Evolution

[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