Saturday, July 25, 2009


Nature is not a doing.


Anonymous said...

A being?

Lilwave said...

I think nature always starts out with a purpose though it may not ever reach what was intended since many things can change the outcome. Cause requires results (cause=effect). You wouldn't have a cause without purpose no matter how insignificant it may seem.
Wouldn't one have to know everything about all things to be so certain of the purposelessnessessess. Though a purpose may not be identifiable to you doesn't mean there is not one.

Yodood said...

Cinnamon, Exactly!

Lilwave, I endeavored to make this simple post free from references to religion, faith or a creator to avoid Xians' imposing their trumped up purpose upon the occurrence of the universe, but it seems you just couldn't help yourself. The result is your first comment in many months though it was not my purpose to cause it. The cause is your own invention, just like your god. My statement just served as your excuse.

Lilwave said...

HA! If you say so...of course it must be true.
I was simply saying that the observer can't know everything about what it observes and to speak so certain about it's insignificance with such authority is ignorant.
While you rant about my every word having a religious meanings, what you don't realize is that you are the most religious of all having you as the all knowing God of your universe. Good luck with that.
As for my lack of posting, As per example...what would be the purpose LMAO....
My words are like poison in your baby bottle. Signing off on this one you can keep it simple and all.

Yodood said...

"to speak so certain about it's insignificance with such authority is ignorant."

I suppose claiming to have received your authority from the Bible is your epitome of intelligence. If you can believe there is a god who is doing nature you must believe He made me cause your rant against the inevitable in defense of your delusion.

I've always thought their could be no true religion until everyone had their own, thanks for recognizing mine.

Anonymous said...

Thing is, we don't really know.

A being can be created, nature can be created.

If there is a supreme being, (let's call make him male for ease of dicussion), he is probably in nature.

But we don't really know.

I think faith is valid, though Yodood, just as no faith is also valid.

Pisces Iscariot said...

some doings are just not natural

Yodood said...

Cinnamon, you are right on — we really don't know how to exhibit the truth we perceive so distracted we are in patching up the hole in the lie we've conceived as a conclusive compromise to limit curiosity to that within the language of the myth.

About the supreme being bind: although I see each being as simultaneously composed of smaller beings and part of a larger being ad infinitum in both direction which meet in the mobius loop where bigger/smaller are only directions without end.

Faith: only that curiosity energizes me and certainty drains me — based on experience.

Pisces, Exactly!!!

Anonymous said...

Very interesting theory Yodood- I never thought of seeing the universe in this Mobius loop way.

There seems to be lot of talk about Faith v. No faith in bloggerland at the moment.

I don't think all people of faith are 'patching up holes in the lie'. Some do have curiosity and intellect and have explored these things, but in the end they respond to what is their experience You only have to read blogs like The Soaring Impulse to see how faith energises and informs lives.

I am interested to know what you believe about the existence of a soul- do we continue to exist in other form beyond physical death?

Yodood said...

Cinnamon, One has but to observe this year's crops build their bodies from the soil infused with the composted matter from last year's crops as the soil level diminishes to comprehend the continuance of life. The probability of a coherent being making such transitions is about the same as the chances that an idea will remain unchanged through many translations. Nature makes variations, not clones.