I-Ching

Originally Posted by Topology

Just because you see "life emerge from life" on the surface does not mean there is not a material (i.e. made of matter) process behind it. You are looking at the surface and calling it life because it is complex.

To distinguish between a living entity and a dead one is common sense. I don't mind using the biological definition of an entity that can reproduce.

Originally Posted by Topology

I-Ching, you must concede this point: Manipulating the material substrate alters the kind of life that gets expressed.

This is meaningless in term of my argument.

Originally Posted by Topology

creating life in the labratory

This article is not well written I already read an article about this in new scientist, which is unfortunately not longer available for free. The new scientist article clearly stated that they had not created life. They are simply tinkering with God's design again and claiming the credit. We should give God the Nobel prize!

"The creation of synthetic life is a goal of scientists working in the fields of synthetic biology or exploring the origin of life.The term has also been used to describe recent experiments [1] that transferred the chemically synthesized copy of a bacterial genome into a different (but closely related) bacterial host cell. However, the term Synthetic Life is usually associated to the creation of a living system "from scratch", that is from isolated building blocks. This has not yet been achieved.".
The Wikipedia article clarifies the issue.

Originally Posted by Topology

The fact that we can manipulate our world and the structure of how life is expressed to such a degree is a testament to the accuracy of Science's "Theory". If the Theory was inaccurate, we would not have technology that worked and our world today would be a very different place. We wouldn't be able to have this conversation, you and me, as we do not know each other outside of this electronic world.

Just because scientists have managed to demonstrate some of their theories doesn't mean therefore that all of their theories are true. Until a theory is demonstrated it nothing but that theoretical .... i.e. a belief.

So my argument still stands where is their demonstration that life can emerge matter? Just like Christians are waiting for Jesus, the atheists are waiting their synthetic life.

Originally Posted by Topology

I have already attained self-realization. I am speaking to you from that perspective.

This is nothing but pride. Krishna defines self-realization in this verse

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Pāṇḍu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities — such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature." Bhagavad-Gita 14.22-25

Surely even you can admit that you don't have all these qualities. Until we become humble there is no possibility of advancement .

Originally Posted by Topology

My guru was your guru's guru's guru's .... guru's original guru. Was there life before the Vedas? What did people do for truth before the Vedas? Who was the first guru's Guru? That very same in-human Guru exists today and is available to interact with. His presence is felt as the whispering of the wind. Requiring that he manifest himself in the form of a human personality and expressing itself through a limited interface (the I-Ching) is to limit the depth of his communion with you.

The first created being is called Lord Brahma. The knowledge of Vedas was imparting to Him by Krishna from within the heart. The material universe operates in cycles of creation and destruction so the Vedas like Krishna are eternal.
Part of that knowledge is this:
"Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth." Bg 4.34
Your "guru" clearly doesn't fit this description. In any field of knowledge you need a teacher. Particularly is such a subtle field as spiritual advancement. What if you went to university and defined your professor in the same way you define your "guru"?

Originally Posted by Topology

Happiness is not pleasure. My body aches. I am in financial ruin living off borrowed money to go to school. My life is full of stress. None of that is pleasurable, but despite all that, I am happy. Permanent happiness comes when we love everything, not just God.

Yes, "happiness is not pleasure". Pleasure is temporary and material happiness is a little less temporary but real Happiness comes from self-realization. Such self-realization is not cheap and is not simply a matter of mental adjustment. Real Happiness is an ocean of bliss and all we can taste in this world is drop. You call yourself "happy" only because you have not tasted Happiness.

Originally Posted by hybrid

it's the best alternative. life comes from an inanimate matter called "seed". is it not? it's that simple. life is inherent in matter.

This statement is insubstantial since you give no evidence.

Originally Posted by hybrid

are you saying human beings did not come naturally from the material universe?

Yes

Originally Posted by hybrid

can you explain why your logic goes ... if atheist can't produce life therefore it must be god?

If life comes from life and not matter then there must be an original living entity God.

Originally Posted by hybrid

yes. becasue atheists are honest enough to admit that in the final analysis, we really don't know, they don't pretend to be bearers of truths.

If you don't know then you should go to someone who does know. By the way an agnostic is someone who claims they don't know, not an atheist. How do you know that nobody knows?

Greetings..

I-Ching, You give NO evidence, no peer-reviewed reproducible evidence of 'God', or of the 'book' I-Ching's ability to function as a guru.. you offer only anecdotal evidence which is insufficient.. you present your personal beliefs, that is all..

Be well..

Originally Posted by I-Ching

To distinguish between a living entity and a dead one is common sense. I don't mind using the biological definition of an entity that can reproduce.

Viruses, both material and computer, self-replicate. Crystals and clay break off and start growing again. Prions that generate mad cow disease replicate themselves. Is reproduction a sufficient condition? Then we would have to include the above as being alive, rocks and molecules.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

This article is not well written I already read an article about this in new scientist, which is unfortunately not longer available for free. The new scientist article clearly stated that they had not created life. They are simply tinkering with God's design again and claiming the credit. We should give God the Nobel prize!

God is welcome to have it if he would like to come and claim it.

The article indicates that the DNA strand was completely artificially coded and constructed. The next step is to reproduce the proteins and other cellular organelles. I have a suspicion that even if we could manufacture all the parts and put it together from scratch, you would still not accept that as proof.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

Just because scientists have managed to demonstrate some of their theories doesn't mean therefore that all of their theories are true. Until a theory is demonstrated it nothing but that theoretical .... i.e. a belief.

You REALLY don't understand what the word Theory means in the context of Science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory A Theory is constructed around empirical data, which means there's already proof. We're constructing the theory to explain what we see. No one accepts a proposal as theory until it is tested and challenged from all directions.

Throw an apple up, watch it come down. Throw a thousand apples up and watch them come down. Hypothesize the Theory of Gravity based on the evidence. It is already proven. That is how science works, test to see what the truth is.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

This is nothing but pride. Krishna defines self-realization in this verse

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Pāṇḍu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities — such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature." Bhagavad-Gita 14.22-25

*shrug* I know what I am. I don't need a text to tell me what to think.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

Surely even you can admit that you don't have all these qualities. Until we become humble there is no possibility of advancement .

Stating the truth is part of being humble.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

The first created being is called Lord Brahma. The knowledge of Vedas was imparting to Him by Krishna from within the heart. The material universe operates in cycles of creation and destruction so the Vedas like Krishna are eternal.

And you were there for all that?

Originally Posted by I-Ching

Part of that knowledge is this:
"Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth." Bg 4.34
Your "guru" clearly doesn't fit this description. In any field of knowledge you need a teacher. Particularly is such a subtle field as spiritual advancement. What if you went to university and defined your professor in the same way you define your "guru"?

I had a teacher, and he had a teacher. But then I saw they were men, just like me. There is only one True Guru, and it is the same guru for all of us, no matter what form he takes.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

Yes, "happiness is not pleasure". Pleasure is temporary and material happiness is a little less temporary but real Happiness comes from self-realization. Such self-realization is not cheap and is not simply a matter of mental adjustment. Real Happiness is an ocean of bliss and all we can taste in this world is drop. You call yourself "happy" only because you have not tasted Happiness.

You're welcome to quest after this mythical sublime bliss state all you want. I am fulfilled with being happy.

Originally Posted by Topology

You're welcome to quest after this mythical sublime bliss state all you want. I am fulfilled with being happy.

You seem to have come to the conclusion regarding the nonexistence of this experience of a "sublime bliss state", because you are calling it "mythical".

When others reached such conclusions on the forum regarding other states/experiences, you criticized them for not being open to exploring the possibilities of the existence of such a state.

But you don't appear to be open to exploring the possibility of the existence of a "sublime bliss state".

I don't feel that this is out of context (I've been following the thread). This is not presented with a contentious spirit, so please do not take it that way. I'm just trying to figure out your approach.

Oh and by the way Topology, I agree with you.

Topology

"I have already attained self-realization. I am speaking to you from that perspective."

Thought i recognised it.

Originally Posted by LIFE

You seem to have come to the conclusion regarding the nonexistence of this experience of a "sublime bliss state", because you are calling it "mythical".

When others reached such conclusions on the forum regarding other states/experiences, you criticized them for not being open to exploring the possibilities of the existence of such a state.

But you don't appear to be open to exploring the possibility of the existence of a "sublime bliss state".

I don't feel that this is out of context (I've been following the thread). This is not presented with a contentious spirit, so please do not take it that way. I'm just trying to figure out your approach.

Oh and by the way Topology, I agree with you.

LIFE,

Thank you for keeping me honest. Please allow me to explain. If one is not already in bliss, then it is a relative state bound by certain conditions. I have found that when I am not indulging in negative interpretations, my natural state is happy. Even in the thicket of chaos and emotional pain, there is the pure joy and thrill in the celebration of being alive. If I were to seek bliss at this point, it would be no better than seeking a drug induced high.

One of the interesting things about consciousness is that the more you experience an extreme feeling, the less extreme it becomes. A drug addict has to keep upping their dose to get the same original high. If you focus on a single sensation, it bleeds away. Consciousness works off the principle of contrast, and a constant signal gets muted over time.

I have quested and obtained different states of bliss, and they all have fallen away. I find that if I accept life as it is, then there is nothing to interfere with the innate happiness of being alive and free to explore the world. Requiring that life be in a state of bliss and other than it is places a condition on the acceptance of life in the present moment. It is the rejection of God's greatest gift, telling him that "what you give me is not enough, I want more."

to me bliss is chocolate. However chocolate never produced the shining clarity of completeness.

Originally Posted by Topology

Then we would have to include the above as being alive, rocks and molecules.

For something to be born it must be able to die I don't see how rocks and molecules qualify.

Originally Posted by Topology

The article indicates that the DNA strand was completely artificially coded and constructed. The next step is to reproduce the proteins and other cellular organelles. I have a suspicion that even if we could manufacture all the parts and put it together from scratch, you would still not accept that as proof.

"the chemically synthesized genome was an almost 1:1 copy of a naturally occurring genome and the recipient cell was a naturally occurring bacterium." Fortunately Wikkipedia gives more objective account of what actually happened. What is point of discussing what they "could" do? This nothing but your belief of what they "could" do. Let them actually do it!

Originally Posted by Topology

You REALLY don't understand what the word Theory means in the context of Science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory A Theory is constructed around empirical data, which means there's already proof. We're constructing the theory to explain what we see. No one accepts a proposal as theory until it is tested and challenged from all directions.

I don't think you understand the difference between evidence and "proof". Just because there is evidence does mean something is proved because you can often find evidence to contrary.
"A Theory is constructed around empirical data." Exactly this is the problem empirical data is comes from human beings that are subject to 4 defects:
1) Their senses are imperfect and limited
2) They cheat like this bogus article about how they "created Life"
3) They are in illusion
4) They make mistakes
Therefore your empiric data is of little value.

"A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms."
And what is an axiom? "In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated" - Wikipedia
All your theories based on the axiom that you can perceive reality through your senses. This axiom is clearly WRONG!!!
Your whole glorious scientific system is fundamentally flawed.

If you want an example of how scientist cheat just look at this book Hidden History of the Human Race. It documents stacks of evidence that human beings have been on this planet for millennia. Of course such evidence does not agreed the the beliefs of the atheistic scientists so it is simply ignored. "Science" is no more valid or objective than human beings are, which is very little.

Originally Posted by Topology

I know what I am. I don't need a text to tell me what to think.

What is your qualification when it comes to spiritual subjects such as self-realization? What you think you know is only your mental concoction. What is the authority of what you "know".

"Self-complacent and always impudent, deluded by wealth and false prestige, they sometimes proudly perform sacrifices in name only, without following any rules or regulations." Bg 16.17
This the materialists approach to spirituality ... nothing but their own useless mental speculations.
"He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination." Bg 16.23

Originally Posted by Topology

And you were there for all that?

Where you there for the "big bang"? Where you there when life emerged from matter? I see through my ears by hearing from scripture and you see by hearing from imperfect human beings.

Originally Posted by Topology

There is only one True Guru, and it is the same guru for all of us, no matter what form he takes.

No. The majority of "guru's" are false. In your case it sounds like your mind is your Guru. Which means you have your worst enemy as a guru.

"For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends; but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest enemy."

Originally Posted by Topology

You're welcome to quest after this mythical sublime bliss state all you want. I am fulfilled with being happy.

There is not substantial happiness in this world. This is the first noble truth of Buddhism. The truth of suffering.
Krishna also confirms:
"From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kuntī, never takes birth again." Bg 8.16

Swami Prabhupada said there are only 2 kinds of happy people in this world the Transcendentalist and the person that is so much in ignorance that they can't even realize that they are suffering.

What does Krishna say about the mentality of the materialist:
"I am the enjoyer. I am perfect, powerful and happy." Bg 16.14
Sound familiar.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

I-Ching, You give NO evidence, no peer-reviewed reproducible evidence of 'God', or of the 'book' I-Ching's ability to function as a guru.. you offer only anecdotal evidence which is insufficient.. you present your personal beliefs, that is all..

The fact that there are billions of living entities that comes from other living entities is obvious evidence. Surely you can accept that without it being verified by your "peers". My argument is based more on logical evidence than on empiric evidence.
How can you prove the taste of Honey? Use the I-Ching and you will experience for yourself that it works.
Labeling my arguments as "beliefs" does not disprove them. They are more rational beliefs than the beliefs of the atheists.