Evolution

[JackRussell]

Well there goes another karma point in this debacle.

[Little Rik]

Wrong once again yog.  

Even if as you say.........things behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so..........that would prove you dead wrong anyway.

I said that this was one of several competing theories that seek to explain the behavior of these so-called "vibrations."  Claiming that I said that "things behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so" is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.  Regardless, since the only thing that I asserted was that there were several competing theories that offer to explain these "vibrations," and did not offer my own opinion on the matter, it's a mystery as to what on earth you think I could be wrong about here?

Because your aim is to try to come up with one more dogma which is that there is no need for consciousness.
Of course it is true that low form of life........behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so.......but in your statement you miss the point.
You miss the fact that low form of life are like small children that need the guidance of their parents.
Have you ever seen babies able to grow to adulthood by themselves?
Mother nature just cover that job.
That doesn't mean that little things are void of consciousness.
Matter is energy-consciousness in a slumber-latent stage.
Consciousness is not express yet but is there however.  

Why?

Because plants are under the guide of mother nature or the so called instinct. (ever heard of?)  

According to Wikipedia, personification of nature dates back to the ancient Greeks, wherein they personified nature as a god or goddess. Such personification of nature is not based on any reasoning or justification, and so is nothing more than a cultural convention.  The Greeks personified many inanimate and abstract entities as having personal natures.  Another example is the god Helios, whose traversal of the sky in a glowing golden chariot each day was the supposed explanation of the daily skyward journey of the sun.  It is no more reasonable to expect a god or goddess is behind nature on the basis of Greek mythology than it is to expect to see a golden chariot when we train our telescopes on the sun.  These are myths and stories, not an accounting of reality, and thus provide no support for your belief that your theory about vibrations and consciousness is correct.

As to your comment about instinct, it's worth noting that instinct typically refers to behaviors and inclinations that have a non-conscious or unconscious origin.  That certainly doesn't support your view.  Assuming instead that the word meant a behavior or inclination that has an origin in consciousness, it still wouldn't follow that this provides rational justification for believing that "vibrations" are a result of the effects of an inherent consciousness, as like personification above, the meaning of words is mere convention and doesn't imply any corresponding truth.  That we have the word "unicorn" meaning a horse-like creature with a single horn doesn't mean that our possessing such a word supports the belief that unicorns exist.

So neither the cultural meme of "Mother Nature," nor the meaning of the word instinct, provide any reason for believing your theory of the explanation of these "vibrations" over that of other explanations.

So you've yet to provide a good reason for believing that your theory is correct.

So far science has yet to established that there is no consciousness behind anything in this universe so your idea that things can react
without the need for a consciousness to be there is just a big big guess.
In the meantime I stick with the idea that a vehicle need a driver to operate.
If you on the other hand think that there is no need for a driver then by all means keep on thinking so.
I have no doubt however that your guess is totally bankrupt.  

So who suppose to be this mother nature?
Father Christmas?
Certainly no because to run this universe a mastermind is needed.

Well, whether this universe needs a mind to run it is certainly the question of the day.  Merely asserting that it does so does nothing to further your arguments toward that end.  It is nothing more than a meaningless fart.  As noted above, the existence of a personifying mythos surrounding nature does nothing to support your belief that nature has such characteristics.  More to the point, as noted in my previous post, some Christians posit that there is a mind behind the behavior of matter in the universe, but the mind their religion refers to is not the same as the one which you propose, and for which, the universe is but a mental projection.  Thus with any support or evidence you provide, it is not sufficient that it support the existence of a generic, non-specific god, but that the support must lead inexorably toward your specific god and no other.

Obviously religions always try to diminish the role that God play so they can prop up their many dogmas in order to control people's mind.
The teachings of Jesus and other guru have very little to do with what religions say so who really care about religions?
As far as whether the universe need or doesn't need a mind to run it this again is quite easy to understand.
Lower form of life follow mother nature instinct but as soon as they build more awareness and turn into human automatically the free will intervene.
Wonder why yog?
This pattern follow same same our life as children where our parents lead us to adulthood and as soon as we grow up we decide what to do.
I guess you never though about it yog, did you?  

The entropy BS has already been rejected as the ultimate BS so is obvious that mother nature is an alive entity.

Not so fast.  You asserted that the energy to run the universe had to come from somewhere outside the universe.  I countered that entropy would do the job.  At which point you asserted that "universal" entropy did not exist because the universe is a mental projection of God.  At which point I noted that you were claiming the existence of God in order to support an argument for the existence of God, and that if you had evidence of God in the first place, you wouldn't need the energy argument.  At that point you made an abortive attempt to claim that mathematics and such provided evidence for the existence of God.  Upon asking for said evidence, you basically changed the subject and shut up about any such evidence.

So, you may have rejected the entropy argument, but a rejection based on nothing doesn't hold up.  So I'm still waiting for that evidence you claimed you had but didn't deliver.  Until you do, the question of whether the universe is a mental projection of God remains an open question.  Until you provide such evidence, the entropy explanation stands unanswered.

Now you are very funny yog.  

You are not very observant.
Everything in this universe move and change.
You put food in your mouth and guess what?
This food sooner or later will have to exit your body.
This is the law of the universe.
Small form of consciousness sooner or later grow and grow so one day they too will have to leave this universe.
Nothing stay in the same place for ever whether is food or consciousness that is why entropy is a load of BS.

Regardless, I'm still without a credible answer as to how you know that your theory of these "vibrations" is correct?

Little kids are not yet able to express as adults do yet there is consciousness in them.
Vibrations follow the same principle.
You find something that move on their own accord without having a consciousness and I will cover you in pure gold.  

Obvious things do not need so much evidence at all but people who born skeptic of course goes overboard and need evidence, evidence and more evidence until their brain goes insane and need evidence for stupid things as well.
I am sure one day you will ask for evidence that the water is wet.
Why is wet?
Where is written?
Has been any peer-reviewed evidence that the water is wet?  

Are you ending up insane yog?
I hope not.  

---

Well there goes another karma point in this debacle.

When a mosquito try to hassle me is my duty to get rid of her.
Why there should be karma?
It is when you harm someone for the fun of harming it or harm for pure hatred that you create more karma for yourself.

Your knowledge about karma is so so tiny that is worthless.  

[JackRussell]

And your knowledge about evolution is so tiny that it's worthless.

You have had some of the most intelligent members of this forum interact with you in this thread, and I am not talking about myself because I know the limitations of my knowledge and my patience to interact.

As always, you are never wrong, never address the points raised in an honest fashion and troll.

Wash, rinse repeat.

And I still think this thread should be moved to pseudoscience, that's where it belongs.

NDE's and plant consciousness; have you got anything interesting to say for such a prolific poster.

or poser!!

[LadyForCamus]

He’s too busy thinking about his big dick.

[The Grand Nudger]

Water is wet because of it's karma.  It drowned alot of dogs.

You can't prove it didn't!

[Angrboda]

I said that this was one of several competing theories that seek to explain the behavior of these so-called "vibrations."  Claiming that I said that "things behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so" is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.  Regardless, since the only thing that I asserted was that there were several competing theories that offer to explain these "vibrations," and did not offer my own opinion on the matter, it's a mystery as to what on earth you think I could be wrong about here?

Because your aim is to try to come up with one more dogma which is that there is no need for consciousness.
Of course it is true that low form of life........behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so.......but in your statement you miss the point.
You miss the fact that low form of life are like small children that need the guidance of their parents.
Have you ever seen babies able to grow to adulthood by themselves?
Mother nature just cover that job.
That doesn't mean that little things are void of consciousness.
Matter is energy-consciousness in a slumber-latent stage.
Consciousness is not express yet but is there however.  

Your attempt at mind reading is impressive -- impressively funny.  My aim was plainly stated, and that was what reason you had for believing your theory is correct.  Your attempt to make this about me is just your usual shenanigans.  You claimed that "vibrations" are alive.  If you don't have good reasons for believing that, then your belief that vibrations imply consciousness is just dogma.  Assuming you are a typical proponent of yoga, it stands to reason that yoga as a whole is based primarily on dogma, as this belief about vibrations seems fundamental to your entire description of "how the system works."

You suggest that these vibrations are like little children.  Besides noting that this is merely an unsupported assertion, the fact is that we know that little children are conscious and needing of guidance, so your likening them to little children is nothing more than begging the question.  You need to show good reason for believing they are like little children, i.e. conscious, before you can draw conclusions based upon such a supposed similarity.  

The rest here is more bare assertions.  I know that you believe that matter is conscious.  The question was whether you have good reasons for believing this, or is it just dogma.  So far you haven't provided any reasons.

Why?

Because plants are under the guide of mother nature or the so called instinct. (ever heard of?)  

According to Wikipedia, personification of nature dates back to the ancient Greeks, wherein they personified nature as a god or goddess. Such personification of nature is not based on any reasoning or justification, and so is nothing more than a cultural convention.  The Greeks personified many inanimate and abstract entities as having personal natures.  Another example is the god Helios, whose traversal of the sky in a glowing golden chariot each day was the supposed explanation of the daily skyward journey of the sun.  It is no more reasonable to expect a god or goddess is behind nature on the basis of Greek mythology than it is to expect to see a golden chariot when we train our telescopes on the sun.  These are myths and stories, not an accounting of reality, and thus provide no support for your belief that your theory about vibrations and consciousness is correct.

As to your comment about instinct, it's worth noting that instinct typically refers to behaviors and inclinations that have a non-conscious or unconscious origin.  That certainly doesn't support your view.  Assuming instead that the word meant a behavior or inclination that has an origin in consciousness, it still wouldn't follow that this provides rational justification for believing that "vibrations" are a result of the effects of an inherent consciousness, as like personification above, the meaning of words is mere convention and doesn't imply any corresponding truth.  That we have the word "unicorn" meaning a horse-like creature with a single horn doesn't mean that our possessing such a word supports the belief that unicorns exist.

So neither the cultural meme of "Mother Nature," nor the meaning of the word instinct, provide any reason for believing your theory of the explanation of these "vibrations" over that of other explanations.

So you've yet to provide a good reason for believing that your theory is correct.

So far science has yet to established that there is no consciousness behind anything in this universe so your idea that things can react
without the need for a consciousness to be there is just a big big guess.
In the meantime I stick with the idea that a vehicle need a driver to operate.
If you on the other hand think that there is no need for a driver then by all means keep on thinking so.
I have no doubt however that your guess is totally bankrupt.  

Science has indeed yet to determine the true nature of these vibrations.  Again, the question wasn't about why science or myself believe what they do, but rather why you believe what you do.  You say that you have no doubt that a vehicle needs a driver, implying that theses vibrations need a mind or consciousness behind them, and that you are certain of it.  The question is what you rest your certainty on.  Do you have good reasons and evidence for your belief that these vibrations are like said vehicle in also needing a driver, or is it instead simply something you believe simply because it's what you've been told to believe, i.e. dogma?

Why do you believe that these vibrations are like a vehicle, in needing a driver or a mind behind them?

So who suppose to be this mother nature?
Father Christmas?
Certainly no because to run this universe a mastermind is needed.

Well, whether this universe needs a mind to run it is certainly the question of the day.  Merely asserting that it does so does nothing to further your arguments toward that end.  It is nothing more than a meaningless fart.  As noted above, the existence of a personifying mythos surrounding nature does nothing to support your belief that nature has such characteristics.  More to the point, as noted in my previous post, some Christians posit that there is a mind behind the behavior of matter in the universe, but the mind their religion refers to is not the same as the one which you propose, and for which, the universe is but a mental projection.  Thus with any support or evidence you provide, it is not sufficient that it support the existence of a generic, non-specific god, but that the support must lead inexorably toward your specific god and no other.

Obviously religions always try to diminish the role that God play so they can prop up their many dogmas in order to control people's mind.
The teachings of Jesus and other guru have very little to do with what religions say so who really care about religions?
As far as whether the universe need or doesn't need a mind to run it this again is quite easy to understand.
Lower form of life follow mother nature instinct but as soon as they build more awareness and turn into human automatically the free will intervene.
Wonder why yog?
This pattern follow same same our life as children where our parents lead us to adulthood and as soon as we grow up we decide what to do.
I guess you never though about it yog, did you?  

I am not concerned with religion per se, here, rather with the idea that a supernatural being who is independent of the universe is controlling the behavior of matter, and that is the will of this external god that is causing these vibrations to vibrate as they do.  This is a different theory than your own, as it doesn't require that the things vibrating be possessed of any consciousness.  I bring it up because I see no clear way to distinguish between your theory, and that theory, based solely from evidence about the vibrations themselves.

The rest of this reply is nothing more than more bare assertions like above.  I understand that you believe vibrations and lower life forms are such and so, etcetera, etcetera -- what I'm asking is your reasons and evidence for believing these things.  So far all you've done is regurgitate dogma.  If it's just dogma, then I suggest you own it and just admit as much.  Otherwise you need to demonstrate that you have good reasons and evidence for believing these things.  

So again, what are your reasons and evidence for believing that vibrations are alive?

The entropy BS has already been rejected as the ultimate BS so is obvious that mother nature is an alive entity.

Not so fast.  You asserted that the energy to run the universe had to come from somewhere outside the universe.  I countered that entropy would do the job.  At which point you asserted that "universal" entropy did not exist because the universe is a mental projection of God.  At which point I noted that you were claiming the existence of God in order to support an argument for the existence of God, and that if you had evidence of God in the first place, you wouldn't need the energy argument.  At that point you made an abortive attempt to claim that mathematics and such provided evidence for the existence of God.  Upon asking for said evidence, you basically changed the subject and shut up about any such evidence.

So, you may have rejected the entropy argument, but a rejection based on nothing doesn't hold up.  So I'm still waiting for that evidence you claimed you had but didn't deliver.  Until you do, the question of whether the universe is a mental projection of God remains an open question.  Until you provide such evidence, the entropy explanation stands unanswered.

Now you are very funny yog.  

You are not very observant.
Everything in this universe move and change.
You put food in your mouth and guess what?
This food sooner or later will have to exit your body.
This is the law of the universe.
Small form of consciousness sooner or later grow and grow so one day they too will have to leave this universe.
Nothing stay in the same place for ever whether is food or consciousness that is why entropy is a load of BS.

I'm coming to the conclusion that you don't even know what entropy is.  Motion, change, eating of food and digesting it -- all these are examples of processes involving changes in entropy.  Again with the analogies.  When you analogize that consciousness is like food in that it must be digested and expelled, then you are making an assertion.  I'm not interested in your unsupported assertions, as they don't provide any reason or evidence for what you believe.  Anyone can assert things without reason, and anyone can assert the exact opposite.  If there are no reasons or evidence attached to either assertion, then there is no rational justification for believing the one rather than the other.  It becomes mere dogma.  You've made a bunch of assertions without reasons or evidence supporting them.  Until you provide good reasons and evidence, you do not have rational justification for your belief, and so can be summarily dismissed.

Regardless, the point is, you haven't given reasons and evidence for your belief that the universe is a mental projection of God, so your counter-argument to the explanation that entropy drives the universe is a mere inconsequential fart.  You believe in your God.  Yahoo!  That's your dogma, that the universe is a mental projection of your god.  If you want it to be more than dogma, you have to supply compelling reasons and evidence for your belief.  Until you do, I'll just shrug my shoulders and dismiss your belief.

I suggest you just leave "entropy" alone.  You only make yourself look foolish when you talk about it.  Stick to the questions you have yet to answer:

1.  What evidence and reasons do you have for believing that "vibrations are alive", that matter is like a child, or a vehicle, or any of a billion other things you might assert that matter / vibrations are like, as they all are saying the same thing.  Simply repeating these assertions isn't providing evidence or reasons for why you feel vibrations are "like" this.  Until you do, your belief appears to be just dogma.  Why do you believe vibrations are alive?

2.  Why do you believe that the universe is a mental projection of your god?  

Regardless, I'm still without a credible answer as to how you know that your theory of these "vibrations" is correct?

Little kids are not yet able to express as adults do yet there is consciousness in them.
Vibrations follow the same principle.
You find something that move on their own accord without having a consciousness and I will cover you in pure gold.  

As noted above, saying that vibrations are like little children is just begging the question.  It's merely an assertion in disguise.  Saying that vibrations are like such and so is not the same as providing reasons and evidence for believing the two are alike.  I'm interested in your reasons, not bare assertions.

Obvious things do not need so much evidence at all but people who born skeptic of course goes overboard and need evidence, evidence and more evidence until their brain goes insane and need evidence for stupid things as well.

"It's obvious!"  The last defense of dogma.  You know what I hear when someone like you says that something is obvious?  I hear that you are admitting that you don't have good reasons for believing what you do.  This is lame.  

If you don't have reasons and evidence for saying that vibrations are alive, and your only defense is the absurd claim that it's "obvious," then the thing which is truly obvious is that your belief is dogma, and your ideas about how the system works rest on a foundation of dogma.  If the only basis of your beliefs are that they are "obvious" to you, then you have no basis for your beliefs.  Yoga then is nothing more than a bunch of religious dogma kept alive by believing idiots like you.

So I'll ask you again, since you've yet to really answer the question -- what evidence and reasons do you have for believing that vibrations are alive?

[Little Rik]

Because your aim is to try to come up with one more dogma which is that there is no need for consciousness.
Of course it is true that low form of life........behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so.......but in your statement you miss the point.
You miss the fact that low form of life are like small children that need the guidance of their parents.
Have you ever seen babies able to grow to adulthood by themselves?
Mother nature just cover that job.
That doesn't mean that little things are void of consciousness.
Matter is energy-consciousness in a slumber-latent stage.
Consciousness is not express yet but is there however.  

Your attempt at mind reading is impressive -- impressively funny.  My aim was plainly stated, and that was what reason you had for believing your theory is correct.  Your attempt to make this about me is just your usual shenanigans.  You claimed that "vibrations" are alive.  If you don't have good reasons for believing that, then your belief that vibrations imply consciousness is just dogma.  Assuming you are a typical proponent of yoga, it stands to reason that yoga as a whole is based primarily on dogma, as this belief about vibrations seems fundamental to your entire description of "how the system works."

You suggest that these vibrations are like little children.  Besides noting that this is merely an unsupported assertion, the fact is that we know that little children are conscious and needing of guidance, so your likening them to little children is nothing more than begging the question.  You need to show good reason for believing they are like little children, i.e. conscious, before you can draw conclusions based upon such a supposed similarity.  

The rest here is more bare assertions.  I know that you believe that matter is conscious.  The question was whether you have good reasons for believing this, or is it just dogma.  So far you haven't provided any reasons.

So far science has yet to established that there is no consciousness behind anything in this universe so your idea that things can react
without the need for a consciousness to be there is just a big big guess.
In the meantime I stick with the idea that a vehicle need a driver to operate.
If you on the other hand think that there is no need for a driver then by all means keep on thinking so.
I have no doubt however that your guess is totally bankrupt.  

Science has indeed yet to determine the true nature of these vibrations.  Again, the question wasn't about why science or myself believe what they do, but rather why you believe what you do.  You say that you have no doubt that a vehicle needs a driver, implying that theses vibrations need a mind or consciousness behind them, and that you are certain of it.  The question is what you rest your certainty on.  Do you have good reasons and evidence for your belief that these vibrations are like said vehicle in also needing a driver, or is it instead simply something you believe simply because it's what you've been told to believe, i.e. dogma?

Why do you believe that these vibrations are like a vehicle, in needing a driver or a mind behind them?

Obviously religions always try to diminish the role that God play so they can prop up their many dogmas in order to control people's mind.
The teachings of Jesus and other guru have very little to do with what religions say so who really care about religions?
As far as whether the universe need or doesn't need a mind to run it this again is quite easy to understand.
Lower form of life follow mother nature instinct but as soon as they build more awareness and turn into human automatically the free will intervene.
Wonder why yog?
This pattern follow same same our life as children where our parents lead us to adulthood and as soon as we grow up we decide what to do.
I guess you never though about it yog, did you?  

I am not concerned with religion per se, here, rather with the idea that a supernatural being who is independent of the universe is controlling the behavior of matter, and that is the will of this external god that is causing these vibrations to vibrate as they do.  This is a different theory than your own, as it doesn't require that the things vibrating be possessed of any consciousness.  I bring it up because I see no clear way to distinguish between your theory, and that theory, based solely from evidence about the vibrations themselves.

The rest of this reply is nothing more than more bare assertions like above.  I understand that you believe vibrations and lower life forms are such and so, etcetera, etcetera -- what I'm asking is your reasons and evidence for believing these things.  So far all you've done is regurgitate dogma.  If it's just dogma, then I suggest you own it and just admit as much.  Otherwise you need to demonstrate that you have good reasons and evidence for believing these things.  

So again, what are your reasons and evidence for believing that vibrations are alive?

Now you are very funny yog.  

You are not very observant.
Everything in this universe move and change.
You put food in your mouth and guess what?
This food sooner or later will have to exit your body.
This is the law of the universe.
Small form of consciousness sooner or later grow and grow so one day they too will have to leave this universe.
Nothing stay in the same place for ever whether is food or consciousness that is why entropy is a load of BS.

I'm coming to the conclusion that you don't even know what entropy is.  Motion, change, eating of food and digesting it -- all these are examples of processes involving changes in entropy.  Again with the analogies.  When you analogize that consciousness is like food in that it must be digested and expelled, then you are making an assertion.  I'm not interested in your unsupported assertions, as they don't provide any reason or evidence for what you believe.  Anyone can assert things without reason, and anyone can assert the exact opposite.  If there are no reasons or evidence attached to either assertion, then there is no rational justification for believing the one rather than the other.  It becomes mere dogma.  You've made a bunch of assertions without reasons or evidence supporting them.  Until you provide good reasons and evidence, you do not have rational justification for your belief, and so can be summarily dismissed.

Regardless, the point is, you haven't given reasons and evidence for your belief that the universe is a mental projection of God, so your counter-argument to the explanation that entropy drives the universe is a mere inconsequential fart.  You believe in your God.  Yahoo!  That's your dogma, that the universe is a mental projection of your god.  If you want it to be more than dogma, you have to supply compelling reasons and evidence for your belief.  Until you do, I'll just shrug my shoulders and dismiss your belief.

I suggest you just leave "entropy" alone.  You only make yourself look foolish when you talk about it.  Stick to the questions you have yet to answer:

1.  What evidence and reasons do you have for believing that "vibrations are alive", that matter is like a child, or a vehicle, or any of a billion other things you might assert that matter / vibrations are like, as they all are saying the same thing.  Simply repeating these assertions isn't providing evidence or reasons for why you feel vibrations are "like" this.  Until you do, your belief appears to be just dogma.  Why do you believe vibrations are alive?

2.  Why do you believe that the universe is a mental projection of your god?  

Little kids are not yet able to express as adults do yet there is consciousness in them.
Vibrations follow the same principle.
You find something that move on their own accord without having a consciousness and I will cover you in pure gold.  

As noted above, saying that vibrations are like little children is just begging the question.  It's merely an assertion in disguise.  Saying that vibrations are like such and so is not the same as providing reasons and evidence for believing the two are alike.  I'm interested in your reasons, not bare assertions.

Obvious things do not need so much evidence at all but people who born skeptic of course goes overboard and need evidence, evidence and more evidence until their brain goes insane and need evidence for stupid things as well.

"It's obvious!"  The last defense of dogma.  You know what I hear when someone like you says that something is obvious?  I hear that you are admitting that you don't have good reasons for believing what you do.  This is lame.  

If you don't have reasons and evidence for saying that vibrations are alive, and your only defense is the absurd claim that it's "obvious," then the thing which is truly obvious is that your belief is dogma, and your ideas about how the system works rest on a foundation of dogma.  If the only basis of your beliefs are that they are "obvious" to you, then you have no basis for your beliefs.  Yoga then is nothing more than a bunch of religious dogma kept alive by believing idiots like you.

So I'll ask you again, since you've yet to really answer the question -- what evidence and reasons do you have for believing that vibrations are alive?

For Santa's sake can't you go in your search engine and find that out for yourself?
By the way who said that science is still unaware of vibrations?

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=vibra...8AePvIugCw


https://www.google.com.au/search?q=vibra...8AeBqpaQCw

[The Grand Nudger]

Vibrations are a scientific conspiracy to conceal the true nature of life.  It's all karma, all the way down.  Karma karmas the karma things with karma.

[Little Rik]

Vibrations are a scientific conspiracy to conceal the true nature of life.  It's all karma, all the way down.  Karma karmas the karma things with karma.

Well, well, well...........

Here we got the expert in......true nature of life.  
Please Mr. expert tell us what it is this true nature of life.  

[The Grand Nudger]

Stop trying to assert your materialistic dogma about this alleged "nature".  There is no nature, and no vibrations.  It's all karma.. you can't prove it isn't.