Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:15 AM, GuruRatings wrote: > > > Message: 11 > > Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:07:53 -0000 > > " praybob " <gnuteller > > God's scientist receives supreme award > > > > > > P: He failed to see, or say, that the complexity > and vastness of the universe, is the best > refutation for the existence of an omnipotent > creator, because if He were omnipotent what > need could be for such delicate, perishable > bodies to sustain consciousness? Could not an > omnipotent creator have designed a consciousness > which didn't need perishable messy bodies? > > That's where all idealist theories of a universal, eternal > Consciousness come crashing down, if that were so, > why does it need fleshy bodies? > > NNB > Does God Exist? Yes, Mathematician Says By Kathy Gilsinan Spectator Staff Writer February 17, 2004 http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9 166ab57 Aristotle and Descartes would be pleased to hear Dr. William Hatcher proclaim that even God Himself cannot defy logic. Hatcher, who is a self-proclaimed Platonist philosopher with a Ph.D. in mathematics, delivered a logical proof for the existence of God before an over-filled auditorium in Warren Hall last night. The event marked the first in what the Baha'i student organization hopes will be a series of discussions about religion, science, and philosophy, and how the three topics interrelate. " We just felt like there wasn't enough discussion on campus " about these matters, said Natasha Bruss, BC '05, President of the Baha'i club at Columbia. Baha'i is based on the teachings of the prophet Baha'u'llah, who preached that all religions are one, religion is progressive, and that faith is not meant to be dogmatic. Hatcher, a Baha'i adherent himself, is similarly uninterested in dogma. His discussion explored the existence of God and carefully shied away from any of its implications. Rather, he stated, " we have to transform the religious discourse from a discourse about belief to a discourse about truth. " To that end, Hatcher began his discussion with an introduction to Aristotlean, or attributional, logic and its shortcomings. Aristotle purported to have proven the existence of God, but he did so based on a kind of logic that deals with properties of objects, an approach, he argued, that's less than satisfying considering that God's attributes cannot be perceived. Aristotle insisted that there must be a first cause, namely God, in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies of an infinite regress of causes for the universe. Avicenna, an ancient Muslim philosopher, employed a different form of logic in his proof. He examined the relations between objects rather than their attributes, and in doing so accomplished what Hatcher called " really amazing stuff. " He claimed to have proved the existence of God without recourse to Aristotle's infinite regression principle. Hatcher said that though many subsequent philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and Moses Maimonedes built on Avicenna's proof, they continued to fall back on the infinite regression principle. Hatcher argued that this principle is not sufficient to prove the necessity of God's existence. Modern mathematics demonstrates the logical possibility of infinite regression; negative integers, for instance, do not have a minimal element or something that can be labeled a " first cause. " Thus, Hatcher has attempted to wed modern mathematics and ancient philosophy in a proof of God's existence, drawing on Avicenna's concept of relational logic. " In relational logic, we want to know how the object relates to other objects. It turns out that the relational approach often yields more useful information [than Aristotlean attributional logic]. " The proof itself rests on four principles, the first of which is the assertion that something exists. Even if the world is an illusion, he pointed out, an illusory self, contemplating an illusory universe, is still something that exists. Further, he said, everything that exists does so because of some cause, and the " principle of sufficient reason " states that every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both. " Everything that exists has to have a reason for existing, " he said. Working from these principles, Hatcher first defined what he called " the minimum criteria for Godhood, " and then set about trying to prove the existence of a phenomenon to fit those criteria. God, he said, must exist and be unique, and must be self-caused as well as being the cause of everything else. " Every existing phenomenon is the end effect of a causal chain of possibly infinite length, starting with God, " he said. He then delved into Avicenna's discussion of the part-whole relationship. " All known physical phenomena are composites, except possibly the elementary particles of quantum mechanics, " he stated. Thus, if A is a component of B, then B is composite, and furthermore a composite cannot be a cause of one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place. From these definitions, he said, one can infer that the universe is a composite of all phenomena. He inferred that the universe itself, then, cannot bring any of its own components into being, as it could not have existed before the existence of the components. Then, the universe could similarly not be self-caused, since it is caused by the aggregation of its components, and so there must be some object, G, that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. G must then be universal because it is a cause, directly or indirectly, of every component in the universe. He concluded that G is the unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else. Hatcher said that the strength of the proof is that each assumption it rests on is empirically grounded and is " far more reasonable than its negation. " David Kline, CC '07, said he was impressed, even though he felt that the logical proof of God, far from justifying faith, only requires a different kind of faith. But, with that faith in reason so characteristic of Columbia students, he said he appreciated that the talk was " a purely logical representation of the existence of God and not the meaning of God. " > > > > Richest grant goes to cosmologist who says religion best explains laws > > of universe > > > > MICHAEL VALPY > > > > From Thursday's Globe and Mail > > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/ > > RTGAM.20060316.wxtheory16/BNStory/International/home > > > > > > Cambridge University cosmologist and mathematician John Barrow was > > awarded $1.6-million yesterday to do research into whether God is > > sitting at the control panel behind the Theory of Everything about the > > universe. > > > > He won the 2006 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or > > Discoveries about Spiritual Realities, the world's richest individual > > scholarly research grant. Its initiator, mutual-fund investor Sir John > > Templeton, specified that it be worth more than the Nobel Prize (which > > is worth about $1.5-million) so the media would take it seriously. > > > > Dr. Barrow, 53, author of 17 books and one play (about infinity), > > believes that monotheistic religious thought about God and creation > > offers a better explanation than anything else, including most > > science, of how the universe works. > > > > > > He is one of the leading proponents of the anthropic principle of the > > universe, the dials-set-right idea -- the notion that the universe is, > > in Goldilocks's words, " just right " for life on Earth. Because if it > > were a little bigger or smaller, a little colder or warmer, a little > > younger or older, then life wouldn't exist. > > > > His ideas and research fit to a T many theologians' underlying notions > > of the new cosmology, the idea that, because the universe did not > > create itself, it must have a cause separate from itself. Or as one of > > them, reading Dr. Barrow's acceptance speech for his award, said > > admiringly: " I wish I'd said that. " > > > > Dr. Barrow is director of Cambridge's Millennium Mathematics Project > > and Gresham professor of astronomy at London's Gresham College, the > > world's oldest science professorship, founded in 1596. > > > > He has been a popular writer in Britain since the publication of his > > 1986 book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, co-authored with > > mathematician Frank Tipler, and has lectured on cosmology at the > > Venice Film Festival, 10 Downing St., Windsor Castle and the Vatican. > > > > His most recent book is The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the > > Boundless, Timeless and Endless. His 2002 play, Infinities, was a > > smash hit for the two seasons it ran at Milan's La Scala. > > > > Dr. Barrow said in an interview yesterday he is not sure yet how he > > will use the money. He also said he doesn't think the U.S.-based John > > Templeton Foundation, which oversees selection of the award's annual > > winner, had any particular expectations of what research he would do. > > > > The essence of his research, as he put it, is the quest for the simple > > laws -- " perhaps just one law " -- that lie behind all the complexities > > of the universe, " like the laws of nature that are so impressively, > > beautifully symmetrical, but can have such highly irregular, > > asymmetrical outcomes. " > > > > What has attracted the Templeton Foundation is his engagement with the > > structure of the universe and its laws that make life possible, as > > well as the multidisciplinary perspectives he has developed on the > > limits of scientific explanation and the mysteries of nothingness and > > infinity. > > > > " Over the past 75 years, " he says, " astronomers have illuminated the > > vault of the heavens in a completely unexpected way. " > > > > They have found, he says, a universe not only bigger than was once > > thought, but getting bigger. They have found that life on Earth > > comprises complicated atoms of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen whose > > nuclei took almost 10 billion years to be formed by " stellar alchemy " > > before being blasted through the universe by the explosions of dying > > stars. > > > > " So you begin to understand why it is no surprise that the universe > > seems so big and so old. It takes nearly 10 billion years to make the > > building blocks of living complexity in the stars and, because the > > universe is expanding, it must be at least 10 billion light years in > > size. We could not exist in a universe that was significantly smaller. > > > > " The vastness of the universe is often cited as evidence for the > > extreme likelihood of life elsewhere. [but] while there may be life, > > even conscious life, elsewhere, sheer size is not compelling. The > > universe needs to be billions of light years in size just to support > > one lonely outpost of life. " > > > > Dr. Barrow says that astronomy's revelations -- that a big, old, dark, > > cold universe with its planets and stars and galaxies separated by > > vast distances is necessary for the creation and existence of > > pinpricks of life -- have " transformed the simple- minded, > > life-averse, meaningless universe of the skeptical philosophers. > > > > " It breathes new life into so many religious questions of ultimate > > concern and never-ending fascination. Many of the deepest and most > > engaging questions that we grapple with still about the nature of the > > universe have their origins in our purely religious quest for meaning. > > > > " We see now how it is possible for a universe that displays unending > > complexity and exquisite structure to be governed by a few simple laws > > that are symmetrical and intelligible, laws which govern the most > > remarkable things in our universe -- populations of elementary > > 'particles' that are everywhere perfectly identical. > > > > " There are some who say that just because we use our minds to > > appreciate the order and complexity of the universe around us, there > > is nothing more to that order than what is imposed by the human mind. > > That is a serious misjudgment. " > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 P: The argument below, is flawed,IMO, because it introduces the notions of parts or components which are unnecessary in Advaita. The One doesn't have parts or ever created any thing. What is seen as objects are not parts but behaviors/ movements of the whole. NNB > Does God Exist? Yes, Mathematician Says By Kathy Gilsinan Spectator Staff Writer February 17, 2004 http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9 166ab57 Aristotle and Descartes would be pleased to hear Dr. William Hatcher proclaim that even God Himself cannot defy logic. Hatcher, who is a self-proclaimed Platonist philosopher with a Ph.D. in mathematics, delivered a logical proof for the existence of God before an over-filled auditorium in Warren Hall last night. The event marked the first in what the Baha'i student organization hopes will be a series of discussions about religion, science, and philosophy, and how the three topics interrelate. " We just felt like there wasn't enough discussion on campus " about these matters, said Natasha Bruss, BC '05, President of the Baha'i club at Columbia. Baha'i is based on the teachings of the prophet Baha'u'llah, who preached that all religions are one, religion is progressive, and that faith is not meant to be dogmatic. Hatcher, a Baha'i adherent himself, is similarly uninterested in dogma. His discussion explored the existence of God and carefully shied away from any of its implications. Rather, he stated, " we have to transform the religious discourse from a discourse about belief to a discourse about truth. " To that end, Hatcher began his discussion with an introduction to Aristotlean, or attributional, logic and its shortcomings. Aristotle purported to have proven the existence of God, but he did so based on a kind of logic that deals with properties of objects, an approach, he argued, that's less than satisfying considering that God's attributes cannot be perceived. Aristotle insisted that there must be a first cause, namely God, in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies of an infinite regress of causes for the universe. Avicenna, an ancient Muslim philosopher, employed a different form of logic in his proof. He examined the relations between objects rather than their attributes, and in doing so accomplished what Hatcher called " really amazing stuff. " He claimed to have proved the existence of God without recourse to Aristotle's infinite regression principle. Hatcher said that though many subsequent philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and Moses Maimonedes built on Avicenna's proof, they continued to fall back on the infinite regression principle. Hatcher argued that this principle is not sufficient to prove the necessity of God's existence. Modern mathematics demonstrates the logical possibility of infinite regression; negative integers, for instance, do not have a minimal element or something that can be labeled a " first cause. " Thus, Hatcher has attempted to wed modern mathematics and ancient philosophy in a proof of God's existence, drawing on Avicenna's concept of relational logic. " In relational logic, we want to know how the object relates to other objects. It turns out that the relational approach often yields more useful information [than Aristotlean attributional logic]. " The proof itself rests on four principles, the first of which is the assertion that something exists. Even if the world is an illusion, he pointed out, an illusory self, contemplating an illusory universe, is still something that exists. Further, he said, everything that exists does so because of some cause, and the " principle of sufficient reason " states that every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both. " Everything that exists has to have a reason for existing, " he said. Working from these principles, Hatcher first defined what he called " the minimum criteria for Godhood, " and then set about trying to prove the existence of a phenomenon to fit those criteria. God, he said, must exist and be unique, and must be self-caused as well as being the cause of everything else. " Every existing phenomenon is the end effect of a causal chain of possibly infinite length, starting with God, " he said. He then delved into Avicenna's discussion of the part-whole relationship. " All known physical phenomena are composites, except possibly the elementary particles of quantum mechanics, " he stated. Thus, if A is a component of B, then B is composite, and furthermore a composite cannot be a cause of one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place. From these definitions, he said, one can infer that the universe is a composite of all phenomena. He inferred that the universe itself, then, cannot bring any of its own components into being, as it could not have existed before the existence of the components. Then, the universe could similarly not be self-caused, since it is caused by the aggregation of its components, and so there must be some object, G, that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. G must then be universal because it is a cause, directly or indirectly, of every component in the universe. He concluded that G is the unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else. Hatcher said that the strength of the proof is that each assumption it rests on is empirically grounded and is " far more reasonable than its negation. " David Kline, CC '07, said he was impressed, even though he felt that the logical proof of God, far from justifying faith, only requires a different kind of faith. But, with that faith in reason so characteristic of Columbia students, he said he appreciated that the talk was " a purely logical representation of the existence of God and not the meaning of God. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > P: The argument below, is flawed,IMO, because it introduces > the notions of parts or components which are unnecessary > in Advaita. The One doesn't have parts or ever created any > thing. What is seen as objects are not parts but behaviors/ > movements of the whole. > > NNB > I agree with YO Pete.Notions themselves are problematical.Even the notion of the One, the Whole or the Parts/ Components. These are contingent considerations, existing only in Relation.Of course the referents unto themselves have relative meaning as in subject/object field matrices of any all possible natures. The One, only by contextual definition can be considered as possesing movement or behaviors,both terms are terms in relation only. This factor alone precludes a considered Oneness or Wholeness as being condusive to any limiting language based analogy or developmental,time structured quality or essential particularization.Mathematically too this is not only an assumption but a delineating Absolute when considering qualia of Transfinite or Infinite meaning.However we dare to speak further.In Advaitan thought, the problem of the One and Many has hardly been left unconsidered, undiscussed or unobscured as to be able to set out the statement that " notions of Parts/Components " are unnecessary in Advaita. SankarAcArya, following the upanishads, asserts that the sole cause of the universe is the One brahman that is really nirguNa. The problem with asserting One brahman that is without parts, changeless and eternal, as the only cause of the universe is this - the universe is normally perceived to be full of many separate parts which change all the time, and has little that is eternal in it. How is it that the changeless and non-relational brahman produces the variegated universe? This is related to the larger philosophical problem of change and continuity, which had historically played such a big role in Indian thinking that many buddhist schools had denied that an eternal entity like brahman could even exist. Moreover, in the buddhist schools, the notion of an Atman is itself an erroneous concept, because everything was defined to be momentary. Among the brahminical schools, the nyAya and vaiSeshika schools handled the problem of change by postulating atoms (aNus) as the unit constituents of any entity. Transformation and change were explained by means of combinations of integral numbers of atoms (dvayaNuka, trayaNuka etc.), and the individual Atman was also supposed to be atomic in size and qualities. A creator God (ISvara) was arrived at by an inferential argument, on the premise that everything must have a cause of some sort, so that the cause of the universe is God. This inferred ISvara was then identified with the brahman of the vedas. The yoga and sAm.khya schools postulated ultimate reality to be a duality of purusha and prakRti. The purusha was said to be changeless and the one undergoing bondage and liberation owing to contact with or withdrawal from prakRti. All change was then described as the working of prakRti, which deluded the purusha into activity and thus into bondage (bandha). Liberation (moksha) for the purusha arose only when the purusha dissociated completely from the workings of prakRti. Meanwhile, the position of a creator God remained ambivalent in the sAm.khya system. Most classical sAm.khya authors denied the necessity of an ISvara, while some were willing to postulate ISvara as an eternally liberated purusha. The yoga system, as expounded in the yoga-sUtras of patanjali, accepted ISvara and made ISvara-praNidhana an essential aspect of yogic sAdhana. The pUrva mImAm.sA system was concerned primarily with asserting the eternal value of the vedas, and interpreted everything in the vedas in the context of ritual action. Consequently, impelling the listener to action was asserted to be the over-riding purpose of the vedas. The fruit of the ritual action was also mentioned in the same vedas, and the highest fruit that was obtainable by the proper performance of ritual action was heaven. On this view, the individual Atman attained heaven by the performance of Vedic ritual, and returned to the cycle of rebirths otherwise. On the other hand, the aupanishada tradition which gave birth to the mature vedAnta systems asserted an eternal Atman forcefully. This Atman was also held to be beyond birth and death. Physical death only meant that the Atman took another body. Moreover, the upanishads declare the Atman to be ultimately the same as the One brahman which is the sole cause of the universe. The upanishads relate a higher vision that is mystic and that does not demand to be logically substantiated. The problem of the one brahman creating the diverse universe was handled by means of various analogies, as in the chAndogya upanishad. The nature of the Indian philosophical traditions, however, required every new teacher to not only relate his vision of reality, but also to substantiate it by logical arguments. The naiyyAyikas, the buddhists and the grammarians had developed methods of logical analysis, including inducto- deductive reasoning, evaluating the validity of cognitions with a consistent theory of language and meaning, and rigorous requirements of consistency and non-contradiction. Analogies did play an important part in the logical analysis, but the spirit of the times called for more intellectual speculation and rationalization. This was the prime motivation for bAdarAyaNa's brahmasUtras, which attempted to harmonize the many teachings of the upanishads into one consistent system. The brahmasUtras are therefore called the nyAya-prasthAna (not to be confused with the independent philosophical system of the nyAya). The gauDapAdIya kArikAs and Sankara's bhAshyas follow in the same spirit. In establishing the main tenets of advaita vedAnta, Sankara drew upon mImAm.sA theories of perception and language, and sAm.khya notions of the transformations of prakRti. He also gave a place for yogic practice in his system, and used nyAya methods of inferential reasoning wherever appropriate. This was coupled with a critique of the logical shortcomings of these systems and rejecting those tenets which were not in accordance with the thought of the upanishads. Thus, for example, he accepted mImAm.sA rules of exegesis, but pointed out that their applicability was limited largely to the karma- kANDa, the upanishads requiring different methods of interpretation. Similarly, he denied an independent existence to the sAm.khyan prakRti, and in his analysis of the relation of the universe to brahman, made the equivalent mAyA completely dependent upon the reality of brahman. maNDAna miSra, Sankara's contemporary, also developed powerful arguments that denied ultimate reality to difference. Between Sankara and maNDana, advaita vedAnta became the most important school of vedAnta, and indeed of all Indian philosophical thought. However, after this time, the followers of rival schools started re-evaluating their positions, modifying their views and began posing new objections to advaita. The later teachers in the advaita tradition lived and worked in such a milieu. Among the works of Sankara's immediate disciples (8th century CE), toTaka's SrutisArasamuddhAraNa did not attract sub-commentaries from later authors, while no texts attributed to hastAmalaka were widely known. sureSvara's upanishad-bhAshya-vArttikAs and the naishkarmayasiddhi, and padmapAda's pancapAdikA influenced the course of post-Sankaran advaita vedAnta significantly. Soon after their time, vAcaspati miSra (9th century CE), wrote his bhAmatI commentary on Sankara's brahmasUtra bhAshya, and prakASAtman (10th century CE) wrote a vivaraNa to the pancapAdikA. Later authors sometimes wrote independent treatises of their own, but more often chose an earlier text to comment upon, thus building up sets of commentaries and sub- commentaries, which make the philosophical views of the sub-schools clearer. These authors may be classified under four heads for the sake of convenience - those who closely followed sureSvara's line of thought (e.g. sarvajnAtman, madhusUdana sarasvatI), those who followed the pancapAdikA and prAkASAtman's vivaraNa commentary thereon (the vivaraNa school), those who followed vAcaspati's line (the bhAmatI sub-school), and those who made independent critiques of difference and thus established non-duality (e.g. SrIharsha and citsukha). Both the bhAmatI and vivaraNa lines base themselves upon differing interpretations of SankarAcArya's brahmasUtra bhAshya. Since the brahmasUtras continued to be the defining source for all vedAnta schools, the bhAmatI and vivaraNa schools attained the most prominence in the dialogue that developed between advaita and rival vedAnta schools on the one hand, and advaita vedAnta and non-vedAnta schools on the other. Or in a Seinfeld Moment a singular statement, i.e. " Yada Yada Yada " , is of consequence and variance in the twinkling of time that is our common inheritance of existent moment....wink,wink....bubaloo bob (with apologies to the wiesenboden weirdness) Whereby the Larrys of the world[that is not!] are not amused..bn > > Does God Exist? Yes, Mathematician Says > By Kathy Gilsinan > Spectator Staff Writer > February 17, 2004 > > > http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9 > 166ab57 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Antwan Penn <esiasemanuel@> wrote: > > > > huum, > > awake-- > > a lie to oneself within the unity of a single consciousness. Through bad faith a person > seeks to escape the responsible freedom of being-for-it-self. Bad faith rests on a vacillation > between transcendence and facticity which refuses to recognize either one for what it really > is or to synthesize them. > > > > > > > paaaainnting shadows on the wall.............. > > > > ) > that don't bother me at all... Playing Solitaire till dawn, With a deck of fifty-one. Smoking cigarettes and watching Captain Kangaroo. Now, don't tell me I've nothing to do. Last night I dressed in tails, pretended I was on the town. As long as I can dream, it's hard to slow this swinger down. So please don't give a thought to me, I'm really doing fine. You can always find me here, having quite a time. Now, don't tell me I've nothing to do. Not a canned response. More of a reactive association..bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 In a message dated 3/16/2006 11:10:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:07:52 -0800 Pete S <pedsie5 Re: God's Scientist P: He failed to see, or say, that the complexity and vastness of the universe, is the best refutation for the existence of an omnipotent creator, because if He were omnipotent what need could be for such delicate, perishable bodies to sustain consciousness? Could not an omnipotent creator have designed a consciousness which didn't need perishable messy bodies? That's where all idealist theories of a universal, eternal Consciousness come crashing down, if that were so, why does it need fleshy bodies? Not only does the argument contain faulty assumptions, it's based on it's own conclusion. It's only potentially valid if the human creature is a product of nature developing without interference from a creator. As a created object, the human no more has the ability to divine the meaning and purpose of it's creator than your car has the ability to understand you. However, it's easy enough to poke holes in the rigid assumptions made. 1) The fact of human existence doesn't presume need on the part of the creator. Creation arises as an actuality out of infinite potentiality. (It happens simply because it can.) 2) The assumption is made that the intention for the human object is to sustain consciousness. Nothing is required to sustain consciousness. How could this be so if consciousness must exist in order to create the human. Rather, consciousness sustains the human. 3) The assumption is made that God would surely create something nonperishable and clean. Why? Is God an efficient neat freak? There is no separation between the physical, emotional and mental aspects of human experience. Thought affects feeling which affects the physical, which in turn affects feeling and thought. And so, as an experiential vehicle, the " messy " , " perishable " human body is an ideal vehicle, expressing/experiencing itself in every possible dimension. It's also not difficult to understand that immortality is not conducive to either physical or spiritual evolution. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.