If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 107

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

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!

Word Count: 0

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".

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

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 ... 😆
@ Bold: Nohohoho 😆 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 ... 😆

Now this is called EXTREME illusion = MAYA ..the concept ...Only the terminologies differ cause the authors differ .. 😆 .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 ..😊

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 😆 ...That energy is what I call the SOUL ...please don't attach ghostly images to that ...😆 Everything came from ONE Energy and Everything would become one energy again ...after may be a many billion years ...😆

Vintu 😛

Originally posted by: _Angie_

Angie ! 😆

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

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


Vintu 😛

Word Count: 0

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 😛

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 😆 << Which I DO ..but in a difference sense of that word ..A part of the greater energy that is ...😛

@ 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 ...😆 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 ..😆

Vintu... 😛

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.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

money went to someone else but you became diwala. Now if that's nothing for you, what else is?😆 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. 😊

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

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.

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

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. 😊

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.😊