Fairies, God, Nature, Spirit, Connection

The Argument:

There are actually thousands of scriptures from around the ancient world about unicorns and fairies.
The dominant religions in Europe before Christianity took over were full of fairies. As well as other ancient religions around the world with almost identical myths (although different NAMES for what were essentially fairies).
The same case that is made for the existence of god, could be made for the existence of fairies.

And if god is in reference only to our personal needs, and only dwells within us? Than it's not god, it's just some psychological construct.

The Response:


Frankly, I don't think much of what u r referring to is myth. I call it legend. Most stories are embedded in some form of fact, something that happened and a story emerges from there. There probably were some kind of horses with one horn on their head which is how the stories may have started. There are fossils of one horned horses actually. Even trolls and leprechauns may have an actual link to a real people which was shown on the discovery channel. A very short species. 

Not sure what u mean by only our personnel needs and something within us. I would't agree that if that is all it is then its merely psychological. But to me, "god" is something that is used to describe what is within all living things and even non-living things, that connects everything to itself and manifests in all living things. Is everything and nothing. 

I don't think the material world is real at all, but an illusion.

And I think nature is far more interesting than most of you give it credit for, and doesn't have to make sense to us, or be measured by us or dissected by us to be.

I think a connection to something allows u to understand it in a way mere measurements alone cannot. I can dissect ur brain, but that tells me nothing of how well you spoke English or your mathematical skill. When I am connected to u, get to know u then I learn these things. Scientists in the past failed to see how clever great apes were by mere measurements. It was three women who dared to named their apes and connect to them that learned and showed everyone how amazing they really were. 

 People of the past may not have the sophisticated tools we have today, the computers and fancy gizmos that allow such precise measurements. But they were connected to nature in a way many of us fail today.

Connecting allows for intuitive truth, which is why Einstein rightly understood SR even though no one understood how and why he would come up with it. 

Nothing is an Accident?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R16cXQBndQ&list=UU2Xd902w9u5_2oa7SHFSvZw&index=2


This is interesting, because I agree with much of what he says, but then I'm not sure how he is concluding because of Higgs, that means everything is an accident. We don't know.

We don't really know if there is something on the other side of big bang and time pulling the strings. If how this entity works is through randomness and accidents or intentional accidents or hands-off.
But let us say for the sake of argument that it is accidental...that doesn't mean it is not purposeful.

We think of things in terms of intentions because our minds work that way, our space-time physical forms are trained that way.

But what if accidents are purposeful?

Eventually something will come from the nothing, and given enough time there will be life and eventually life that will have a higher intellect which can draw meaning.

Eventually there will be meaning from every accident and from every accident something will happen. Sometimes this something survives and sometimes not.

Whatever path we choose will also derive meaning.

So, even if everything we know is accidental (as we define intent) so what? Meaning is still inevitable. And if time is an illusion and not linear, if reality is past-present-future as one. If reality is really such that everything is one....then the ending is the beginning...the beginning the ending. The meaning was from the beginning too.

And this says nothing of how spiritual energy works. Perhaps the spirit doesn't have intentions, but simply is.


And what about Nothing? Was it accidental? Did it always exist?

We really had two options for most people: It all came from nothing or something eternal. For myself, I always saw a third option of an eternal nothingness.

This is what I think best describes from where it all came.

But then what is nothingness? Does it retain any order? Any information? Does it have mass? I think we have established yes in QP, right. Does it retain conscious energy? What kind of energy is it?

The 5 elementals of true religion

The Self, indeed, is below.  It is above.  It is behind.  It is before.
It is to the south.  It is to the north.  The Self, indeed, is all this.
Verily, he who sees this, reflects on this, and understands this delights
in the Self, sports with the Self, rejoices in the Self, revels in the
Self.  Even while living in the body he becomes a self-ruler.  He wields
unlimited freedom in all the worlds.  But those who think differently from
this have others for their rulers; they live in perishable worlds.  They
have no freedom at all in the worlds.

                  Hinduism.  Chandogya Upanishad 7.25.2

In my travels and explorations of cultures and religious over the past ten years, I have found that there are five elements to the four major religions that would define, in my opinion, true religion. Everything else is just the extra stuff or the extra fluff. The extra stuff can be enhancing, but the extra fluff can be dividing.

The five elements that to me constitute true religion and is found in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism are teachings of: Love, Compassion, Oneness, UnSelfishness, Transformation.

This means that these teachings are found by their major prophets, gurus, monks, or such and found in their major scriptures. This does mean that all who claim to be of the faith or religion practice these teachings and often people will misuse, misinterpret for their benefit, and manipulate scripture for their own purposes. 

To me, this is the core of true religion and is at the very heart of true religion. All the extra fluff like the clothing, the diet, the geography, the language,  the superstitions, the magic, the rituals, the gods can all be points of separation and add to keeping people into boxes of division, but in fact we are not divided except by illusion.

We are all one. It is when we are living in the illusion of division, separateness where we find hate, arrogance, manipulation, and selfishness. Because when we realize we are one with everything else, when we try to take something down we than realize we are only taking down ourselves, and when we try to lift something up only then are we lifting up ourselves.

(We also find quantum physics is leading us to the understanding that everything is not just as I would say spiritually one, but literally one. Physicists have a hard time understanding how everything appears separate yet acts as one. The whole is in all the parts.) 

As Christ said, "Whoever is last is first and whoever is first is last."

We also find Christ said "Be as one with the Father as I am one with the father." In Hinduism and Buddhism there are also teachings of becoming one. They teach about the experience of Brahmin and the oneness with God which would be a perfect state of being. While Hindus call it Moksha and Buddhist call it Nirvana, the idea is similar. It is a state that ends all suffering. It is a state where all is one. Hindus believe all is one and everything is spiritually connected. All reality outside of Brahmin is considered an illusion. This makes sense when you look through the eyes of spiritualism or even through the eyes of quantum physics. 

In Kabbalah we learn that God, the spirit, closed and this formed a vacuum from which everything came, starting as the size of a grain of sand. Yes, this is what they said 500 years ago. In some Eastern beliefs we learn everything is inside of God. The spirit is both inside of all things, including us and outside of everything, in my view. All pervading and everywhere -yet nowhere because a where implies a thing and God, the spirit, is not a thing. The spirit was all there was, until it closed. When everything birthed from the vacuum of nothingness, the spirit then breathed, opened and encompassed everything. 

Christ speaks of denying the self. He also says, if anyone should come after me, let him deny himself and pick up his cross daily and follow me. This means to say no to yourself. This is because of our nature. Our nature and our spirit our in conflict. Because the father is spirit, or true reality is spirit than we have to see things in spiritual form and context, not in our illusionary physical and natural world. In Judaism the Torah states, The Torah abides only with him who regards himself as nothing.

                   Judaism.  Talmud, Sota 21b

The link below shows more similarity in denial of self with Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. 

"All states are without self." -Buddhism Dhammapada 277-79

To me, this reminds me of looking at everything through the eyes of evolution. We 

think this is a cat or frog, but in fact we were all something else before and will  become something new in the future. Lines we draw to define this or that are fleeting and not very real, for the real is that we are all connected and not divided, 

not this or that but always in-between. To understand in the definition of a self, whatever form that takes, we are limiting our own understanding is grand. 

Our goal should not be to enhance the self, but as Christ said to deny the self and become one with the Father. Through this, we understand our oneness with everything, with God -the all pervading spirit that is everything. We then unite with this God and with our true form. Divisions then disappear. The illusion of the physical  crumples.   

    http://www.unification.net/ws/theme126.htm

Self-denial is necessary to overcome the hindrances of egoism, 

pride, and selfish desires which obscure the true nature within. The

person who is always concerned with himself or herself, is trapped in
"the ego-cage of 'I', 'me' and 'mine.'"  Consequently, he can neither
realize his own true self nor relate to Ultimate Reality.  From a Hindu
perspective, denying "I," "me," and "mine" is in fact a way to find the
true "I" that is transcendent and one with Reality.  In the Western per-
spective it is a way to recover the true self, which is loving and comp-
assionate, having been created in the image of God.  Both perspectives
affirm the paradox that "he who loves his life loses it, and he who hates
his life will keep it."  For more on this paradox, see Reversal and
Restoration, pp. 544-50.

       Buddhism also teaches that the path to the religious goal requires
one to deny the self and all egoistic grasping.  But it goes further,
grounding the practice of self-denial on the ontological statement that
any form of a self is unreal.  Buddhism is most sensitive to the insight
that self-denial, when done for the purpose of seeking unity with an Abso-
lute Self or God, can become subtly perverted into a form of pride and
self-affirmation.  Total self-denial should therefore dispense even with
the goal of a transcendent Self.  There is no self, either on earth or in
heaven; all forms are transient, subject to birth and death.  A number of
texts explaining this doctrine of No-self (anatta) are collected here:
more may be found under Formless, Emptiness, Mystery, pp. 85-92 and Orig-
inal Mind, No-mind, pp. 217-23.


He who has no thought of "I" and "mine" whatever towards his mind and
body, he who grieves not for that which he has not, he is, indeed, called
a bhikkhu.

                   Buddhism.  Dhammapada 367


They are forever free who renounce all selfish desires and break away
from the ego-cage of "I," "me," and "mine" to be united with the Lord.
Attain to this, and pass from death to immortality.

                   Hinduism.  Bhagavad Gita 2.71




Dhammapada 367: Cf. Madhyamakavatara 3, p. 412; Diamond Sutra 14, p. 888.
Bhagavad Gita 2.71: Cf. Bhagavad Gita 5.10-12, p 774; Maitri Upanishad
3.2, p. 412; Srimad Bhagavatam 11.4, p. 412; Katha Upanishad 3.13, p. 840.




If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross
and follow me.  For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever
loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.

                   Christianity.  Mark 8.34-36


Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth
and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.  He who
loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep
it for eternal life.

                   Christianity.  John 12.24-25


O Son of Man!  If you love Me, turn away from yourself; and if you seek My
pleasure, regard not your own; that you may die in Me and I may eternally
live in you.

                   Baha'i Faith.  Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah, Arabic 7


The Man of the Way wins no fame,
The highest virtue wins no gain,
The Great Man has no self.

                   Taoism.  Chuang Tzu 17


Torah abides only with him who regards himself as nothing.

                   Judaism.  Talmud, Sota 21b


Where egoism exists, Thou art not experienced,
Where Thou art, is not egoism.
You who are learned, expound in your mind
       this inexpressible proposition.

                   Sikhism.  Adi Granth, Maru-ki-Var, M.1, p. 1092


Yen Yan asked about perfect virtue.  The Master said, "To subdue one's
self and return to propriety is perfect virtue.  If a man can for one day
subdue himself and return to propriety, all under heaven will ascribe per-
fect virtue to him."

                   Confucianism.  Analects 12.1.1




Mark 8.34-36: To bear the cross and sacrifice oneself for others, one must
first deny the self and its desires.  Cf. Matthew 10.24-25, p. 821; 23.12, p.
545; Luke 14.26, p. 959; Philippians 2.6-11, p. 616; Romans 8.9-17, p. 576;
Acts 6.8-7.60, pp. 887f.  John 12.24-25: Cf. Matthew 16.24-25, p. 875.  Sota
21b: Cf. Abot 2.4, p. 771.  Maru-ki-Var, M.1: Cf. Diamond Sutra 9, p. 933.




The pursuit of learning is to increase day after day.
The pursuit of Tao is to decrease day after day.
It is to decrease and further decrease until one reaches the point of
     taking no action.
No action is undertaken, and yet nothing is left undone.

                   Taoism.  Tao Te Ching 48


If you do not deny yourself completely, restoration through indemnity is
impossible.  Indemnity conditions can be realized only by completely deny-
ing yourself.  The standard of absolute denial should be established tow-
ard the individual, the family, the race, the world, the cosmos, and God.

                   Unification Church.  Sun Myung Moon, 4-3-83


Would one die while living, thus crossing the ocean of existence.

                   Sikhism.  Adi Granth, Suhi Chhant, M.5, p. 777


In the evening do not expect [to live till] morning, and in the morning do
not expect evening.  Prepare as long as you are in good health for sick-
ness, and so long as you are alive for death.

                   Islam.  Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 40


I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ
who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in
the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

                   Christianity.  Bible, Galatians 2.20




Tao Te Ching 48: Cf. Tao Te Ching 16, p. 840; 19, p. 294; 22, p. 549; Chuang
Tzu 6, p. 584.  Sun Myung Moon, 4-3-83: Indemnity and Self-denial are necessary
because of the Fall; see Divine Principle I.3.2.1, p. 547n.  Cf. Luke 14.26, p.
959.  Galatians 2.20: Cf. Romans 8.9-17, p. 576; 12.1, p. 754; Ephesians
2.8-10, p. 756.  Mumonkan 46: The issue is grasping and dependence upon the
body and sense experience, and fear of going beyond its limits.  See Seng
Ts'an, p. 223.




Remember, those who fear death shall not escape it, and those who aspire
to immortality shall not achieve it.

                   Islam (Shiite).  Nahjul Balagha, Khutba 43


Seek not for life on earth or in heaven.  Thirst for life is delusion.
Knowing life to be transitory, wake up from this dream of ignorance and
strive to attain knowledge and freedom.

                   Hinduism.  Srimad Bhagavatam 11.13


You, who sit on the top of a hundred-foot pole, although you have entered
the Way you are not yet genuine.  Proceed on from the top of the pole, and
you will show your whole body in the ten directions.

Mumon's Comment: If you go on further and turn your body about, no place
is left where you are not the master.  But even so, tell me, how will you
go on further from the top of a hundred-foot pole? Eh?

                   Buddhism.  Mumonkan 46


A monk asked Baso, "What is the Buddha?"  Baso answered, "No mind, no
Buddha."

                   Buddhism.  Mumonkan 33


"All states are without self."  When one sees this in wisdom, then he be-
comes dispassionate towards the painful.  This is the path to purity.

                   Buddhism.  Dhammapada 277-79


       "The body, brethren, is not the self.  If body were the self, this
body would not be subject to sickness, and one could say of body, 'Let my
body be thus; let my body not be thus.'  But inasmuch as body is not the
self, that is why body is subject to sickness, and one cannot say of body,
'Let my body be thus; let my body not be thus.'

       "Feeling is not the self.  If feeling were the self, then feeling
would not be subject to sickness, and one could say of feeling, 'Let my
feeling be thus; let my feeling not be thus.'

       "Likewise perception... the [volitional] activities... and consc-
iousness are not the self.  If consciousness were the self, then con-
sciousness would not be subject to sickness, and one could say of
consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be
thus'; but inasmuch as consciousness is not the self, that is why
consciousness is subject to sickness, and that is why one cannot say of
consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be
thus.'

       "Now what do you think, brethren, is body permanent or impermanent?"
       "Impermanent, Lord."
       "And is the impermanent painful or pleasant?"
       "Painful, Lord."
       "Then what is impermanent, painful, and unstable by nature, is it
          fitting to consider as, 'this is mine, this am I, this is my
          self'?"
       "Surely not, Lord."

       "So also is it with feeling, perception, the activities, and consc-
iousness.  Therefore, brethren, every body whatever, be it past, future,
or present, be it inward or outward, gross or subtle, lowly or eminent,
far or near--every body should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right
insight--'this is not mine; this am not I; this is not my self.'

       "Every feeling whatever, every perception whatever, all activities
whatsoever, every consciousness whatever [must likewise be so regarded].

       "Thus perceiving, brethren, the well-taught noble disciple feels
disgust for body, feels disgust for feeling, for perception, for the acti-
vities, for consciousness.  Feeling disgust he is repelled; being repell-
ed, he is freed; knowledge arises that in the freed is emancipation; so he
knows, 'destroyed is rebirth; lived is the religious life; done is my
task; for life in these conditions there is no hereafter.'"

                   Buddhism. Samyutta Nikaya iii.68




Mumonkan 33: Implicit in this koan is the instruction to deny not only the
self but also any object of attainment--even the Buddha himself; see Sutta
Nipata 1072-76, p. 532; 919-920, p. 553; Sutra of Hui Neng 2, p. 90.  The
third of the Four Noble Truths speaks of the eradication of desire or
striving, even striving after enlightenment.  Compare Mumonkan 30, p. 116,
which asserts the seeming opposite.  Dhammapada 277-79: The self is right-
ly denied because it truly does not exist; this is the Buddhist teaching
on no-self (anatta).  See Sutta Nipata 1072-76, p. 532; 919-920, p. 553.
Samyutta Nikaya iii.68: Matter (the body), sensation (feelings), cognition
(perception), volition (the activities), and the consciousness which de-
pends upon them are called the five aggregates (skandhas).  The Buddha
taught that these aggregates, which are commonly thought to constitute the
self, are not the self.  They are impermanent and unreal, and so is the
self which is thought to consist of them.  Cf. Majjhima Nikaya i.142-45,
p. 929; Diamond Sutra 14, p. 888; Sutta Nipata 1072-76, p. 532.

Transformational concepts are also found in these religions. In Christianity we are told to renew our minds daily. Transform your minds from the things of this world unto the things of heaven. A transformation is very important. In my view, I would call this spiritual evolution. 

We find this concept in Hinduism and Buddhism as well as Judaism. It is a fundamental goal. To free oneself from suffering in Buddhism, one must transform. In Hinduism likewise. At this link you find Judaism and thoughts of self-transformation

http://daatelyon.org/category/self-transformation/

I encourage all my readers to research those five areas mentioned above to learn more about how the four major religions mentioned are very similar at their core. 

 

Truth, reality, evolution, god, spirit and more

Science still doesn't answer the question of the spirit and while Sam Harris denies the spirit along with many others, I'm not convinced there is not one in all of consciousness. Science tells us about nature, but frankly I think nature is sometimes outside the realm of science and too strange for science and reality is not explained alone by it. 

 

I take the view of truth. I'm interested in truth and while I agree with science and nature is amazing and there are natural explanations for everyThing, I don't want us, as humans, to miss something and personally I feel we are when we close all doors but that which is in the science class. 

Randomness, guidance, purpose, science and the spirit

The natural is a process
The spiritual is a process

Both are a part of God's process. Both are a part of God, but God is not these processes.

There was a predetermined system that in this system there would be things undeterminable and determinable. Those things which are undeterminable are random. Man cannot determine these things because we lack all the variables. Man cannot foresee the undeterminable either. However this does mean that God does not foresee. In fact, if everything existed as one- in space and time and energy-if "God" is this one, and is a living God, then this God would see tomorrow just as we see today, all at the same time. In fact it seems electrons might just do this-but they are not conscious. If nature was alive it would see itself everywhere and every when.
Things that are determinable are not random. 

Perhaps the issue atheists have isn't that spiritual people don't understand science, but that they don't understand God?


It is very important to understand what one means when they say Random or Purposeless or without a Guide or Directionless. To a mathematician and a biologist those terms can mean different things. Even behaviorist and biologist will have different meanings. 

Random can mean unpredictable or without a cause for a mathematician. Random can also mean to a biologist purposeless or directionless. But then you also have to understand the connotations used by each user.

Is anything truly random? 

Well if we are looking through the eyes of man than, yes. I say this, because we simply do not know if a higher intelligence like an alien would have the same limits. We only know what we know through our own eyes. However they may be certain things --within the very fabric of nature itself- which always have a random value. Undeterminable. 

Where do we find randomness?

In physics we find randomness in virtual particles which are said to pop in and out of existence. For some this means for no cause, and for others there could be a cause we simply do not see yet, because we can't even really see the virtual particle itself.

Is it random in terms of unpredictability? It is interesting, because from my readings it seems that the beginning and end states of virtual particles are predictable, but it is the in-between states that are not. The end state could be predicted to be a quark. You could have several virtual particles pop in as a virtual photon and some as a virtual gluon- but in the end the overall number of virtual particles that pop in as a quark will be more and the particle will be defined as a quark. As the end state is "becoming" all kinds of things can happen. We can't predict all the in-between states, but the overall state is predictable.

Another point is that we can see particles having to take path A or path B and they chose one over the other. There is no reason we can see why one is better than the other or preferred, or different. They are the same and yet the particles can chose which path to take and retain all their internal order. However if it was determinable then that would mean it truly would have no choice in the path, it would always have to take the predicted path, certain points would always force it down a certain path. This freedom shows me the very freedom consciousness will soon have after evolutionary processes in biology and consciousness take effect billions of years later. 

So, this is unpredictable as to which path they will choose and apparently no cause per se. A computer game given the same problem will crash because it cannot compute what to do. Yet, our quantum universe can figure it out.

This is interesting to me, because it doesn't seem to matter that randomness is a factor, everything in the end will be deterministic in a way, predictable. However what paths things take we can not determine. This allows for freedom of choice. For non-living things this would be simply random processes vs natural laws which yield non random processes. BUT in living things, while we start out random (like bacteria until it finds an attractant) we end up non random because of memory and consciousness. Freedom to choose.

So, as an unconscious entity randomness allows for freedom of choice fundamentally and as a conscious entity we also have freedom of choice, but based now on our consciousness.

 If everything was deterministic and everything could be predicted, than everything would be set for us and we truly would have no freedom of choice.

This does show us that on a fundamental level, on a small level, nature is and can be very random and this is important, because this means that our paths are our choice---however in the end everything is set and will be as it is set to be. This is important too, because although something in undeterminable it does not mean it is unforeseeable. If we could see all things, we could see where it would end up though we'd have no why. 

Are variables hidden? We know it is possible. We do not see the reasons why virtual particles pop in and out, because we cannot even see the VP themselves and so perhaps there is something underlying in the quantum vacuum beyond what we can see that provides a cause, or perhaps not. Perhaps it just pops and in the right conditions, it will form a certain way and so the conditions are what are important for growth. I tend to think the later.

We also know through HUP that we cannot see the momentum and location of particles at the same time. That through our very interaction and observation, we have changed the nature of what we are observing. So, there certainly are aspects that are unseen or what I call hidden.

...If there existed no randomness in nature than mathematicians could predict everything that would happen if given the variables, if they could see all the variables.

The fact that some things seem to be truly random in nature on a fundamental level, the fact that man cannot actually see nature fully on a fundamental level keeps us somewhat in the dark about the future. We can't predict it like a gypsy in a crystal ball.

Man is limited in what he can see and perceive.

So, I'd say true randomness in nature is essential for nature to keep the future sealed, to keep the wool over our eyes. Or for God to do so. 

Energy seems to go from randomness to non-randomness as energies increase and become more complex. (This can also be found in the new theories of dynamic energy).


The true nature of randomness allows the future to be unseen while also allowing for true freedom of choice.

Randomness is not a bad thing! 

If you define random as unpredictable like a mathematician, then this definition makes perfect sense to me. Of course there are things we cannot see. We don't fully see nature and nature has a fundamental random aspect to it. Even our brains perceive random and non random events. This is because our brains evolved out of nature and so are wired to perceive it--both random and non random processes. Therefore, it makes sense that nature is both random and non random, because our brains perceive both as well.

Now, biologist tend to use this randomness to yield words such as purposeless or directionless or without guidance. 

There are certain events in biology such as genetic drift and draft that are defined as random. The scientist who first purposed genetic drift did not agree it was random. I tend to agree. Random would be unpredictable and while fire spreading and wiping out an entire population and therefore their genes, could be viewed as random...we still have cause and effect. Certain events caused others and certain effects took place. If we had been vigilant to these variables and causes and effects, I think we could predict these events. They had reasons for taking place. We simply lack the variables and cannot see all of the factors. But these random acts also were not purposeless, because they had a cause. A cause is a purpose. 

Some of genetic drift/draft does appear to be mathematically random at first. If given two different alleles in a population -let us say one blue and one red- and depending on the number of that allele in the population that will be its chance for survival (If I understood that correctly). So, if we have 50% red and 50% blue alleles in a population, each has an equal chance to survive. But only one will. This is because at some point one will become greater than the other and populations survive by common traits and that which is common becomes more poplar and chosen and eventually the population conforms. However, there is a chance the less likely will succeed. We can't predict this completely.

We see this in culture as well with apes and humans. If a few people in the group solve a problem one way and yet a few others solve it a different way, eventually the group will conform to one way. Everything tends to become homogeneous.

But, to me, this seems to be a fault on our part. We don't see all the variables. If we had all the variables, it seems it would be predictable. There are also causes, though we may not see all of them. So, I'm not really convinced of the use of randomness in biology.

Nature fulfills a chain of events —in time— much like our - memory- fulfills a series of events. As nature does this, or own memory does this, things seem to go from random to non random. Simple to complex. From Nothingness (chaos of virtual particles) into something. From chaos into order. From heterogeneous into homogenous. BUT there is a direction, an internal innate drive.

So, I would have to disagree with biologists when they say purposeless or directionless or without guide or without a goal. 

Firstly, the direction and guidance takes place when the natural law take effect. This is the guide, this is the direction.

Secondly, terms such as purpose and goal do not mean anything to an innate thing. If you are investigating a marble, something that is not conscious or aware, how will you find concepts that only reside in conscious things?  (Though it could be arguable that nature and the universe is all conscious on some level -but let us just stick to the non-conscious view for now).

Thirdly, Nature has its own way of doing things, whether we understand them or not. Nature  does have a direction. Energy persists toward entropy and life persists toward survival. Death and life is a constant circle. Additionally, everything goes from random to non random and simple to complex and chaotic to ordered. This is a direction. 

This seems to be fundamental, inside the very core of all things, innate. This is a direction. This is a purpose. This is a goal. It might not be a conscious one or an external one, but it certainly appears to be an internal one, an innate one. Just something nature does.

Fourthly, A marble in itself doesn't have a purpose or goal because it has no consciousness. But this does not mean the marble was not put in place by something with a higher energy of understanding than ourselves.

Even if there is no higher energy "God"  which put the marble into place, there certainly is an internal purpose and goal. Be it a very simple one. Life persists TO EXIST. TO BE. While energy heads toward entropy, it still bothered to exist at all. Why does it?

Without proving a "God", nature does have a internal purpose and goal. So, that idea just is not correct naturally or even when we consider the possibility that a "God" or other intelligence is behind it.

So, While I have no problems understanding the mathematical ideas of randomness, biologists seem to cross the line and take it a step further into realms they cannot prove or disprove and resort to the analysis of things that most people would consider unconscious to begin with and say, "see, it has no purpose or goal" and therefore nothing in the broader connotation of the word has any purpose or goal. But of course a particle doesn't have a goal as we have a goal. We are a consciousness, a particle is not. 

I can look at a marble all day long and see no consciousness and therefore no purpose or goal there. But then it is interesting that the marble bothered to exist at all (I'd say that is its purpose, to exist) and that it can exist, and follow its internal direction/guide. Further, I'm not looking at spiritual or higher intelligence such as aliens or "God". So, why would I find any of those inside a marble?

What about guidance?

I don't think God interferes with the natural world which is what many call guidance. I think God put everything into place exactly as it is and it is self-sufficient without the constant need of intervention.

However, I do think where we see the Spirit or God is in people's lives. The spirit can affect our minds, dreams, emotions and can speak to us and it is in this where we will find guidance.

Why? Because the spirit is immaterial and where we find its influence is with the immaterial things. 

However- God might USE the immaterial consciousness for fulfilling His benefits or USE the natural laws for fulfilling His purposes. But, He doesn't break the natural las in my view. So, what people call a miracle, is simply the natural laws being used for His purposes in my opinion. 

Often when science sees an accident, it may very well be the breath or word of God--but then words and breath of the spiritual are not visible/measurable things and therefore would not be seen.  

Is science all knowing?

Our consciousness is invisible, it is immaterial and certainly we can study it and are getting somewhere. In my view, the spirit is linked to this.

I find it ridiculous that people think science shows there is no evidence of God and therefore there is not one.

Firstly, science to me reveals more about an all pervading, all knowing, illimitable, infinite, (spirit) the more I learn. The spirit aspect is which is not seen by science, but everything we learn about electrons, and virtual particles tells us all kinds of amazing things nature can do which we never would have imagined. Things like timeless electrons, 'knowing' electrons, infinite virtual particles/energy, illimitable virtual particle/energy.

I'm going to reduce this 'God' word to the spirit, since that is the word that makes most sense to me, not God.

Einstein did not agree with religions of the day, but he did say his religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable, infinite spirit. Spirit being the key word here.

Religions don't have a perfect model of the spirit, true! But science doesn't have a perfect model of nature either! One addresses spiritual while the other the natural. Neither have models that fit perfectly to what the reality of nature and the spirit are. The both ask different questions.

A spirit perhaps that pervades everything before and after the material or perhaps a spirit that is an echo of natural conscious energies itself.

When did science become all knowing? Further when did we?

What makes us think science shows everything about nature? Aren't there possible aspects of nature that science will never be able to know or delve into? What if the spirit is not supernatural, but that nature is simply another aspect of this pervading spirit?

If what is the most simple, most basic, most fundamental is in fact a spiritual energy and from that all material things came to be then the nature we are studying is simply a result of this spiritual aspect. In fact there could be other aspects of the spirit in which we are not privy to in studying just science, but only the natural.

By usual definition there is the spirit and there is the natural.  Science is talking about the material nature, not the immaterial aspect of nature which is spirit. Science doesn't see the immaterial or the spirit. But the spirit has been experienced by the immaterial consciousness.

Our consciousness is in fact immaterial. Our thoughts and emotions are immaterial.

Some say consciousness might be an illusion. I say the material is the illusion, the grand delusion. The whole material experience is a temporary fake. The only thing real is the immaterial.

God has to do something to exist? God is immaterial and basic just like our consciousness is both immaterial and basic.

What you believe has partly to do with where you were born? Many people change faiths as they grow up, and  people come to faiths because of their life experiences. But it doesn't matter what faith you are, because none of the models are perfect models of the spirit! They are all attempts like science has models to attempt to qualify the natural.

The point is in investigating it and learning it and figuring it out yourself.

Is God Supernatural?

Why does God have to be supernatural? What if nature is simply an aspect of God? What if the Spirit is an aspect of the consciousness which is the result of the brain and evolution which was inevitable from the creation point of everything from nothing?


It seems likely that life would have evolved eventually in this universe and this universe would have been born eventually and something would have happened eventually from nothing and so we would be a by product eventually...so if a God exists, then in creating this it would mean we were bound to happen. 

I agree with Rowan in that design is always a bad word because we associate it with our own designs and it depends on your intentions and purposes from where you are judging. My perfect design could be your total mess and vice versus. Further design implies interruptions and my view is 'God' would not have interfered at all. God closed. The immaterial closed and this is how the material formed in my view. 

Intelligence is also a bad word choice because how intelligent is this God? On what scale? 

How did God get there from nothing? I think nothing and everything are the same things, but just in different forms. 

Consciousness and brain, Soul and Spirit

One of the best conversations. I agree consciousness emerges from brains, but what is this energy? Thought energy? Emotion energy? How powerful is it? Is it possible that this energy is so high that after the brain shuts off it flickers, lingers? Does nature leave behind Natural Echoes of Energy? or Natural Echoes of Consciousness? 

Does Conscious Energy have any links to Quantum Energies?

Apes do a lot of self reflective consciousness too, not just humans. Apes can play pretend, and dolphins are self conscious. Animals are capable of this on some level. However I would say all animals have a consciousness and all animals have a soul, because the consciousness is the immaterial life- the soul and spirit is an immaterial life- an energy that is immaterial.
So, the question resides in energy which is of an immaterial existence and does this retain memory/experience/life?

But humans have a spirt. They are both immaterial as conscious energy is I would say, but the spirit is a horizontal path where the soul is a vertical path. 

The question is does this soul and spirit exist after the material brain shuts off, meaning is there an immaterial life that is created from the material life that persists in the immaterial after the material has ended. That is what interests me.

The immaterial exist because of the material...it birthed it in a way. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EjO-7Wynd0