Religion Vs. Philisophy

Planets and stars aren't life, huh? Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds? And you're still wondering how Separation is being implied by Materialism?

 

You must be using oneness in a particular manner..

Ego would die along with you. Your physical components would go back to the Earth, some may see that as returning to "source" if they were so inclined, but yah A materialist couldn't argue an essence goes to some other supra or supernatural dimension.

 

Not ridiculous at all ..

I've never heard of the Sun containing DNA :unsure:

 

Exactly. Oneness as a Spiritual term implies that all is Universal Consciousness. So your Consciousness wouldn't die when your form and ego dies.

Oneness in the way that you use it doesn't make sense because it's trying to say that all of reality is only physical and yet stems from Nothingness but doesn't return to this Nothingness at any point after death.

 

I have written many times in this forum about the research that was done at MIT (and sometimes given the authors and book title that was published documenting this research) regarding human intention and how it shapes reality.

Experiments were done in which human intuition was used to change such things as the .ph of water, the coagulation of blood, the growth of insect larva, and other things. The results were so powerful that the control experiment had to be moved to a different location or shielded to prevent the experiment from bleeding over and actually changing the control. These experiments are very well-documented including with the intent of enabling others to duplicate them. You can read about the experiments, including the details that would enable you to duplicate it, in the book, Conscious Acts of Creation, the Emergence of a New Physics. By Dr. Tiller, PhD, and others.

They have gone on to produce some other books, which I have not read yet, but having looked over the books it appears they are trying to provide rational theories for how such things occur as the 'mind reaching out and touching something.' (They provide some of this theory in the book I mentioned above).

In any event, they have produced empirical evidence of the mind shaping physical reality outside of itself.

Then of course there is quantum mechanics----you didn't really think you would get by without me mentioning it did you? We have empirical evidence of the human mind causing light energy, electrons, protons, atoms, and other things, including even bucky balls to change from acting as a wave to acting as a particle in the double slit experiment. In other words, it causes a quantum probability wave collapse, which, to our understanding, equates to causing physical reality to manifest in the material way we know it to. It has also been recently proven that repeated observations of atoms causes radioactive decay to slow---this relates to about the same thing in that it 'fixes' the atom in place at a single point in space-time, which quantum mechanics tells us is not its normal superpositioned state.

Now there are several problems here: 1.) we don't even actually observe the particle, atom, or other quantum object, rather we know that it is there because of a measurement or some other kind of indirect observation. In other words, we are aware of a reality, and believe it to be. 2.)Time does not even matter, because, for one thing, our knowledge is always after the fact, and for another, it has been demonstrated that the observation can affect the past state of the quanta. 3.) measurements without conscious observation do not have any affect on quanta.

In any event, in these cases the mind 'reaches out' in some manner and changes physical reality. This is, what would commonly be seen as magic---changing physical reality, altering normal physical processes, and so forth...

 

So let me get this straight.

Humans are life, animals are life, trees are life, but rocks and light aren't life? Then what are they?

How can planets and stars not be life when humans' very survival depends on the Sun and Earth at ALL TIMES? To separate the Sun from Life is exactly the point I'm trying to make regarding Materialism. Separation is implied.

 

This makes plenty of sense with materialism and a Big Bang singularity

one·ness
\ˈwən-nəs\
noun
: the state of being completely united with or a part of someone or something
Full Definition
:the quality or state or fact of being one: as
a :singleness
b :integrity, wholeness
c :harmony
d :sameness, identity
e :unity, union

 

So how does everything stemming from nothing play into Materialism?

 

Physical matter and energy..

Ooo ChinaCat that's bad, bad logic, or lack thereof.

 

And so a tree isn't physical matter and energy? A cat isn't physical matter and energy?

 

Materialism could only have 2 options without a supernatural Creator, 1) something formed from nothing or 2) the Universe is eternal.

 

They are...

If C is dependent on A and B, it doesn't mean that A and B are dependent on C.

You can grapple with that if you wish but that's a logical formula, so don't take it up with me.

 

1.) Well that's a complete contradiction to its own theory. The theory can't be that everything is only physical and yet everything came from nothing.

2.) I feel that this is true, but a Creator Source would also be eternal.

 

Energy is life no matter you how you cut and slice it. If energy isn't life then I'm not sure what is.

How are you not seeing how much you are proving that Materialism implies Separation? You're actually separating Stars from Humans and acting like one is life and one isn't. Is water also not life? What about rain and clouds and the wind? Are plants also not life? How about crystals?

 

It is a paradox for sure, but perhaps no more a contradiction than 2 negatives multiplied to equal a positive.

 

Paradox or not, if you subscribe to this then you're showing that you don't subscribe to the idea that reality is nothing but physical reality.

 

I'm good on doing the go around with you.

 

Most recently the info I have seen suggested that the results are the same in the double slit experiment with a conscious observer as with an inanimate observer. I have not looked too extensively to verify the claims though.

 

I mean you can break it down any way you want, but there is no distinct dividing line between life and non-life. Even a dead corpse serves as the meal for some other animal. Humans are dependent on trees, trees are dependent on the wind, the wind is dependent on the Earth, the tides are dependent on the moon, and all of it is dependent on the Sun. To call some of these things life and others not life is absurd. Everything that exists is Life, including Death. Notice how they are both inseparable from each other?

 

Where to begin... How about with the Buddhist concept of reincarnation? If we deny the possibility of a nonphysical realm, of an essence, then after death, when the organic processes of our physical bodies have stopped, and the cells of our body, no longer receiving life providing nutrients, have all died, and hardened into dried out inanimate material, then how could the soul, our very essence, continue to exist to perpetuate the karmic chain of existence? How could such a non-material thing as mind continue to not only exist without a physical biological structure, which by materialist defninition provides the mechanics of its very existence, but then to migrate from a dried out corpse to the womb of a new mother?

And why should my first wife continue to pray to her ancestors every morning and evening and light incense? On the anniversary of her grandfather's death, is it not meaningless for her to pay a priest to come over and read sutras for him? If his essence no longer exists (because it is a nonphysical) why should she even hope that he would watch over her, or provide any kind of luck? Why would Buddhists do that?