances unless someone has faith. The only thing I can assure anyone of that does not require faith is that death is inevitable. What happens after that, well yhat just depends on what you choose to believe. I know you can't give assurances. You're a mortal, you know nothing of the beyond.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You are free to choose. You choose your own fate. If you were fixing to drown and I threw you a life preserver, it would be your choice to use it or not. I'm not demanding that you use it, I'm offering to save your life. That is what salvation in Jesus is. He is offering you a life line.

Ok by your logic...if I can't afford to pay an exorbitant fee to guarantee every member of my family health insurance then by your reasoning, I'm responsible for their death if something life threatening happened to them?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You are free to choose. You choose your own fate. If you were fixing to drown and I threw you a life preserver, it would be your choice to use it or not. I'm not demanding that you use it, I'm offering to save your life. That is what salvation in Jesus is. He is offering you a life line.

I like your analogy. It's really well thought out. The problem I see is not with you, but with other people who keep throwing that life preserver at me while I walk down the street. We are not drowning. The story of Adam and Eve is just a story, and there is no original sin.

If your religion makes you happy, then I am happy for you, but the sky is not falling.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Ok by your logic...if I can't afford to pay an exorbitant fee to guarantee every member of my family health insurance then by your reasoning, I'm responsible for their death if something life threatening happened to them?

That is a strawman, not same thing at all.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Nope, God is a super-junkie.

Just like you, Quit blaming God and others for your problems.

With regards to the supposed physical manifestation of the Abrahamic god, Jesus Christ, he possessed powers and traits beyond that of a normal human.

At a very young age, he was capable of preaching the gospel to wise men/elders.
This implies he had an IQ that was over 9000.

A brief yet incomplete list includes:
- ability to heal any kind of sickness or disease (ie. leprosy, paralysis, blindness, etc.)
- can resurrect others as well as himself
- create a weaker version of himself (Jesus Christ)
- omniscience (can see the past, present, and future at all times)
- omnipresence (he is everything and everywhere)
- destroy buildings through sheer will
- shapeshifting (flame twister, dove, human, monster form in Revelation)
- multiply material objects (the fish and bread trick)
- can walk on water
- levitation
- super strength or telekinesis (breaking the barrier on his tomb)


No ordinary man could perform these feats.
There is no doubt that he was a superhuman being.

God is super being; super being is God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We are not drowning. Ignorance isn't always bliss. You think you have it made now? Imagine nothing you can't deal with coming your way, the garantee of your success in whatever you do. It is like having the feds at your beck and call to make something you want to happen, happen.

And I can say that because my observations of providence and divination differ in many ways from those of many religions.

I believe in a naturalistic system or anomoly, such as an advanced civilization or a conscious entity (like a dog or homosapien) from a time period in which the cosmological constant has changed significantly from its current state, or perhaps a bunch of IT technicians centuries from now decide to create a simulation of a solar system and society and societal era of their specifications in order to provide real people of the era with perfect virtual memories of their specifications and the life you think your living is just for the memories.

I do believe ther's a working theory in quantum mechanics that states something like everything can happen, and does happen at some temporal, dimensional, and spatial level.

Here's how I see it, and what has genuinely worked.

Follow your bliss (your first dreams, your true wishes) first and foremost, then you can choose, make the decision to do or not to do something based on the connotation or vibe of whatever divination is presented to you directly, near and around the time of making that decision. Connotations are formed by people, places, words, pictures and whatever may seem to you as circumstantially significant sign from day to day.

When you obey the will of a super being, it is natural to assume you will get on its good side, and perhaps form an unequivocally useful ally, but you cannot take advantage of this ally to be happy if you put your bliss aside to serve it; it is more important that you obey its direction when nothing is conflicting with your wishes.

That is based on the trial and error method, applying this belief to situation-based experimentation, to form the unbiased general subjective experience that I'm sharing with you here and now.

It seems that, unlike the Biblical relationship, the true relationship is more like a friend who's indifferent to your wishes and will feel obligated to fulfill them, if you're recognized as a willing friend as well. That is, a friend willing to play out some scheme in which you could play a role in, dependent upon whether you cooperate.

The difference is that, respect is given to you based on your ability to refuse something, because a truly superior being should be able to find a work-around that accommodates both your wishes and fulfills your applicability in a scheme anyway.

The kind of providence that I'm talking about is chance; probability manipulation.

The reason for this indifference is that your natural urges developed into what they are based on your innate responses to the random stimuli of everyday experience - so the system that designed your innate response-patterns will do best to allow them to help shape your experiences as you serve, if you are to be of optimal use (at your best).

Humans do something best when they're most excited about doing it.

Originally posted by Oneness
Ignorance isn't always bliss. You think you have it made now? Imagine nothing you can't deal with coming your way, the garantee of your success in whatever you do. It is like having the feds at your beck and call to make something you want to happen, happen.

And I can say that because my observations of providence and divination differ in many ways from those of many religions.

I believe in a naturalistic system or anomoly, such as an advanced civilization or a conscious entity (like a dog or homosapien) from a time period in which the cosmological constant has changed significantly from its current state, or perhaps a bunch of IT technicians centuries from now decide to create a simulation of a solar system and society and societal era of their specifications in order to provide real people of the era with perfect virtual memories of their specifications and the life you think your living is just for the memories.

NO! There is no original sin, because Adam was a fictional character in a fictional story. Humans who do not become Christian DO NOT GO TO HELL when they die. And Christians do not go to heaven when they die. This has nothing to do with natural disasters, unfortunate happenings or the feudal government.

There is no need for us to be saved in a spiritual sense. This is simply a threat to make people become Christians; noting more.

Nobody needs to be saved, it would be a nice break to be important. To have an experience designed take you down a path of self-actualization as opposed to a random, chaotic one.

Originally posted by Oneness
Nobody needs to be saved, it would be a nice break to be important. To have an experience designed take you down a path of self-actualization as opposed to a random, chaotic one.

When why did you say what you said to me? Wait... I forgot who I was talking to. Never mind...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When why did you say what you said to me? Wait... I forgot who I was talking to. Never mind... Because I believe that refusal to create a life you were meant to live is actually worse than drowning. Worse than death.

A life of randomized mediocrity, which for me led to unavoidably miserable circumstances almost daily.

I believe that behind every religion is a series of ironic, unlikely, and coincidentally in/convenient (depending on who or what you're referring to) circumstances. This is why I treat Christianity or any other religion as an incomplete and therefore imperfect ideological representation of the real thing - in all cases due to a lack of complete scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by Oneness
Because I believe that refusal to create a life you were meant to live is actually worse than drowning. Worse than death.

A life of randomized mediocrity, which for me led to unavoidably miserable circumstances almost daily.

All religions were influenced by circumstances of coincidentally convenient circumstances, I believe.

In Buddhism I create the life I am meant to live. I take responsibility and do not need to be saved from someone else's sin against a god that is man-made.

The Bible is notorious for the irrefutable facts it lays down. This is before science demonstrated why it is unwise to make anything irrefutable (the human element). It is quite egotistical to claim that any man-made idea cannot be refuted by another man's idea.

When new facts that are controversial to contemporary beliefs are added to the table; it will be logic that is the deciding factor on what stays and what goes, not the ignorance of logic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In Buddhism I create the life I am meant to live. I take responsibility and do not need to be saved from someone else's sin against a god that is man-made. Not quite.

If someone doesn't really have a desire to do something (like run over your best friend); but does so merely because there're circumstantial signs that he shouldn't run over that person (this is equivalent to sinning against God I suppose), then you pay for the sins committed by another against God.

There're are many, many examples of collateral damage when the system is off-put. You are kinda damned for "sinning against God"; in my experience. There's a direct retribution, an eye for an eye. I've experienced it myself. My unfortunate event could be ironically correlated to an earlier event in which I victimized another. I busted someone's nose and got away with it, then someone busted my nose and got away with it.

Originally posted by Oneness
Not quite.

If someone doesn't really have a desire to do something (like run over your best friend); but does so merely because there're circumstantial signs that he shouldn't run over that person (this is equivalent to sinning against God I suppose), then you pay for the sins committed by another against God.

No. I would pay for the sin against my friend who I ran over.

Originally posted by Oneness
There're are many, many examples of collateral damage when the system is off-put. You are kinda damned for "sinning against God"; in my experience. There's a direct retribution, an eye for an eye. I've experienced it myself. Irony.

No.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. I would pay for the sin against my friend who I ran over.

The friend that was run over was a friend of yours, not the murderers.



Yes.

I'm referring to karma, retribution for a sin, carried out upon the sinner. The flip-side of collateral damage caused by sin, damage to the innocent.

Originally posted by Oneness
The friend that was run over was a friend of yours, not the murderers.



Yes.

I'm referring to karma, the other side of collateral damage caused by sin. Damage to the innocent.

If I didn't run him over, then I didn't sin against him. Now I will suffer because of my attachment to him, but that is a good thing.

I don't think you understand what Karma is. Sin has nothing to do with Karma.

Christian philosophies that are not thought of in Buddhism, and Buddhist philosophies that are not thought of in Christianity, may build upon the collective of what we're all trying to understand.

Frank Herbert made a comment about this in the foreword of his best-selling work Dune.

Originally posted by Oneness
Christianity philosophies that are not stated in Buddhism, and Buddhist philosophies that are not stated in Christianity, may build upon the collective of what we're all trying to understand.

Frank Herbert made a comment about this in the foreword of his best-selling work Dune.

My bible has read text for the words of Jesus. When I read just the red text, I am reading Buddhism.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If I didn't run him over, then I didn't sin against him. Now I will suffer because of my attachment to him, but that is a good thing.

My example has implications for why damnation may be valid.



A miserable act by you on another has born a miserable act on you by another; in my second example.

That is a karmic response.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My bible has red text for the words of Jesus. When I read just the red text, I am reading Buddhism. That's one way to look at it.

Why label it Buddhism? I'd label all of it simply as "nature".

Originally posted by Oneness
My example has implications for why damnation may be valid.



A miserable act by you on another has born a miserable act on you by another; in my second example.

That is a karmic response.

Not really. That is a Christianization of Karma.

Here's a better example of damnation.

You have nothing to be gained for stealing another man's woman, but you do so simply because God has, in some form of divinity, commanded you specifically not to. It turns out your child with that particular woman ends up being disfigured at birth. The child bares the weight of your sins.

Damnation, just like Adam and Eve. Karma and damnation may both have some validity; they may recur for everyone should we be daring enough to test these notions.

Originally posted by Oneness
...Why label it Buddhism?...

I'm a Buddhist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Christianization of Karma. Nonsense.

Eye for an eye.

The Golden Rule.

Dark times call for a walk in the light.

Cause and effect.

You limit yourself by not being able to look at something from multiple perspectives.

Originally posted by Oneness
Why label it Buddhism?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm a Buddhist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm a Buddhist. And I'm a scientist.

First and foremost.

Science is only a way of demystifying fact from fiction. The best way to uncover the truth of nature.

When myth-busting is applied to philosophies (beliefs about nature, as opposed to its cold hard facts) like Buddhism and Christianity, it can only improve said viewpoints. When you can take what's new or unusual, in an interesting way, from each religion and combine it, and put that collective philosophical understanding under the microscope of science, you get the kind of ideology in which I practice.

And I've been called a "Saganist".

Because this is something that Carl Sagan did, as well.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I create the life I am meant to live. That sounds like an oxymoron.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That sounds like an oxymoron.

Consider who I was talking to.

Wondering why you'd consider me a moron.

Originally posted by Oneness
Wondering why you'd consider me a moron.

Not a moron, but you can't communicate. Your thoughts are disjointed, and illogical. Perhaps you should go for a time without taking any drugs at all. See if your head clears. I would suggest professional help, if you haven't already done that.

I was doing weed but now I'm just meditating and its a lot better. It's like I'm constantly in the frame of mind that I was when I was 10.

Originally posted by Oneness
I was doing weed but now I'm just meditating and its a lot better. It's like I'm constantly in the frame of mind that I was when I was 10.

Weed may not be good for you right now. Take a break from it, I hope things will get better.

What I said before is that if you make a friend of nature by doing what it wants as oppossed to what you think you want, it will intervene in your life to make it both as enjoyable, and useful towards the evolution of nature as a whole, as it can possibly be.

And by nature I don't mean Yahweh or Vishnu or Set or Zues, I mean the collective embodiment of everything that there is, pas, present, and future. The cosmos as viewed from a non-linear perspective.

Originally posted by Oneness
What I said before is that if you make a friend of nature by doing what it wants as oppossed to what you think you want, it will intervene in your life to make it both as enjoyable, and useful towards the evolution of nature as a whole, as it can possibly be.

And by nature I don't mean Yahweh or Vishnu or Set or Zues, I mean the collective emvodiment of everything that there is, pas, present, and future. The cosmos as viewed from a non-linear perspective.

How do you make a friend of nature?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you make a friend of nature? It communicates with you. Puts a reward in front of you, encouraging you to keep doing what you're doing.

Don't believe it, test it, as I have.

Originally posted by Oneness
It communicates with you. Puts a reward in front of you, encouraging you to keep doing what you're doing.

Don't believe it, test it, as I have.

Give me an example.

Alright you get into a career and meet someone there who becomes the best friend you ever had. Stands to reason this career is a good thing for you.

Lousy and poorly thought-out example, but I think it works.

Originally posted by Oneness
Alright you get into a career and meet someone there who becomes the best friend you ever had. Stands to reason this career is a good thing for you.

Lousy and poorly thought-out example, but I think it works.

That is the product of my Karma, not nature in the common sense of the word. I was expecting wind and rain, things like that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is the product of my Karma, not nature in the common sense of the word. I was expecting wind and rain, things like that. Everything is natural.


I literally defined it as such in my debut response in this thread, and redfined it thrice now, once yesterday, twice on this page and once in this post.

Originally posted by Oneness
Everything is natural.

But the word "nature" has a particular connotation.

Karma is a feedback, if that is what you mean, then I understand.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
We know you got the short end of the stick on looks and in life, don't blame others or God for you're short comings
?
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
God creates man to perfection

Man choses Satan over God

God sends Jesus to atone for man

Man kills Jesus

I mean serious, Ill be happy just going to heaven to hear this story.
God created Satan too.

God created Lucifer, Lucifer's actions turned him into satan.

God was the one who determined what actions those would be. God also created Hell.

Originally posted by Supermutant
God created Lucifer, Lucifer's actions turned him into satan. God created a planet that somehow transformed in to an angel that does God's bidding?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
God created a planet that somehow transformed in to an angel that does God's bidding?

But man created God.

Not true, the Bible says differently. Look it up. Edjewkate yourself.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Not true, the Bible says differently. Look it up. Edjewkate yourself.

Humans wrote the bible.

Not true, Jesus wrote the bible. Read the bible. Juquate urslf.

Tough question. Well, in the comics or fiction, he can be written as anything. In real life... I guess that's the mystery.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Not true, Jesus wrote the bible. Read the bible. Juquate urslf.

Jesus did not write anything. I don't think he could write.

Originally posted by Epicurus
God was the one who determined what actions those would be. God also created Hell. That condescends free-will. Nature chooses not to override free-will, preferring to sort things out through those who follow a purposeful task in life.

Misery is a choice, the past and the mistakes of others can only haunt you if you choose not to move on.

For someone who so relishes in the idea that everything about us is nothing but chemical reactions, you seem very caught up in the idea of "free will."

Originally posted by Maggotgotit
Tough question. Well, in the comics or fiction, he can be written as anything. In real life... I guess that's the mystery.
Lucifer(the angel) doesn't exist in real life, so why would it be a mystery?

Originally posted by Oneness
That condescends free-will. Nature chooses not to override free-will, preferring to sort things out through those who follow a purposeful task in life.

Misery is a choice, the past and the mistakes of others can only haunt you if you choose not to move on.

How do you know we even have free-will? If the present is the result of all the causes and effects of the past, then reality is like a movie, and free-will is only an illusion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you know we even have free-will? If the present is the result of all the causes and effects of the past, then reality is like a movie, and free-will is only an illusion. For the sheep.

There's only one Shepherd, and that Shepherd has to be obeyed.

That is a crucial choice that very, very few make.

Shepherd is a metaphor, imagine an intellect that knows how everyone could work together harmoniously to produce a world worth living in. There's an unfathomable quantity of probabilities of how select individual behaviors can result in benefiting society as a whole, nature has recalibrated all of them googols of times to accommodate obstinate choices.

In the end, to follow the guidance of the Shepherd is to follow one's own inner bliss. Interesting that most choose not to do so.

It is also interesting that as our needs our provided for we automatically seek to provide and nurture others around us, a moral behavior imprinted into our very DnA.

Suffice it to say, it is obvious there is a malevolent, extra-human mind at work to lead sheep astray.

"God"; as far as we know, isn't the end all be all like Vishnu would be. An end all be all, is not achievable as that implies infinite time for the universe to increase in complexity, and infinity is an upper asymptotic abstract by very definition.

In short, Biblical omnipotence would be a falsity, and a "satanic" abstraction would be outside of God's grasp and would also be the result of unplanned for scenarios.

But also, that Satan is as much a creation of God as we, and therefore it must also be a survivor the likes of which any man should envy. Surviving the wrath of God.

Although Jesus, must be even more ferocious.

Actually, God has no wrath because God is "omnibenevolent". Satan survived without God's love. Without God's love, existence is chaotic. Surviving the absence of God's love and therefore the absence of good. Satan lives in misery, lives in hell, and every moment of its existence is more miserable than the last. A lot of people don't realize this, and I've read what Digi had to say on the matter.

Satan has no help from God, in everything it does it must be totally self-sufficient. Though sin is generated, and it is far worse to endure the hatred of Satan than to endure an existence without God's grace.

More so than any individual human, Jesus was at the forefront, enduring a larger quantity of Satan's wrath specifically because God couldn't take to see his pets tortured by Satan anymore.

Jesus is the backbone, he's endured and in revelations he's predicted to improvise control over far more than any Angel like Satan, and overcome any obstacle with said control over this morsel of existence we believe to be the "universe". Purportedly, given God is the super being in which I describe.

Originally posted by Oneness
For the sheep...

I'm not impressed. You are not even trying. How can there be free-will when every moment is dictated by the moment before?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not impressed. You are not even trying. How can there be free-will when every moment is dictated by the moment before?

By living in the moment, not the moment before. Don't do what you should, do what you want/need/feel. Its the closest thing you'll ever have to freewill.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
By living in the moment, not the moment before. Don't do what you should, do what you want/need/feel. Its the closest thing you'll ever have to freewill.

How do you know that you would always do that? How would you know that freewill isn't an illusion?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you know that you would always do that? How would you know that freewill isn't an illusion? Because I sit her and say to you; Buddha may have been wrong.

It is my choice to believe that Buddha had a less complete picture, and maybe more flawed answers, than Anthropological, scientifically literate, and philosophically diversified historians like Carl Sagan. However more recognized he may be for them currently.

Maybe causation isn't going to enlighten consciousness at the Omega Point because perhaps consciousness has no omega point. No supreme being, but an infinite hierarchy of superior beings.

There is some religion in the latter, as something out there, given QM, may as well be God to us.

Originally posted by Oneness
Because I sit her and say to you; Buddha may have been wrong.

It is my choice to believe that Buddha had a less complete picture, and maybe more flawed answers, than Anthropological, scientifically literate, and philosophically diversified historians like Carl Sagan. However more recognized he may be for them currently.

Maybe causation isn't going to enlighten consciousness at the Omega Point because perhaps consciousness has no omega point. No supreme being, but an infinite hierarchy of superior beings.

There is some religion in the latter, as something out there, given QM, may as well be God to us.

My question has more to do with Carl Sagan then Buddha. If the present is only the result of the past, where is free will? In other words, if the present is nothing but the effects of the causes in the past, how can there be something novel? In this case novelty would be free will.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My question has more to do with Carl Sagan then Buddha. If the present is only the result of the past, where is free will? In other words, if the present is nothing but the effects of the causes in the past, how can there be something novel? In this case novelty would be free will. It is precisely because of the fact that there's no singular personification of a supreme being, there's perhaps an endless hierarchy super beings but their reach may not extend far enough to make cause and effect a balanced and non-chaotic abstraction.

Perhaps Buddhism is faith in chaos, and the only order comes from beings, inferior to superior.

Originally posted by Oneness
It is precisely because of the fact that there's no singular personification of a supreme being, there's perhaps an endless hierarchy super beings but their reach may not extend far enough to make cause and effect a balanced and non-chaotic abstraction.

Perhaps Buddhism is faith in chaos, and the only order comes from beings, inferior to superior.

I'm not talking about supreme beings, or Buddhism.

1 + 1 = 2 and it will always be 2. It will never be 3 or 4. Free will leads you to believe that you have some say in what you do. But if reality is just a very large equation, how can you change it, any more then you can change 1 + 1 = 2?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not talking about supreme beings, or Buddhism.

1 + 1 = 2 and it will always be 2. It will never be 3 or 4. Free will leads you to believe that you have some say in what you do. But if reality is just a very large equation, how can you change it, any more then you can change 1 + 1 = 2? Who said reality wasn't totally chaotic.

Choice is the only novel thing there can be, consciousness is a thermodynamic miracle. That's why there's free will, reality isn't an equation, it spits back patterns chaotically and humans seem to be the only internal patterns that correct themselves.

Imagine something greater correcting humans, herding them along, or something malevolent and greater trying to lead them to ruin. All suffering would be averted without evil influence if there was a superior influence working upon us unimpeded.

Originally posted by Oneness
Who said reality wasn't totally chaotic...

Einstein And Newton! If reality was Chaotic then there would be no rules of nature.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Einstein And Newton! If reality was Chaotic then there would be no rules of nature.
Faulty premise. A system can be be governed by a set of constant rules, and still end up becoming chaotic. Chaos Theory also disagrees with you.

7-C1cpG6TLc

Existence merely exists, innately there's no consciousness to imprint a grand design because its existence does not begin or end.

Choas.

If we're talking about an infinite hierarchy of super beings who can liberate subordinate beings in lesser realities of chaos, than you have a set of "on and off" cardinal values of order and chaos; perfect cause and effect that does not spell. Remove the "Vishnu" (or in this case, place him as an asymptotic value), and you remove the principle for universal cause and effect in everything we do - as it becomes synonymous with chaos theory, no omega-point means no "ultimate order" can arise from cause and effect. Therefore reality is ultimately chaotic aside from these sorts of super-beings exclusively pertaining to realities of their own creation; our choices dictate whether providence is granted by a super-being of this kind just as neurons dictate my ability to conceptualize a super-being.

If these beings are popping up as we have according to the changing cosmological constant's laws of thermodynamics (chaotic inflation); than who knows whether this cosmic fabrication has a grand design behind it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
NO! There is no original sin, because Adam was a fictional character in a fictional story. Humans who do not become Christian DO NOT GO TO HELL when they die. And Christians do not go to heaven when they die. This has nothing to do with natural disasters, unfortunate happenings or the feudal government.

There is no need for us to be saved in a spiritual sense. This is simply a threat to make people become Christians; noting more.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think he can assure you.

It's funny how you can criticize people for their logical fallacies while making logical fallacies yourself.

I understand where you're coming from. You feel that Christians don't have enough evidence to convince you that what they say is true (And I'd agree, I don't believe in God). But it is just as illogical to make empirical claims on God's nonexistence as it is to make empirical claims on his existence.

Never change KMC.

Originally posted by Oneness
Existence merely exists, innately there's no consciousness to imprint a grand design because its existence does not begin or end.
Then why does the universe act a certain way and not another? We can repeat an experiment and get the same results every time. This fact disagrees with you.

Originally posted by Oneness
Choas.

If we're talking about an infinite hierarchy of super beings who can liberate subordinate beings in lesser realities of chaos, than you have a set of "on and off" cardinal values of order and chaos; perfect cause and effect that does not spell. Remove the "Vishnu" (or in this case, place him as an asymptotic value), and you remove the principle for universal cause and effect in everything we do - as it becomes synonymous with chaos theory, no omega-point means no "ultimate order" can arise from cause and effect. Therefore reality is ultimately chaotic aside from these sorts of super-beings exclusively pertaining to realities of their own creation; our choices dictate whether providence is granted by a super-being of this kind just as neurons dictate my ability to conceptualize a super-being.
I am not at all talking about super beings, and Chaos theory is not chaotic.

Originally posted by Oneness
If these beings are popping up as we have according to the changing cosmological constant's laws of thermodynamics (chaotic inflation); than who knows whether this cosmic fabrication has a grand design behind it.
How can a cosmological constant be changing? That would make it a cosmological variable.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then why does the universe act a certain way and not another? We can repeat an experiment and get the same results every time. This fact disagrees with you.


I am not at all talking about super beings, and Chaos theory is not chaotic.


How can a cosmological constant be changing? That would make it a cosmological variable. The cosmological constant's THERMODYNAMICS have to adjust to inflation because there are sparticles involved. Thats a quantum mechanism.

Originally posted by Oneness
The cosmological constant's THERMODYNAMICS have to adjust to inflation because there are sparticles involved. Thats a quantum mechanism.

Thermodynamics and the cosmological constant are not part of quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thermodynamics and the cosmological constant are not part of quantum mechanics. Why do you think this? Quantum mechanics is just into deeper detail about how things operate far below the macro level. They're interrelated. The constant effects QM and vice versa in painting a complete picture. Thermodynamics and chaotic inflation are also related. These are all elements of physics.

Originally posted by Oneness
Why do you think this? Quantum mechanics is just into deeper detail about how things operate far below the macro level. They're interrelated. The constant effects QM and vice versa in painting a complete picture. Thermodynamics and chaotic inflation are also related. These are all elements of physics.
Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian physics are incompatible. If you don't believe me, look it up. You can't just pick something from Relativity and shove it into quantum mechanics. It doesn't work.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian physics are incompatible. lambda-cold dark matter model.

We're talking about super-string/super-gravity theory here.

Physics is physics, and these were all methods created for a singular purpose to paint a complete picture of the cosmos. The picture is incomplete, we have no theory of everything. But we do have evidence for chaotic inflation, and that's kinda what I'm talking about when I say super-being. God spawned from chaos.

And there is free-will, our choices aren't the effect of any "ultimate" design, but an infinite regression of micro-designs, generated from an infinite hierarchy of more and more sophisticated abstractions all birthed from the same chaos.

Originally posted by Oneness
lambda-cold dark matter model.

We're talking about super-string/super-gravity theory here.
Lambda-CDM is the standard cosmological model and not based on string theory... but whatever.

Originally posted by Astner
Lambda-CDM is the standard cosmological model and not based on string theory... but whatever. Never said it was, in fact I said that it emerged based on quantum mechanics, due to the dilemma of this incompatibility with Newtonian physics.

Super-string Theory/super gravity is a probably the more accurate theory, in that it works better on both macroscopic and quantum levels.

These are all theories of physics, is my main point.

Anyway, the author of Power Vs Force doesn't believe in causality for the exact same reason I don't.

There is no purpose before consciousness. We as the self-aware make our own purpose, no excuses, and a Super-being would design us in its image in that we would eventually end up striving for the same purposes that it does.

Originally posted by Oneness
lambda-cold dark matter model.

We're talking about super-string/super-gravity theory here.

Physics is physics, and these were all methods created for a singular purpose to paint a complete picture of the cosmos. The picture is incomplete, we have no theory of everything. But we do have evidence for chaotic inflation, and that's kinda what I'm talking about when I say super-being. God spawned from chaos.

And there is free-will, our choices aren't the effect of any "ultimate" design, but an infinite regression of micro-designs, generated from an infinite hierarchy of more and more sophisticated abstractions all birthed from the same chaos.

Super-string theory is most likely not correct. We will know in a year or so. When the Large Hadron Collider is up and running again in 2015, it will be able to test Super-string. It all depends on if they can find more dimensions.

I think you have it backwards. Free-will is the effect of a high power. If there is no higher power (no God) then we are just part of a very large clock like machine, and there is no free-will.

It's possible for there to be higher powers, but no highest power.

I think you have it the opposite. If you have the power to choose how to interact with the environment and others like you, than you have Free-Will!

I find it highly unlikely that we are not in control of our own destinies, just by watching bad mojo come upon insecure, unenlightened, people.

Watch Rush, notice who kept playing, who kept winning, and wonder how in the hell the more dangerous drag racer, the alcoholic, remained unscathed.........

Those events and those people were real. James Hunt and Niki Lauda.

Originally posted by Oneness
It's possible for there to be higher powers, but no highest power.Why not?

Originally posted by Oneness
It's possible for there to be higher powers, but no highest power.
This is double talk.
Originally posted by Oneness
I think you have it the opposite. If you have the power to choose how to interact with the environment and others like you, than you have Free-Will!
My choice of interaction is always limited. Under those limited choices I will always make the same choice. Sense I can never repeat the last moment and do it differently; there was always only one choice, the one I made. That is not free-will.
Originally posted by Oneness
I find it highly unlikely that we are not in control of our own destinies, just by watching bad mojo come upon insecure, unenlightened, people.
Control is an illusion.
Originally posted by Oneness
Watch Rush, notice who kept playing, who kept winning, and wonder how in the hell the more dangerous drag racer, the alcoholic, remained unscathed.........
Those events and those people were real. James Hunt and Niki Lauda.
But there is only one past, why should there be more than one future?

Double talk doesn't even mean anything, lol.

Originally posted by Mindship
Why not? Z46UTxxxBxM

Not saying it's impossible that humans are or aren't the only life in the universe, or that graham's number of eons down the line one life-form may be stacked enough to construct a little play-house as complicated as the current universe.

I'm just saying, asymptotic values like "Supreme Being" are not achievable no matter how far along the line you get.

Not that evolution doesn't stop at our level or anything. I believe it doesn't.

Oneness, you may have a illness like the main character in A Beautiful Mind, but you are not a genius like he was.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Oneness, you may have a illness like the main character in A Beautiful Mind, but you are not a genius like he was. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said but a few years down the line I'll make sure to rub that opinion back in your face, dude.

god is something that made you what you are gave you many options to choose... gave you endless wonders to learn and explore..

god is something you will never understand because of our selfish minds...ppl feel the need to say we need to see or understand god to believe he is real... thats where the faults of man begin

Originally posted by Oneness
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said but a few years down the line I'll make sure to rub that opinion back in your face, dude.

Put the ego away. You have to climb the mountain before you can be on top.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Put the ego away. You have to climb the mountain before you can be on top. Here's another part in which conventional philosophy goes against instinct, our crucial common "God-given" inner sense.

Your ego adds novel perspective to the collective, it doesn't take away.

You're not going to get as far with a "I'll try" as you will with an "I will".

Know that I'm not all about "I may be"; I'm all about "I will be, *****. Don't like? Suck on dez nutZ"

Originally posted by Oneness
Here's another part in which conventional philosophy goes against instinct, our crucial common "God-given" inner sense.

Your ego adds novel perspective to the collective, it doesn't take away.

You're not going to get as far with a "I'll try" as you will with an "I will".

Know that I'm not all about "I may be"; I'm all about "I will be, *****. Don't like? Suck on dez nutZ"

There is a difference between believing you can climb the mountain, and climbing the mountain. Until you have climbed the mountain, you will not know the difference.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a difference between believing you can climb the mountain, and climbing the mountain. Until you have climbed the mountain, you will not know the difference. Be that as it may, the certainty that I can do it will ensure that it is done.

"Commit your work to the Lord, and you plans shall be established." -proverbs 16:3

Originally posted by Oneness
Be that as it may, the certainty that I can do it will ensure that it is done.

"Commit your work to the Lord, and you plans shall be established." -proverbs 16:3

Then get to climbing. See you in 20 years.

If you'd test my aforementioned prerogative (believing you not only have control over your circumstance, but your desired circumstance is the circumstance you were created to be in), as opposed to not testing anything and letting the resulting chaotic experience (the things that happen to you when you take no stance and make no action) shape your beliefs, you'd find that I'm correct in this matter.

That goes for all of you. You're not the victim.

Originally posted by Oneness
If you'd test my aforementioned prerogative (believing you not only have control over your circumstance, but your desired circumstance is the circumstance you were created to be in), as opposed to not testing anything and letting the resulting chaotic experience (the things that happen to you when you take no stance and make no action) shape your beliefs, you'd find that I'm correct in this matter.

That goes for all of you. You're not the victim.

But you don't know enough. You didn't even know that Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics are incomparable. I don't have to test your idea. Until you gain more knowledge, there is nothing to test.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you don't know enough. You didn't even know that Newtonian Physics and Quantum Mechanics are incomparable. I don't have to test your idea. Until you gain more knowledge, there is nothing to test. Newtonian Physics=/=Physics in general. You're the one who couldn't make that distinction, lol.

I have tested the philosophy instilled not in philosophical works, but observed through the observation of others.

Originally posted by Oneness
Newtonian Physics=/=Physics in general. You're the one who couldn't make that distinction, lol.

I have tested the prerogative instilled not in philosophical works, but observed through the observation of others.

What are you talking about?

Here is a test:

Is the cosmological constant part of?
A: Newtonian Physics
B: Quantum Mechanics

Name the theory and the theories author where the cosmological constant can be found.

What part of the theory of Relativity did Einstein call his biggest mistake?