God Exists

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

One uses the computers rather as metaphors for the brain and vice versa.
I do not think the comparison is apt. However, your points are noted.
Though Computers can imitate like brain; it can only in a limited ways.
Brain has its own significance, without its assistance, computer can not
independently work.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[arunshanker]

Evolution and the complexity of the brain

The most defining biological attribute of Homo sapiens is its enormous brain size and accompanying cognitive prowess. How this was achieved by means of genetic changes over the course of human evolution has fascinated biologists and the general public alike. Recent studies have shown that genes controlling brain development are favoured targets of natural selection during human evolution.
Genes that control the size and complexity of the brain have undergone much more rapid evolution in humans than in non-human primates or other mammals. Major events in recent human evolution may reflect the action of strong selective forces, including the appearance of the genus Homo about 2 million years ago, a major expansion of the brain beginning about a half million years ago, and the appearance of anatomically modern humans about 150,000 years ago.
It has been found that human evolution did not occur in one swoop, given that the brain is such a complex organ.
Why the human lineage experienced such intensified selection for better brains but not other species is an open question. Answers to this important question will come not just from the biological sciences but from the social sciences as well. It is perhaps the complex social structures and cultural behaviors unique in human ancestors that fueled the rapid evolution of the brain.
Please see this Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics
Sandra L. Gilbert, William B. Dobyns & Bruce T. Lahn 2005 Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution Nature Reviews Genetics 6, 581-590
If you need full text send PM to me I will send it you by mail

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Arun Shanker, Greetings.

( Sorry, I was spelling your second name wrongly in the previous posts. My apologies).

One of the reasons for the rapid evolution by the way of cognitive prowess was horizontal sharing of information instead of vertical sharing. Knowledge reached rapidly across to a larger number of homo sapines.

Cheers!

 

[arunshanker]

Sri. Arun Shanker, Greetings.

( Sorry, I was spelling your second name wrongly in the previous posts. My apologies).

One of the reasons for the rapid evolution by the way of cognitive prowess was horizontal sharing of information instead of vertical sharing. Knowledge reached rapidly across to a larger number of homo sapines.

Cheers!

Yes
Thanks for interesting point
In gene–culture coevolution information and behaviour is acquired through social learning
I am reading
I see that vertical transmission is passing cultural traits from parents to offspring;
Oblique transmission is passing cultural traits from any member of an older generation to a younger generation
Horizontal transmission is passing traits between members of the same population
So here culture is an evolutionary process that is distinct from genetic transmission.

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Balasubramanian, Greetings.

It may be quite true God created the first computer, a brain. But the discussion is not restricted to that. Discussion is about evolution. Kindly imagine, a brand new computer is given to someone ( possibly myself); that means nothing. Still that computer has to be loaded with various programmes and functions before it camn operate. It can become quite smart depending upon the programmes loaded in the hard drive and it's CPU, I suppose.. whatever makes it run. That is the evolution we are talking about.

God is an unknown quantity. Everytime we bring God to the discussion, such discussion would falter. I think, we should send God away on a holiday and cotinue the discussion from a much later date than the date of creation. ( I know, the topic of the discussion is "God"; still God could go on a holiday!).

Cheers!

 

[arunshanker]

nannilam_balasubramanian’s post indicates that he is supporting or believes in the Intelligent design (ID) which is a form of creationism defined as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Stephen C. Meyer in an article entitled “Not by chance: From bacterial propulsion systems to human DNA, evidence of intelligent design is everywhere” says somthing to that effect. It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".

This idea propose a theistic realism or theistic science
The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favour of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism
There are several arguments and counter arguments for this proposition
One of them is the God of the gap argument
There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
The gap is filled with acts of God (or intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or intelligent designer).
The other argument by the scientific community is if there is a creator who can create complex things then the creator himself/herself/itself should be more complex and if so somebody should have created the creator himself/herself/itself.

 

[zebra16]

I thought for a while why this thread "God Exists" gets revived periodically. My opinion is as under:

1. There are some posters who are inclined towards metaphysics and spiritual subjects. As the posts in these threads do not get adequate response (knowledge-wise) to take it to the next level, theistic discussion takes place in this thread.

2. Some posters are inclined towards the development of science and scientific temperament and the contribution of science in human development, and developing/ developed areas like evolution, genetics, archaeology, fundamental particles, origins of earth etc. But sadly, we do not have even two posters posting contemporarily with science background to take up the discussion to the next level.

3. A large number of readers are trespassers in the sense that they post one or two posts, if any, and fade away. They do believe in God, they also have good knowledge of science or scientific background. They also know that God cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific methodologies nor would the sceptics accept the dictum of "scriptures" as infallible and God given.

4. So the discussants morph themselves as "logicians" and keep fine tuning the arguments so that the burden of proof can be placed on the shoulders of the opposing party/parties.

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Arun Shanker, Greetings.

In my opinion, evelution due to mutation and subsequent copying of the DNA infoarmation after mutation may have taken by chance; but, systamatic evelution by selection process also an Intelligent Design. When you think of it, such evelutions are deliberate to suit the environments.

Evelution theory may neither oppose nor support the existence of the lack of existence of God. In my opinion, they are not connected at all.

Cheers!

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Mr Raghy

Since this topic touches the title of God Exists, I wanted to have some
relationship to the Omnipotent. Hope you would agree God has created human
beings and I also hope that you will accept that human being created the computers
that we use today, where few of our Indians too work in firms like Microsoft, etc.
Though we may say that God has no direct role over every human being for argument
purposes, it is HE who controls the human's activities through his Disciple or
Representative and in turn the God created human being overseas the computer's activities.
Hope you will agree with this point too. Man does not create Virus purposefully and
it is nature that creates virus, bacteria, fungi etc (may be God has a role in this too)
to do a harm to a human being and also human created virus, trojans, spy wares, owing
to scientific developments, etc. to affect the smooth functioning of the computer.
As you say God is an unknown quantity. Let us suppose HE is not created. But I hope
you will agree with the concept existence of God forever in some form. I have just tried
to compare the human being with the computer because it cannot independently
function, say for example, a robot needs a remote control to be operated or programming,
for the purpose of objectivity and reasoning. Normally, one may say that one has the
entire freedom to choose whatever he/she likes for himself/herself, may be to perform a
good action or an evil deed during one's life time. Suppose if one chooses a wrong path
and starts to live in the wrong path of evil deeds then he is titled to be proceeding to hell.
Okay, as you say, then why God's presence here. Let us give him a holiday for sometime
during this discussion. Knowing the technological updates and minute by minute improvement
in every functional processes of a computer, still we find there comes up a flaw unexpectedly.
Is it due to equipment fault or operational fault? If a perfect and good human who has adequate
knowledge in all fields and knowing everything could create inventional matters with the use of
computer, could you tell me whether the inborn knowledge or developed knowledge is owing to
use of computer or blessings of the God to understand a concept of anew. Further imperfect
human beings who are capable of evil deeds such as developing virus, spy wares, etc., why are
not we able to stop them or curb their activities even before their piloting a wrong thing.

Whatever you say, that man is a super power than God, etc, I would like to say that it is the GOD,
who gives the knowledge and directs him to operate the Computer with HIS blessings.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Balasubramanian Sir, Greetings.

I appreciate your message. I am going to go through that message here. Sir, you may not know, I have no faith in God. But also sincerely believe, if there is a God, that God must have a lot of faith in me. I am cut out quite differently.

Hope you would agree God has created human beings and I also hope that you will accept that human being created the computers that we use today, where few of our Indians too work in firms like Microsoft, etc.

Sorry Sir. I would not accept God created human beings. But I think, human beings created God. Creation is much more complicated than a God creating everything in the universe. If God created us, then that God would have a moral obligation to protect us. I will not accept the 'Karma theory etc. No one can convince me I suffered few things when I was young this forum can't even imagine due to my actions in the past life etc.

You are comparing computers as an analogy to human beings. I follow your analogy. But we know for sure humans created computer; but we don't know for sure God created humans. But, if that thought comforts you, I don't see any thing wrong with that either. Although we don't know for sure, in the future God may walk in and take ownership to everything; who knows? So, I agree and respect others faith and belief.

As you say God is an unknown quantity. Let us suppose HE is not created. But I hope you will agree with the concept existence of God forever in some form.

Sir, for me, God is the 'universal energy'. Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. So we don't have to 'suppose' God was created. For me that energy is always there; or in other words, by your words, God is always there in some form. I am only agreeing with you here, but in a different way.

Normally, one may say that one has the entire freedom to choose whatever he/she likes for himself/herself, may be to perform a good action or an evil deed during one's life time. Suppose if one chooses a wrong path and starts to live in the wrong path of evil deeds then he is titled to be proceeding to hell.

Sir, I wish to leave this portion from discussion, please. Wrong, right, good deed, evil deed.. the whole lot is subjective. There is no such thing as wrong or right. We just do what we feel like doing. That's all. Often times we either want to justify our actions or want to condemn some actions and brand them as good deed and bad deed. At one stage nothing matters. That's why I like to leave that portion. When you get to that stage in life you will see that too.

Okay, as you say, then why God's presence here. Let us give him a holiday for sometime during this discussion. Knowing the technological updates and minute by minute improvement in every functional processes of a computer, still we find there comes up a flaw unexpectedly. Is it due to equipment fault or operational fault? If a perfect and good human who has adequate knowledge in all fields and knowing everything could create inventional matters with the use of computer, could you tell me whether the inborn knowledge or developed knowledge is owing to use of computer or blessings of the God to understand a concept of anew. Further imperfect human beings who are capable of evil deeds such as developing virus, spy wares, etc., why are not we able to stop them or curb their activities even before their piloting a wrong thing.

Sir, in that above paragraph you managed to debate against your own point of view. If you are going to blame the human for a flawed computer, you will end up blaming God for a person who does nothing but evil deeds. When you say humans have the freedom to do what they want, such freedom is not available to computers; so, basically you can't compare humans to computers.

That's why I am requesting you to think outside all these restrictions.

You like to have a proof for the existence of God. That is very simple. Compare a corpse and a person. That corpse doesn't have something that the person has in possession. That corpse is just an order number for the undertaker; but that person has feelings, plans for the week-end.. etc. So, what is the difference? That difference is God. Identify that, you have identified God. The whole thing is that simple.

Cheers!

 

[arunshanker]

I thought for a while why this thread "God Exists" gets revived periodically. My opinion is as under:

1. There are some posters who are inclined towards metaphysics and spiritual subjects. As the posts in these threads do not get adequate response (knowledge-wise) to take it to the next level, theistic discussion takes place in this thread.

2. Some posters are inclined towards the development of science and scientific temperament and the contribution of science in human development, and developing/ developed areas like evolution, genetics, archaeology, fundamental particles, origins of earth etc. But sadly, we do not have even two posters posting contemporarily with science background to take up the discussion to the next level.

3. A large number of readers are trespassers in the sense that they post one or two posts, if any, and fade away. They do believe in God, they also have good knowledge of science or scientific background. They also know that God cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific methodologies nor would the sceptics accept the dictum of "scriptures" as infallible and God given.

4. So the discussants morph themselves as "logicians" and keep fine tuning the arguments so that the burden of proof can be placed on the shoulders of the opposing party/parties.

Not a bad analysis

 

[arunshanker]

systamatic evelution by selection process also an Intelligent Design.

By definition of the proposistion (intelligent Design) it means an intelligent designer has deigned the process
By what you say it can be said as Intelligent Design by nature where the designer in not a person but it is nature (evolution)

 

[prasad1]

By definition of the proposistion (intelligent Design) it means an intelligent designer has deigned the process
By what you say it can be said as Intelligent Design by nature where the designer in not a person but it is nature (evolution)

The phrase intelligent design has been corrupted by creationist. I am totally agree that there has to be an intelligent creation, which is not opposed to evolution. I do nor agree with any of the biblical saying about the history of creation. I do not believe that the earth in its present form was created in 6 days some 4 million years ago. I do not believe that all creatures were created by this "GOD" in this form. I have lot of disagreement with the creationist theory.

 

[C RAVI]

Mr Raghy

Since this topic touches the title of God Exists, I wanted to have some
relationship to the Omnipotent. Hope you would agree God has created human
beings and I also hope that you will accept that human being created the computers
that we use today, where few of our Indians too work in firms like Microsoft, etc.
Though we may say that God has no direct role over every human being for argument
purposes, it is HE who controls the human's activities through his Disciple or
Representative and in turn the God created human being overseas the computer's activities.
Hope you will agree with this point too. Man does not create Virus purposefully and
it is nature that creates virus, bacteria, fungi etc (may be God has a role in this too)
to do a harm to a human being and also human created virus, trojans, spy wares, owing
to scientific developments, etc. to affect the smooth functioning of the computer.
As you say God is an unknown quantity. Let us suppose HE is not created. But I hope
you will agree with the concept existence of God forever in some form. I have just tried
to compare the human being with the computer because it cannot independently
function, say for example, a robot needs a remote control to be operated or programming,
for the purpose of objectivity and reasoning. Normally, one may say that one has the
entire freedom to choose whatever he/she likes for himself/herself, may be to perform a
good action or an evil deed during one's life time. Suppose if one chooses a wrong path
and starts to live in the wrong path of evil deeds then he is titled to be proceeding to hell.
Okay, as you say, then why God's presence here. Let us give him a holiday for sometime
during this discussion. Knowing the technological updates and minute by minute improvement
in every functional processes of a computer, still we find there comes up a flaw unexpectedly.
Is it due to equipment fault or operational fault? If a perfect and good human who has adequate
knowledge in all fields and knowing everything could create inventional matters with the use of
computer, could you tell me whether the inborn knowledge or developed knowledge is owing to
use of computer or blessings of the God to understand a concept of anew. Further imperfect
human beings who are capable of evil deeds such as developing virus, spy wares, etc., why are
not we able to stop them or curb their activities even before their piloting a wrong thing.

Whatever you say, that man is a super power than God, etc, I would like to say that it is the GOD,
who gives the knowledge and directs him to operate the Computer with HIS blessings.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

Very well said Shri Balasubramanian...


Humans can only attempt to be good or bad, to be right or wrong, to be productive or to be useless and to be constructive or destructive. All are just attempts either positively or negatively to meet their personal needs.

Humans can explore many new things(new to their feel by touch, by sight, by smell , by usage etc) Only out of the existing energies of the Intelligent Design. But can't create some thing different and new that is beyond the scope of this Intelligent Design.

At the end of the day, humans hardly could be in absolute control of their positive and or negative side, in some way or other.

Shankracharya Maha Periyawal, Ragavendra, Seshadri Swamigal, Ramana Maharishi and other such realized souls could over come human flaws, attained absolute wisdom, got total realization and became JeevanMukthas. They could be as such, owing to their different living purpose, needs and fulfillment, that are totally contrary to the living style and living needs of we mere humans, who all are full of wishes, dreams, desires etc. with the sense of all sort of fulfillment, to the best of one's ability.

Mere humans having such an inbuilt urge to meet their motives, targets and subsequently the sense of fulfillment can not get to the level of such realized souls, so easily.

Humans have progressed, developed and advanced a lot that was and is both productive and destructive to their own species. In fact, effecting this whole land of survival, positively and negatively.

What else this intelligent humans could do after all?? Either to tap and create to facilitate something or to destroy to facilitate something else, Either to be good humanists or to be bad criminals, Either to be in ecstasy or to be in depression, Either to support God or to oppose God.

Humans can also understand nature and its prowess and can make the best use of them and can protect themselves to some extent. But, however humans could advance scientifically, humans can never ever attain absolute control over the Nature. The natural orders of the nature, its fury and its absolute control on this whole world of survival can never be taken into total human control.


Your computer analogy is really nice! One of my cousins is a Software Architect in US. He used to say that, the most expert and brilliant Software Engineers/Hardware Engineers had to spend long time/many days to troubleshoot the malfunction of the Computer and had to work day and night to fix things up. At last when they could succeed, they and the others can only believe/accept that, The Computer that is working now is nothing but the replica of the brains of those people who all worked on it. Subsequently, the same computer crashes again, leaving no clue as why it happened again when it was so well established and protected.

In the same way many genius have worked and still working hard to identify the short comings and to tap the potent natural energies, in order to get the best out of the available resources. There would not be any limit in these endeavors and still there would be many things left unidentified, unresolved and uncontrolled.

However intelligent the Human Species may turn out to be, the master key is in the hands of the Supreme Being.


The only force that is keeping the Human species alive with hopes is nothing but the emotional force. At the end of the day, humans live by what they feel in heart rather with what they derive from their rational brains. If one peeps into onself, one can easily believe and accept the fact that, unless one has the sense of pleasure with whatever one have, one can not feel happy and emotionally balanced.

All that we acheive personally and professionally are all primarily revolving aournd what we could do with our brains. But, Only are the reveared Humans who all have lived/live by their heart as well.

The most challenging stimuli for humans is the human heart. However humans could rationally think and try to be practice, logical and intellectual, ultimately it is the emotions of the heart that could let them know who are they? where are they? and for what are they? No one can hide oneself from Self, sooner or later and their exist the "Whole Secret" of the creation.

 

[ozone]

I am wondering if say two plants or trees one logical and another philosophical have a debate on whether Man exists?, they will end up being similar.
The Logical Plant (P-L) will ask for proof and evidence in a form that can be logically verified by the senses available to it. The Philosophical plant (P-P) might say, we are all in a garden and we get our daily water and periodic minerals in the form of manure being supplied by Man, but P-L would dismiss them as Nature and Science and not the work of man. P-P might say that man cares for plant and thats the reason we see the care and upbringing, but P-L would dubb them as nonsense pointing out to the several pests that lie in the neighbouring plant, etc., etc.,
Finally P-P would say that to understand the presence of Man, you cannot realise it with the sense organs they have and will need additional sensory organs like eyes to see and ears to hear, but P-P again would dismiss them as imaginations and fiction as they do not fit into the descriptions of things they see (sorry not the right word) around and that there is nothing in the world like an eye or ear. Finally, P-L would call P-Ps assumptions and argument as dogmatic, emotional etc.,
But we humans know for sure who is right ...

 

[Raghy]

Sri. Ozone, Greetings.

I understand you mentioned plant-p and plant-L as metaphor in your message in post #2590. I further understand you are only selecting some plants in a garden, not all the plants per se. For, there are plants in the forest and in the wild grow without human interference. Humans cared for the plants in the garden for specific purposes. Such plants must have been chosen to be in that garden in the first place. Humans fancied and had those plants in that garden and cared for them.. but I have seen completely neglected gardens ( latest one being Bridavan gardens).

Now I wonder, through that metaphor you are not saying God just has all these human beings just for fun now... may drop the whole idea in the future date and may pick up some other pass time, completely abandoning the humans? ... I don't know about you, but in general, not a comforting thought, is it?

Cheers!

 

[arunshanker]

I am totally agree that there has to be an intelligent creation, which is not opposed to evolution.

Can you explain how intelligent creation is not opposed to evolution

 

[arunshanker]

I am wondering if say two plants or trees one logical and another philosophical have a debate on whether Man exists?, they will end up being similar.

Would they

The Logical Plant (P-L) will ask for proof and evidence in a form that can be logically verified by the senses available to it. The Philosophical plant (P-P) might say, we are all in a garden and we get our daily water and periodic minerals in the form of manure being supplied by Man,

"supplied by Man" how did the Philosophical plant come to that conclusion? If it could explain it to the Logical Plant there would be agreement not debate
The assumption here is that somehow the Philosophical plant has found that Man is responsible ( for watering etc.,) and that somehow is not in an empirical and logical way, because had it been that way the Logical Plant would have found that too and there would be no debate.

but P-L would dismiss them as Nature and Science and not the work of man.

Here is the assumption is that Logical Plant (P-L) knows Man since it clearly according to you, dismisses them as Nature and Science (maybe it has cousins in the amazon forest and they told that Man has nothing to do with watering and manuring there and almost in 99 percent of the plants are them). The point is that Philosophical plant and the logical plant both know Man, otherwise both cant dismiss the possibility

P-P might say that man cares for plant and thats the reason we see the care and upbringing, but P-L would dubb them as nonsense pointing out to the several pests that lie in the neighbouring plant, etc., etc.,

The conclusion is that Man for the plants in this case is not omnipotent and omniscient

Finally P-P would say that to understand the presence of Man, you cannot realise it with the sense organs they have and will need additional sensory organs like eyes to see and ears to hear,

The assumption here is that “sensory organs like eyes to see and ears to hear” are additional which both the logical and philosophiocal plant do not pocess
Then how did the philosophical plant know that the logical plant exits and how did they communicate at all.

I but P-P again would dismiss them as imaginations and fiction as they do not fit into the descriptions of things they see (sorry not the right word) around and that there is nothing in the world like an eye or ear. Finally, P-L would call P-Ps assumptions and argument as dogmatic, emotional etc.,

Here you are just getting away since you yourself say that you are not using the right word

But we humans know for sure who is right ...

Do we all or is it just a group of humans who are sure
Now here is another conversation
Philosophical plant: I have found that Man is responsible for all the watering and manure we get
Logical plant: Yes I know that, it is simple reasoning, we don’t need eyes or ears for that to be known
We get fertilizer exactly at correct intervals, we get water exactly when we need and when there is no rain, we get some chemicals when pest go above the threshold level, in fact I find a perfect pattern in which we are getting everything we need, it can’t be nature it has to Man. In fact I feel that this Man has his own interest in all this. I have seen my cousins in Amazon, and other places they say we plants who are being taken care of Man are only about 1 % of the whole of plants in this world.
Philosophical plant: So what does that mean
Logical plant: It means lets find out about this nature which our cousins in the wild are discussing about
Some say it is called God and some say it is just nature

 

[arunshanker]

Now I wonder, through that metaphor you are not saying God just has all these human beings just for fun now... may drop the whole idea in the future date and may pick up some other pass time, completely abandoning the humans? ... I don't know about you, but in general, not a comforting thought, is it?

Interesting and thought provoking

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

I do not have any Thrani to dwell on this subject any more. But my conscious tells me
that God exists and believe that till death. The repeated and reframed questions of
whether or not God exists, may have far reaching implications as far as I am concerned.
I ask myself, who is my father. My mind tells me that Mother has introduced the
father. But for my mother and father, I would not have born on this earth. If I start
asking questions to me silently, it will raise millions of questions as to who is the first
originator on this earth and why this relationship continues generation after generation.
It is because a Creator exists on this earth, we still find new born babies taking birth
every day. People who are running pillar to post, for want of babies, still suffer for no
reasons of their own. Sometimes, when one is in trouble, asks himself, why the God
created him or her. The discussion on this topic sometimes would be fruitless but for
the implications being noticed one after the other, leading to questionable ideologies
about the God’s existence and the point is not dismissed just like that or taken out of
one's mind or heart. It can be discussed in a society where there is an understanding
that there is some supreme power existing on this Universe to oversee the functions
and direct or guide one to a path of righteousness. If a notion prevails that there is no
physical proof for God’s existence, I would rather like to be away from that un-Godly
feeling society. My mind says that, is there not a solution to tell the people as to how
God would be. I get a reply answer to that stating that but for His existence, my movement
would be restricted on this earth as HE is instrumental for everythig within my body.

We have already discussed number of times about the cosmological study, research, etc.
in a simple format of debate, despite the fact that everyone knows that everything that
exists has a cause related to its existence including the human being. No one can deny
that we live on an earth, whether exists or not. Can we say or conclude because it exists
it can have an un-caused cause or fact. We see sun and moon daily, night and day daily,
air in the atmosphere without any bias, etc. Man invents Computer and designs watches
as you say because of his inbuilt brain or intelligence. Why should a watch synchronize
with the sun or moon, day or night? What for a human brain does that act while designing.
Everyone knows that the Universe is complex and also the human being too are complex.
Some would immediately quote about scientific advancements and research carried out in
the area of physics, etc. I do not know, whether Sir Newton, while inventing the law of gravity,
thought to himself about this type of issues, but, however, he understood to himself that
his invention would certainly be applicable any time and is rather perfectly fine-tuned to stand
as an evidence for the existence of life on this earth. Some scientific developments too
mention that the earth is the only known planet completely equipped with an atmosphere of the
requisite combination of gases to sustain human life, plant, animal. Can we produce air and
circulate in the atmosphere, though the oxygen is readily available for extension only during
emergencies. Why should a tree absorb carbohydrate and release oxygen to us. Are we heating
the water in a tank or lake to evaporate? Why should all the river water flow into the Sea or
ocean. How much one can store water in a well or tank and for how long? One will immediately
say that in America water is not allowed to flow to the Sea and it is recycled, etc. Immediately
one will jump to the scientific developments and research etc. Even that has relation to our
ancient Puranas, Ithihasas, etc. One has the vision. It can see as many colours as possible
and can also distinguish the differences. It is not operated by a computer or an instrument
because it has its own automatic god devised focusing lenses and can handle any objects
whether good or bad ones simultaneously. No doubt it may need some change or optimation
or updation after certain years just like we do overhauling to a machine. When we do puja in
our house, we also sometimes like to renovate the puja room and rearrange it. Similarly,
we do not keep the same alankaram daily, we change it to our taste and desire to see the God
to our way of desire and liking to seek HIS happiness. It is the God that makes everyone to act to
HIS tune, knowingly or unknowingly, if one is dwelling in his arena.



Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[ozone]

Sri. Ozone, Greetings.

I understand you mentioned plant-p and plant-L as metaphor in your message in post #2590. I further understand you are only selecting some plants in a garden, not all the plants per se.

Yes. I imagined a conversation between the two in a garden, not the two in Amazon forest

For, there are plants in the forest and in the wild grow without human interference. Humans cared for the plants in the garden for specific purposes. Such plants must have been chosen to be in that garden in the first place. Humans fancied and had those plants in that garden and cared for them.. but I have seen completely neglected gardens ( latest one being Bridavan gardens).

I was only trying to point out the limitation and assumptions. To understand something outside or bigger than what we perceive might or will require tools or aid that we dont possess - just like the need for eyes and ears for the plants to verify if Man exists.
Even that is not sufficient I suppose, for animals and birds too have eyes, but I dunno if they think for sure Man exists.

 

[prasad1]

Can you explain how intelligent creation is not opposed to evolution

The creation happens in Brahman (God).
A simile:
Everything happens in space. You create a pot in space, you destroy the pot, but space remains the same. Space does not judge, But without space there is no place.

 

[arunshanker]

The creation happens in Brahman (God).
A simile:
Everything happens in space. You create a pot in space, you destroy the pot, but space remains the same. Space does not judge, But without space there is no place.

Is Brahman (God) and space the same, since you say

The creation happens in Brahman (God).

and also say

Everything happens in space

What is the relationship here to evolution and how does this creation not opposed to evolution

 

[arunshanker]

To understand something outside or bigger than what we perceive might or will require tools or aid that we dont possess -

That is itself an assumption that decides your conclusion. In other words you assumptions are such that you conclusions are reached
just like "the need for eyes and ears for the plants to verify if Man exists". How do you know for sure that plants need eyes and ears to know if Man exists. Is that not a premise (statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion)
What if there are other means by which plants can know of Man
you complicate thing furhter by saying that "Even that is not sufficient" which mean what\ever they possess even if they have eyes and ear they will not know if Man exits
If that is the case how did the conversation between the two kinds of Plants (Philosophical and logical plants) start at all, I mean they had no ways of knowing anything about Man, then how did they start talking about Man

but I dunno if they think for sure Man exists.

Numerous studies have shown that domesticated animals, such as honey bees, chickens, pigeons, sheep, dogs, llamas, penguins, seals, rabbits, horses, lizards and octopuses, can recognize humans individually. The common thing among these animals is that they are exposed to an environment where they see humans and interact with humans every day.
Wild animals the studies are less but they too indicate that they recognize humans

 

[prasad1]

What is the relationship here to evolution and how does this creation not opposed to evolution

Evolution happens in Brahman. So it is not creation or evolution. It is evolution in God and God's creation.
In Bhagavad Gita:
Chapter 9 of the Bhagavad Gita, mythia is described thus: the world rests in Brahman (Consciousness) but, Brahman does not rest in the world. The second part of this statement underscores the absolute position, denying the presence of the world in Brahman; in this way, it reveals that the world is just an appearance of Consciousness. Without Consciousness, there is no world possible to appear. Thus, Consciousness is all.