Evolution

[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.