Sorry. That makes no sense whatsoever. This is not at all what you said. You are redirecting your meaning of "diversity" on this. Eventually, we'd get down to "Wow! The universe is not a continuous soup of identical molecules! While true, that is not a particularly brilliant insight. I am aware that there are many things in the universe and a complex interaction between those things. I'm an environmentalist, remember?
Again, same comment. The universe is very complex. You are not the first person to notice this.I'm not saying it can't be reflective of God's diversity, I'm only saying that throwing God into the picture adds nothing whatsoever, but rather constrains you as to the "diversity" of ways you can look at the universe. If you cannot escape the template of religion, then you cannot be free to imagine things beyond religion.
You would have to explain what you mean by "arbitrary". If you mean that certain things can only happen if certain other things have happened first, that is true (and not surprising). But if there are a number of possible outcomes based on the prevailing conditions, to be non-abitrary, you would have to show that you could accurately predict which outcome would happen. Otherwise, it would simply be statistical.

By the way, arbitrary and random are not synonyms. In fact in some senses, they can be considered opposites. Arbitrary can mean "chosen at a whim", whereas random can mean "not chosen at all, but statistical".
No it isn't. We don't even know what the range it is yet. We are still discovering new forms of life in places we previously thought were uninhabitable. There are many things that are used to describe the variations in life, but range doesn't by itself define it.

If someone asked you to describe a bluebird, I'm betting the first thing you said would not be, "It lives between the temperatures of -15 and + 45 degrees Celsius." (Note: numbers are made up and only used as an example.)
Yes, Karma is a supernatural explanation, but an unnecessary one, because the natural explanations work just fine, and they don't require us inventing forces that are unproven to exist. I think that to accept supernatural explanations without first eliminating all of the natural explanations is the action of an unscientific mind. Oh sure it's great if you're writing fiction. Is that what you're doing?
In my mind, the concept of Karma, just like the concept of Heaven and Hell are devices that humans have invented for the purpose of reward and revenge. If you realize that a person is not going to be punished for their evil in this life, you can console yourself by imagining that they will be punished in another life. It is a coping mechanism that some people need for dealing with an uncaring universe. The universe isn't fair. Get used to it.
Well, it's never too late to be indoctrinated. You freely admit that the way you regard the Bible is a result of the way you were taught to regard it.

Don't feel bad though. We all learn what we are exposed to. But the notion of skeptical examination of your beliefs is very important, I think. I'm only now realizing that my notions of how vision works (in another thread here), may require some rethinking.
It speaks of an imaginary realm. Again, that's great for fiction, but I prefer to have my beliefs rooted in the real world. I love Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings". I still don't believe that Balrogs exist in the real world.
Sorry, that makes no sense at all. Even if God does not exist in anything, people will still imagine He exists. That doesn't make Him real.
Again, the standards vary on the situation. A Christian might find "The Life of Brian" hilarious, but he would not be likely to quote it in church.

In my mind there is nothing that is irreverant, because there is no God to be insulted. However, I would not deliberately insult a person's beliefs unless I were invited to discuss them, as in a forum like this one. Different standards for different situations.

I'm saying purpose is only established through Unity.

No, it was more of an adaptation to what you said, to show that life cannot exist without some form of diversity which, is why we have life adapting to so many diverse places.

All very complex and yet one and the same ... Universe that is.

For which reason, as I explained in another thread, God likes to play hide-and-seek with us.

There are a divergence of opinions just as there is a divergence of life. Why shouldn't that better suit the whole picture if, in fact there were a God?

Except that a "whim" is nothing but something based upon that which is irrational. Which is to say, it could be just about anything.

No, I'm actually agreeing that the range of habitability varies depending on what you're speaking about.

Yes, but you're only scratching the surface with your definitions here which, is all the natural world entails. Meaning, the natural world is merely the effect of the (supernatural) cause which has yet to be discovered.

So, why should the caterpillar be the least bit concerned that butterflies can fly, that is, until it becomes one?

Actually I was taught to pretty much take the whole thing with a grain of salt and not put too much of anything into it, that is until the spirit -- that is, if it's there -- begins to reveal itself to you. The last thing you want to do is cram this stuff into your brains and learn the whole thing by rote. This is how people are brainwashed.

I'm pretty well aware of what goes on inside my mind, more than most who study it in the external sense anyway.

Does it? And would you say you've become subjected to your imagination when you're dreaming?

And then there's the very real possibility that God exists and people will remain gullible anyway ... "Many will come in my name, to lead many astray."

Regardless, without a contrast between existing polarities, there would be nothing to differentiate.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Sorry. That still makes no sense whatsoever.There is no evidence that life cannot exist without diversity. A culture of pure mold can grow in a pure agar medium. No diversity whatsoever. Your explanation of "why" is faulty.
Now you're simply contradicting yourself. Or just rambling. It's hard to tell the difference.You will pardon me if I don't accept your authority on "what God likes." I cannot see that throwing God into the equation changes anything.
But if it is based on "anything", then it is not random, whether the whim is rational or not.
Then you agree there are no absolute ranges? Good for you!
If it is yet to be discovered, then how can you be so certain it exists?
That odd metaphor relates in no way whatsoever to the issue of why people invent supernatural forms of rewards/punishments. Are you even reading what I write?
Yet you would have us believe these totally unsupported contentions about what God and consciousness are? Oh,the irony.
Naturally. But the fact that we aren't privy to what is going on in your head does not mean that it is not going on in your head. If we removed your head, all evidence that you have a mind would also be removed.

Just as a tangential side note, do you believe that "Lie Detectors" work?
You are always, even when wide awake, subjected to your imagination, but only mentally incompetent people are completely controlled by imagination. Even in deep dreams, you still get signals from the real world. A good thing too, or else alarm clocks wouldn't work.
And one possibility is that God exists and you are one of those people that come in God's name to lead many astray.Wrong again. There is a difference between tropical and temperate, even though neither one is polar.

It seems as if you are saying, "If things weren't different, you couldn't differentiate between them." Such tautologies reveal nothing.

Is the body the extension of the mind or, is the mind the extension of the body? Yes, only when you can get someoone's conscious attention when asking the quesions? So, without a mind, what purpose would a body serve?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Look, G-berry! In response to a question, you got three questions and an unfalsifiable qualification!

OK, Iacchus, a followup question--oh, but first, I owe you the courtesy of answering your questions.

Is the body the extension of the mind? No.
Is the mind the extension of the body? No.
What purpose would a body serve? The same purpose it serves now.

Now...your sentence that begins "Yes...". Is that an answer to G's question, or is it yet another question? Anyway, I am assuming it is an answer, and the question mark was added out of force of habit...

How can you tell you have somebody's conscious attention? (Please, please, please, try to answer it with no question marks!)

Yeah, {sigh} he responded to (without answering) my tangential question, but not to the meat of the issues I raised.

Am I ever going to get that man to come out of his metaphorical shell?

I explain my way as mind is motherboard, heart is hard disk, body is other parts used for different purposes. But above all Why brain reacts to direct body to act, who directs brain to function? My feeling is the environment that makes brain to react. What we see, observe, and react according to necessity. So external force is ultimate commander in chief, is called environment.

Interesting, sadashivan...I don't particularly care for computer metaphors of our experience, but let me share one with you, one I hear often but which is a bit different from yours, in order to quibble just a bit with one aspect you mention.

Generally, people equate the motherboard to the frontal lobe (and to a lesser extent, parietal, temporal and occipital lobe) information-processing areas, the hard disk to memory areas (again, in all lobes, organized through the hippocampus), the body--well, the metabolic functions are the power source and cooling fan, the sensory inputs the keyboard (or the programming burned in at the factory), and the voice and other expression, the monitor.

I will agree with you that the environment is the "ultimate commander in chief" (I like that), but my two disagreements (one big, one small) are... first (the small one), the brain telling the body what to do...well, the brain is doing nothing without the rest of the body anyway, and it gets its input from the rest of the body (senses and proprioceptive feedback), so the body is telling the brain what to do every bit as much as the brain tells the body...I prefer to look at the whole organism rather than to dichotomize the brain and the rest of the body. Second one (the biggie)...you had the motherboard as the mind. The big difference is, you can point to a motherboard. No one has yet figured out what or where the mind is. If you meant brain, that is one thing, but if you really mean mind, we have a difference of opinion, and I would ask you for evidence of this thing called mind.

Neither do I. They are not the same and the metaphor breaks down at numerous points (as you point out in your sort of plodding way). And what do science-haters have to compare the human brain/body to? Also, should we have to pity the ancient Chinese who were forced to compare their brain to an abacus?

Perhaps because they were referring to that aspect which calculates (suggesting a purpose or cause) and puts things into effect, thus extending itself through the body and out unto the world. Of course without consciousness -- hence implying "a will" -- none of this would make any difference.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Please define consciousness as you use it here.

Then perhaps I can see how you reach the conclusion you do. I sincerely do not see the connection right now.

A computer is nothing but a very high-tech calculator. You put in data. You ask it to perform pre-set operations on that data. You read the result. The only difference is that the operations can be very complex, however, they are still written by humans.

That is why I say that the computer/brain metaphor is a poor one. Anyone would immediately see that a brain is different from a calculator (or abacus).

It was a very funny joke, Iacchus. Trust you to analyze out the humor.