Debate Mansion

   

If you believe in God, refute this! (Page 137)

Post Reply New Post

Page 137 of 149

Vintage.Wine

Goldie

Vintage.Wine

Joined: 03 July 2012

Posts: 1152

Posted: 28 October 2012 at 5:29am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112

Originally posted by _Angie_


No wonder Vintu has been on about the electron souls LOL

I know you are joking, but just in case Vintu gets serious. That hypothesis is in no way related to what Vintu was saying. It says that there is only one electron and all electrons that we observe are the same one but in various times. While, Vintu was saying souls reside in electrons.


 FREE ... LOL
 @ Bold:   Nohohoho  LOL   Angie deciphered that wonderfully well ...If one Electron Universe is a valid theory ...What we see is ONE  ELECTRON  AT MANY PLACES  SIMULTANEOUSLY ... not in different frames of times ... LOL

 Now this is called EXTREME illusion = MAYA ..the concept ...Only the terminologies differ cause the authors differ .. LOL  .The concept though remains the same ..Even if we assume that  Angie was  kidding ...( Which I don't think was a case..Cause she seems to have read everything we wrote ...) her statement was the stroke of a genius ..Much commendable ..Smile

 Also whats inside and outside ?  If everything is a transformation of ONE energy ..So are the electrons ..even the ones that make the material of  your Ear buds LOL  ...That energy is what I call the SOUL ...please don't attach ghostly images to that ...LOL Everything came from ONE Energy and Everything would become one energy again ...after may be a many billion years ...LOL

  Vintu Tongue
 



Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "If you believe in God, refute this! (Page 137)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

Vintage.Wine

Goldie

Vintage.Wine

Joined: 03 July 2012

Posts: 1152

Posted: 28 October 2012 at 5:38am | IP Logged
Originally posted by _Angie_

Originally posted by Vintage.Wine

Originally posted by _Angie_

Originally posted by K.Universe.

[QUOTE=BirdieNumNum]
No wonder Vintu has been on about the electron souls LOL


No one  gets across that shore of Moksha concept , buddy. I, me, myself along with everything else included will be left behind at the shores. So what the heck is going to be carried across in that rescue vessel! Electrons ? They may as well get dunked in the shonky physics water!



 Angie ! LOL

  By MOSKHA I meant ...all the material turning back into the ENERGY ...LOL ..Which ll happen one day ...Which is not destructive ...LOL ...And don't be forlorn of all hope ...There is always the first time to everything ... LOL  ...We might shatter all earlier prejudices and be the first people ever to attain MOSKHA ...Going to the HEAVENS ..even before the death .. LOL

 On a serious note :  Your analysis seems dead  on 
( Filled with undiluted logic ) and as cute and real as the Electrons .. LOL  Without which we can't be ...But something that we can't see ...LOL

 
 Vintu  Tongue






Vintage.Wine

Goldie

Vintage.Wine

Joined: 03 July 2012

Posts: 1152

Posted: 28 October 2012 at 5:58am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112

@Vintu

There is no evidence that there is a God named Krishna. It's called mythology ad not history for a reason.

And again ,everything is not the part of same "energy". Everybody is composed of matter which have energy. And energy does not "create" it just changes form. We don't even know how all the energy came to be. And what exactly is being one again? And no, for Moksha you need soul which we still don't know if does exist.

And if everything was "created" from energy, nobody like Krishna would be able to tell you it all. Because energy isn't conscious and doesn't have "memory".



 Free  Tongue
 
  The name doesn't matter ..Krishna or the Christ ...Not to me ...and shouldn't matter to most unless I start calling myself the GOD LOL  << Which I DO ..but in a difference sense of that word ..A part of the greater energy that is ...Tongue

 @ Bold:  But we know that the energy exists ...Which I call the GOD ...Not just Krishna ...but by every name that everybody alludes to that ...For MOSKHA I need a soul ? ..I am the SOUL ..as i had told ya ..everything is, The derivative of the big energy.. ...Moksha definitely doesn't mean dwelling in some heavenly abode ...LOL It means again being the part of that Energy ..Which then is separate from all consciousness ..The Joys , the Grief ... 

  Who was the author of Geeta ? Why they gave credit to Krishna for such a vast rhyming pool of knowledge ?  The History is there ...if you have read about that ...It was first told in the year  3137 BC ..and has a mention of that in writings by Piny and  Megastathane in the year 326 BC. Where they made an explicit mention of that... WHICH is HISTORY  ...So if the written history is to be believed that should be believed too ..Or we should believe nothing ...Nothing that we didn't see with our own eyes ..LOL


 Vintu...  Tongue
    




 

BirdieNumNum

Senior Member

BirdieNumNum

Joined: 07 October 2012

Posts: 965

Posted: 28 October 2012 at 6:11am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112



Again, I said maths was a language in which we were trying to explain what is out there, not that the reality is following our language.

And no, even when there is 0 balance, money went to somebody. Money did not just disappear. That's what I meant, can we get "nothing" in reality.

money went to someone else but you became diwala. Now if that's nothing for you, what else is?LOL You have to obey the laws of accounting the same way the world has to obey the laws of nature. Bringing in others just makes the system open-ended and introduces unnecessary complexity without adding anything. Hope you dont take the discussion down that path just to keep your point going. Smile

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13809

Posted: 28 October 2012 at 6:18am | IP Logged
Originally posted by BirdieNumNum

money went to someone else but you became diwala. Now if that's nothing for you, what else is?LOL You have to obey the laws of accounting the same way the world has to obey the laws of nature. Bringing in others just makes the system open-ended and introduces unnecessary complexity without adding anything. Hope you dont take the discussion down that path just to keep your point going. Smile

OK, won't drag this discussion, but will just point out a flaw in your analogy. When talking about the total energy of the whole Universe, we are including all there is. So, in the case of money, it would include all money there is and my point stands there. Money just got transferred, like energy changes form, but it sill is. Still, this is much different from total zero energy Universe. You can't have total money of world 0 and still trade. Smile

BirdieNumNum

Senior Member

BirdieNumNum

Joined: 07 October 2012

Posts: 965

Posted: 28 October 2012 at 6:21am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112

Originally posted by BirdieNumNum

hahaha shmaarrt boyLOL

again i think that we'll get to a certain point playing mechano mechano trying to explain how things works, then we get stuck for a 100 years. After that we find a glitch and we are sent scampering for new theories and ideas... 

now whether we believe in God or not, however rational or irrational we might find those beliefs to be, question is can we ever expect to go beyond things we can only measure using our classical world-view? Take GR. At the end of the day, we still evaluate results using "classical" devices. Add to that a scientific philosophy that is always looking for cause and effect. Can science deal with something that is non-causal? If not, then fine, we cannot prove existence. But then why come at it from an arrogant viewpoint that says it isn't so, and it isn't so because we cant prove things scientifically? I find that mentality as rigid as all the religious dogmas that we have been decrying. And no, i dont know what else we can do about it. The scientific method is still the best we have. But it is far from satisfactory in even beginning to get at what else there might be. Can it prove definitely that there isnt something else? I dont think so.

Yes, we will always be searching for new theories and ideas, because it is obvious that current ones don't explain everything. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything we didn't know. But it's still better than attributing the cause of everything we can't explain to an entity about which we have no idea. That's just shifting the fault. When we are out f depth, we put it to an entity which we can't explain. That will get us stuck and we would get nowhere.

About "classical" method, I don't know why you make it out to be so bad of a thing. We will try to understand from our point of view, won't we? And it still didn't limit us, QM came up which contradicts classical view. That's how we progress, that's how we answer the lies of complaint you make, our limiting view. We try to understand things at small scale and how does it give rise to large ones. And you point at the limitations as if it is meant to underestimate all the work that has gone into it. What would we have if we have followed your way. Everything will be mystical. Why try to understand something? Our view is very "limited", you will never be able to make sense of it all. We wouldn't know a thing if we followed that mentality. Maybe we will hit a wall one day and may not be able to make progress further. Or maybe that day won't come. Who knows? What we know is today is not that day and we have to take our understanding one way forward.

i am doing no such thing. If you read my post more carefully, you'll find the intent there and a tacit understanding of the points you have made. I was just trying to go beyond those. 

See, the difference between you and me is that I like to think beyond what is, and that's after some understanding of "what is". I feel if people sat around waiting for the next day to come to find out whether they learned anything, the world would not have made progress. Unless accidentally when the proverbial apple fell on them. It's called thought leadership buddy and I like the position I am coming from. Works for me.Smile


Edited by BirdieNumNum - 28 October 2012 at 6:28am

BirdieNumNum

Senior Member

BirdieNumNum

Joined: 07 October 2012

Posts: 965

Posted: 28 October 2012 at 6:27am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112

Originally posted by BirdieNumNum

money went to someone else but you became diwala. Now if that's nothing for you, what else is?LOL You have to obey the laws of accounting the same way the world has to obey the laws of nature. Bringing in others just makes the system open-ended and introduces unnecessary complexity without adding anything. Hope you dont take the discussion down that path just to keep your point going. Smile

OK, won't drag this discussion, but will just point out a flaw in your analogy. When talking about the total energy of the whole Universe, we are including all there is. So, in the case of money, it would include all money there is and my point stands there. Money just got transferred, like energy changes form, but it sill is. Still, this is much different from total zero energy Universe. You can't have total money of world 0 and still trade. Smile

since you want to go on with the trivia, how many kangaroos do you find jumping in your backyard? I got 0 for an answer.LOL

you made a point suggesting 0 is not "reality". If you want to limit that to only energy, then we have to get into other discussion. But 0 is not something one would rule out without research. It's possible, just depends on what quantity/ concept we are talking about. So it's very real in that general sense. 

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13809

Posted: 28 October 2012 at 9:25am | IP Logged
Originally posted by BirdieNumNum

i am doing no such thing. If you read my post more carefully, you'll find the intent there and a tacit understanding of the points you have made. I was just trying to go beyond those. 

See, the difference between you and me is that I like to think beyond what is, and that's after some understanding of "what is". I feel if people sat around waiting for the next day to come to find out whether they learned anything, the world would not have made progress. Unless accidentally when the proverbial apple fell on them. It's called thought leadership buddy and I like the position I am coming from. Works for me.Smile

I think you don't understand me enough to say that. I used to be in this thing, the beyond thing, you know new age conspiracy stuff. So many speculations with so much confidence as if they were talking science. All these vibration, energy, and force stuff. I used to believe in the beyond etc. But then I realized that I am not expert enough to find new things. Unless i have studied that much. And scientists are not just xeroxing existing books, they are finding new things. So, pointing out current limitations while putting out untestable and bold claiming hypothesis but not bothering to try and research on it is no good. Yes, somebody finds out things, that's how we move forward. But if you are gonna challenge existing things and make a new one, at least go prove them wrong. Everybody can come up with things. What makes them credible is if they can make sense of it. Thinking outside the box is good, but you gotta have the idea where the box is. Smile

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Do you believe there is a God ?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 89 90

Summer3 719 30337 18 November 2012 at 11:22pm
By Summer3
do u believe in theory of karma?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 12

monika. 94 4465 20 September 2011 at 11:49am
By epiphany.
Believe in prophecies ? Rome to tumble 11 May

2

Summer3 10 809 12 May 2011 at 4:20am
By Summer3
Do you believe in "paranormal things"?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SolidSnake 71 3914 17 September 2010 at 1:42am
By _Angie_
Do you believe in fairytales?

2

shalini1323 11 756 27 April 2010 at 11:41pm
By Vinzy

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.