Enlightenment

 

enlightenment-

Respected Ali Sina,  Although I am still not sure what is the real truth, but I  accept before you that now I am no more a believer in the prophethood of the person whom I considered the best human being.   You have already asked not to seek help from you and I have also promised so, but I think you would not be so miser that you would not even give some advice. I have been very religious till two years ago and for many years I used to teach Quran to the local youths and children. In love of Quran I learnt a little Arabic also and am able to understand the Quranic Arabic. I would force my wife to pray and recite Quran. But now when she observes that I don’t pray, she asks me the reason. First I left the five prayers and now when I don’t even attend the Friday prayer she has become very curious to know the reason. She is not too educated to read an English book. I am in a fix whether I should reveal the truth or wait. Moreover I live in a volatile Muslim majority region. Even a rumor can create great disturbance. On one side my conscience doesn’t allow me to remain  as a hypocrite. Whenever a religious discussion starts some where I have to act as a believer.  On the other hand when I think about the safety and future of my children I become very mentally disturbed. I think you understood me.

 

Dear Naser,

Yes I perfectly understand you.  Your safety and the safety of your family have the priority importance. No you are not being a hypocrite to act in a way to prevent danger. You’d be reckless if you didn’t.  I understand how difficult it must be to live in such state and even fear to speak one’s mind to ones nearest and dearest.  More difficult is to face a bunch of savages who think by killing you they’ll go to heaven.

As for your wife and children you may say to them that you have become disillusioned of the Muslims and the way they interpret Islam to justify hating and killing people. This much you can say safely.

You ask me to not be a miser and at least give you some advice in regards to truth.   Okay, here is my honest response. I don’t know.  I only share what I know to be true. This much I know that Muhammad was a mentally sick man and not a prophet of God.  This I can say with certainty. But I can’t advise you what you should believe.

I can however share my own search for the truth.  As you can see from my articles I started as an agnostic and sometimes an atheist.  My views changed recently when I investigated the claims of the people with near death experience.  It started by watching their testimonies on Youtube.   Many of those testimonies were verifiable.  That confirmed that these people were not hallucinating.  Their experiences were real. They actually insist their experiences were more real than this world.  When we dream we may not be aware that it is a dream. But when we wake up we immediately know it was a dream. This is not the case with the people having near death experience.  They say this world, in comparison to what they experienced, is a dream.

I am grateful for how my brain is wired.  I don’t cling to any idea and I am ready to change my views at the drop of a hat if compelling evidence is provided to me.  The Youtube testimonies of the near death experiencers, especially those verifiable ones, were compelling evidence of the survival of consciousness after death.  If I had to remain honest to myself I had to accept it.  The next task was how to make sense of it.  I have a scientific background. Things must make sense.  Scientific means verifiable and measurable.  The verification for the independence of consciousness from body is convincing.  I have posted a dozen of videos in Why I Believe in God and Afterlife Now.  If those videos don’t convince one, it is because that person has made the choice not to accept the facts.

Is spirit measurable?  Can we test its existence with some laboratory instrument?  There are some inconclusive claims about recorded voices of the dead people or cameras capturing images of ghosts.  Such claims are not substantial enough to be accepted as evidence.  But the fact that we cannot measure this substance called consciousness or spirit yet does not disprove its existence.   A couple of hundred years ago we did not know anything about waves. We could see light and could hear voices but we had no idea that they have the same substance. The only difference is their frequency.  Since then we have discovered there are many other frequencies. With that knowledge we can now communicate with each other across the world at the speed of light.  We do that by transforming one wave length to another and back again.  Nothing magical about it.  When we did not know anything about wave, the idea of instant communication at long distances would have sound absurd.  So the absence of evidence for the independence of consciousness is not the evidence of absence of such thing.

Now we know that even matter is vibration. Albert Einstein said, “Everything in life is vibration.”  Matter is made of particles. Particles are vibration of energy. Upon this idea is based the string theory, which is the most widely accepted theory of everything.  The chair you are sitting on, your body and your thoughts are all vibrations. They are made of the same substance with different frequencies.  This is the frontier of the 21st century science.  The diversity is caused by different frequencies.  A good example is musical notes.  Through their careful arrangement you can compose a symphony. But all notes are generated with vibration of the same cord.  What make them different is the frequencies with which they vibrate.

Wave lengths with frequencies between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz are audible to human ears (0.017 meter to 17 meter).  Visible light corresponds to a wavelength range of 400 – 700 nanometers (nm). For millions of years we humans could hear and see only these wave lengths.  Now we can measure wave lengths as small as 10-6 nm (0.000001 nanometer) such as Gama rays and as large as 100 km such as radio waves. The absence of evidence of other wave length was not the evidence of their absence.  We just did not know about them.

Thought are also vibration.  Consciousness is thought. This means that thoughts and brain are of the same substance.  To say thoughts cannot exist without the brain is absurd.  If brain can exist independent of consciousness, consciousness can also exist independent of brain.  If both matter and thought are vibration of different frequencies, there is no reason to assume that one frequency is more real than the other.

Therefore, not only we have evidence of the survival of consciousness, as the NDEs show, we also have logical explanation that this idea is not contrary to reason and science.  There is nothing irrational in the belief that consciousness/spirit will survive the cessation of the biological life. Note that even the body does not cease to exist.  It will decompose to its basic elements and will be recycled. We all know about the law of conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It just changes form. Thought is energy. Consciousness is thought. It cannot be created or destroyed.  This means our consciousness is eternal.

How can this be so if only God is eternal?  Eternal means uncreated! If we are uncreated then who is God and what He has to do with the universe?

This proposition makes no sense, as long as we think of God as an entity outside ourselves.  But what if this dualistic definition of reality that we have about God and His creation is wrong? What if the universe is not created by God, the way a table is created by a carpenter, but is a thought of God, like a melody in the mind of a musician?  What if the universe is the dream of God?

In one of his programs, Carl Sagan dismissed the Hindu notion of the universe being the dream of God.  In Hinduism, the universe is but the dream of the god who after a 100 Brahma years (864 billion years) dissolves himself into a dreamless sleep and the universe dissolves with him until after another Brahma century he recomposes himself and begins again to dream the great cosmic lotus dream. According to this philosophy, there are an infinite number of universes, each with its own god dreaming the cosmic dream.

Sagan said “these great ideas are tempered by another perhaps still greater, that men may not be the dreams of the gods but rather that gods are the dreams of men.” But maybe Sagan was wrong. Maybe the ancient Hindus had it right.  Sagan’s views were informed by science of his time. Science is rapidly expanding. Today more and more scientists are subscribing to the theory of holographic universe.

In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed that gravity arises from infinitesimally thin, vibrating strings and the intricate world of strings, which exist in nine dimensions of space plus one of time, would be merely a hologram. This world, according to this theory is played out in a much simpler flat cosmos where there is no gravity.

The holographic universe is gaining rapid acceptance among scientists. Maldacena’s idea offers a way to put the popular string theory on solid footing. This theory if true, can solve the apparent inconsistencies between quantum physics and Einstein’s theory of gravity. Last year a team headed by Yoshifumi Hyakutake of Ibaraki University provided compelling mathematical evidence that Maldacena’s conjecture is true.

Many scientists, including Leonard Susskind who is one of the foremost theoretical physicists and a proponent of the String theory and holographic universe, believe this century will bring such dramatic changes in our understanding of universe and reality that is unparalleled in history.  Forget about Galileo’s discovery that the Earth is not the center of the cosmos. Forget about Darwin’s discovery that man is evolved from apes. If those discoveries were shocking, the discovery that we may be a 3D projection of a reality that is beyond this world is earth-shattering.

So could we be the dream of God as ancient Hindus thought?  This means we are not creations of God. We are pieces of God . We are God.  God is experiencing Himself through us.

Now all that is good and dandy, but how it will change my life. In what way I can benefit from this knowledge?   Knowledge is power.  If everything is vibration and thought is also vibration.  Then the universe is thought and thoughts are waves. Waves interfere with each other.

When two waves meet while traveling through the same medium, their interference causes the medium to take on a shape that result from the net effect of the two individual waves upon the particles of the medium. They can amplify or annul each other, depending on how they interact.  The following pictures illustrate this point.

 waveconstruct    wavedestruct

This means that we can change the reality through our thought.  The universe conforms to our thinking.  Not only we become what we think, as Buddha said, the world becomes what we think of it. Being parts of God we are also creators like Him. God creates the universe with His thoughts and we create our reality with our thoughts.

Jesus said. (Matthew 5:27-28). “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’  But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  Jesus knew about the power of thought.  He knew that it is the thought that gives birth to reality.  Today quantum physicists confirm that idea.  In quantum physics, the observed universe is not independent from the observer.  It is the conscious thought of the observer that gives birth to the formation of matter.  So it is not heresy to say that we create our world by the way we think.

I even have my own theory that evolution takes place through the collective consciousness of the species.  Darwin’s theory of evolution through the survival of the fittest has been extremely successful, except for the fact that evolution is not always gradual. There is also something called evolutionary leap.  A species often undergoes sudden dramatic change from one generation to the next in a large scale affecting all the members of that species.  This is called saltation.  There are many proven cases of saltation, for which no scientific explanation exist. As the result saltation or macroevolution is rejected by a great number of biologists and scientific community at large.  Again, evidence exist that saltation takes place.  If we can’t explain it, it does not justify rejecting it.

How this evolutionary leap takes place? In my opinion it takes place through collective consciousness of a species.  Let us say you are a fish and the oceans are infested with sharks. You take refuge in shallow waters were sharks can’t swim.  These shallow waters can become over populated and easily depleted from oxygen. So you are safe from sharks, but you can’t breathe.  You need to breath air and for that you need a lung.  For a fish to evolve lung through the slow Darwinian process, thousands of generations should pass. By then the species can go extent.  Saltation theory states that the species can undergo a mutation in one generation and suddenly generate a lung, which then will gradually evolve according to Darwin’s theory of adaptation.

There is evidence of saltation but there is no explanation for it. Those interested may want to read this article  How is it triggered? The explanation, in my opinion is the collective consciousness of the species.  This idea of collective consciousness to the scientific community that is by large materialistic is an absurdity. Despite the evidence provided by quantum physics, they can’t accept the notion that thought can influence matter or evolution.  To provide evidence that it does, I will have to write a book and who knows? Maybe one day!  For the sake of this article, accept it as a possibility.  If that is true, we humans can evolve any time we create a collective consciousness at will.

Today’s collective consciousness is selfishness or hedonism if we have any.  We actually don’t have a collective consciousness.  We need to create a collective consciousness that focuses on oneness of humanity, and gets rid of hate, and replaces it with love.  The need for unity of mankind must become as imperative to our species as was the need for lung for the early fish trapped in the oxygen depleted shallow waters of the oceans. When we all long for peace, instead of war, when we all see each other as one, instead of enemies, the next evolution of human race can take place in one generation.

Islam today is the biggest chain that shackles mankind and prevents it evolution. Islam promotes hate to one fifth of humanity. We need to get rid of it. We need to get rid of all ideologies that promote hate, Islam being the biggest of them all. Then we can replace the thoughts of hate with thoughts of love.  And once that happens, there will be a change in our collective consciousness and our species will experience another great evolutionary leap.  The new species that will emerge, our descendants, will be as different from us as we are from Chimpanzees.  I can’t even imagine what they will be.

How far are we from this leap? Not very far. The Internet is paving the way. Billions of minds are connecting with each other creating a network of minds.  Old beliefs will die. All religions have to get rid of their baggage and dead loads. Muslims have to abandon their sinking ship altogether.  We will get there, maybe in 100 years, maybe less. This is our destiny. We can change the world by changing our thoughts, one person at a time.

You my friend, have taken the first step and have rid yourself of an ideology of hate.  Now you can replace it with any ideology that promotes universal love.  Just don’t ask me which one.  I can’t suggest you any. I love Jesus and Buddha, but you have to find your own path.  Enlightenment is a very personal path.  Only one word of advice! Enlightenment is free. It can’t be sold or purchased. If anyone wants to charge you for it, that person is not enlightened.  He is a businessman.   You don’t need techniques to become enlightened and if you want to practice a technique, the best ones are free.  Watch out for billionaire gurus.

You may also like...

No Responses

  1. butarbutar says:

    At the end, we all kbow the truth.

  2. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //He cannot logically be "beyond" existence//
    I said he is beyond all that is material.

    //I already refuted it if "god" is not the all he is not infinite simple as. //
    Which is wrong since infinite – finite = infinite. Simple. No theist would say God is finite being, hence God is infinite, hence anything finite that can be thought to exist materially doesn't make God less than that. It still remains infinite.

    //Which means you are claiming that God is "more" than everything, which is a logical impossibility and can be dismissed out of hand. //
    More than material existence. Else you define when you think something exist (ie what is existence).

    //"So you are ascribing Causality as a miracle" Their are no "miracles"//
    Well, if you say Causality just happens, you think how it works, or why it works is meaningless exploration, then off course it becomes a miracle and nothing more. You earlier seem to have an issue with miracles 🙂

    //Those "scientific theories" which are built upon the principle of causality. //
    No. But purely on the basis of logic and mathematics. Gravity doesn't assume Causality for example. The point is Causality isn't a phenomenon that needs a deep introspection, but simply an observation. It has no explanatory value.

    //" Without evidence or logical reasoning to back it up, it doesn't mean it is true. The truth of a claim is subjected to logical rigours not the possibility of it not being false. " You are aware that logic cannot prove itself?//
    You are aware that I wasn't talking about logic, but your assumption that in each possible worlds there must be something materially existing without any logical reasoning to back it up.

    //You was the one trying to claim causality would not exist in a world with "souls and gods". //
    Show me where? Don't lie. I simply said that Causality needn't hold in all possible world. It is just an assumption you were making.

    //That exactly what you claimed.//
    //By the way a car's design is just 1 of countless things it "requires" for its existence.//
    :-). I said it is more than the sum of its parts, not that it is beyond its parts. There is a difference between the two phrases. And I had you say that without a design the sum of car parts won't produce the car. Thats a clear evidence that sum of parts is sometimes less than the whole, you need extra parameters.
    And by the way, the design may be one of the many things that are required, it is definitely required to make the car.

    //"Long back I asked you whether there is a point on the wall where the clock wasn't. You haven't replied yet. Same as with the skin of the apple." Because reality is a seamless continuum does not mean its a homogeneous soup. //
    Which is meaningless response to my question for obvious reasons. If there is some such point on the wall, then definitely clock has a boundary.

    //Why take those points as her beginning?//
    Because anytime before this there was no entity that you could have or you would have identified as your mother.

    // Those 2 events are just 1 of countless events necessary for her existence. //
    I am not talking about what are necessary for her existence, but the fact that she had a definite time since which you can say she exists (and before which you can say that she didn't).

  3. mysticalmind3 says:

    @cchuckc

    "To a theist God is beyond all that is material. " He cannot logically be "beyond" existence, whether that is "material existence" or immaterial existence" (whatever you mean by that.)

    "You couldn't counter infinity – finite = infinity." I already refuted it if "god" is not the all he is not infinite simple as.

     "Moreover, considering transcendence, the comparison is simply meaningless. " Unless you coherently define"transcendence" then what you wrote here is meaningless – unless you are claiming God transcends existence itself? Which means you are claiming that God is "more" than everything, which is a logical impossibility and can be dismissed out of hand.

    "So you are ascribing Causality as a miracle" Their are no "miracles" – unless you want to say everything is a miracle but then the term "miracle" would become meaningless. 

    " How it fell and why it fell and what different state it achieved while falling and after the fall isn't 'explained' by Causality but by different scientific theories." Those "scientific theories" which are built upon the principle of causality.

    " Without evidence or logical reasoning to back it up, it doesn't mean it is true. The truth of a claim is subjected to logical rigours not the possibility of it not being false. " You are aware that logic cannot prove itself?

    " in response to my saying that in some possible world it is possible for non-material stuff to exist." Define "material" and "non material".

    /You was claiming a car is "more" than just the sum of its parts, so its not a red-herring. // 
    "You are now lying." That exactly what you claimed.

    "But anyway, car is more than sum of its part, this was proven by your acceptance that a design is anyway required in the assembly of the parts to form the car." No the car is just the sum of its parts – unless you are now saying it exists beyond its boundaries? By the way a car's design is just 1 of countless things it "requires" for its existence. 

    "Long back I asked you whether there is a point on the wall where the clock wasn't. You haven't replied yet. Same as with the skin of the apple." Because reality is a seamless continuum does not mean its a homogeneous soup.

    "By the way your mother is expected to have been conceived and born. Take any of those points as her beginning." Why take those points as her beginning? Those 2 events are just 1 of countless events necessary for her existence.

  4. cchuckc says:

    @knowtheenemy
    //Leela supports fatalism only if one has a superficial understanding of the concept.//
    Or when people misuse the concept to hide their falling and failings. What can I do, God wanted this to be so… the point is that if this be so, and IT IS SO, then why should you have a problem with the Karma principle but not the Leela principle?

    //Did Raam (of Ramayan) give up too soon in the face of difficulty? He too was doing a leela. Did he leave any stone unturned?//
    And isn't that an example of Karma? To do your best to achieve what you want to obtain. Also the case of Ravana, the doer of sin perishing to Lord Rama, is also a case of Karma catching with him. In fact I see no reason that you should consider Leela and Karma as opposing, competing philosophies. I see them as one cohesive unit. Leela is what you see, Karma is why you see what you see. We needn't fathom God's Leela, but we can't also leave everything to Leela (fatalism).

    In fact they go hand in hand. You can think of Karma as the mechanism by which the Leela is being played out. Leela in Hinduism is the Divine creative activity while Karma is the blender, the dynamic force, the active principle of the play. In terms of soccer, the tussle of the 22 players is the game, the lila, whereas the various shots, dribbles, saves by the keeper, fouls, tackles etc are the Karma which bear the various results (and many many mini-results). Unless, off course, you have a different understanding of Leela, I think I have explained my understanding of Leela and Karma and their inter-dependency.

    //I feel that a Karma believer will run into walls and pits when it comes to 'getting' the world//
    Why?

    //Also a Leela believer will see things that a karma believer may not! //
    Perhaps seeing those things isn't necessary. But can you explain what these things are?

    //People who 'tweak' the karma principle to fit [nicely] with their personal desires will surely tweak the Leela principle, or will use it as an excuse, for their selfish desires//
    Very much what I was saying. That is the reason why I think your antipathy for the Karma principle is not correct. Hence, with all due respect, I reject your stance on Karma as something that is unfounded logically.

    //how to change someone and make them look at the cow, or at the world!//
    Trick them in believing in the Karma principle. Thats what the gurus did in my old example of the rickshaw puller in Mayapur. It works, I have seen it working, I believe that it worked its magic in not allowing the muslim to become a majority in India despite almost 1300 years of continuous presence.

  5. knowTheEnemy says:

    First, apologies for the late response. My current workplace is a fairly busy place which has its pros and cons…. the cons being that I can't post replies fast enough…

    Leela supports fatalism only if one has a superficial understanding of the concept. In order to get the most potential benefit, including spiritual benefits, one must study it (and contemplate on it) fairly deeply.

    ["It is logical to assume that such a position can reduce a person to give up too soon or give up for too little in the face of difficulty."]

    Only if the person has a superficial understanding of the concept. Did Raam (of Ramayan) give up too soon in the face of difficulty? He too was doing a leela. Did he leave any stone unturned? In fact, I cannot remember a single instance in the entire Ramayan where emphasis was put on the Karma principle!! 

    ["I see the contrast between this position and the position of Karma (I am the doer, I do). But to each her own!! "]

    Personally I am in favour of seeing/interacting the world through the perspective of Leela. I feel that a Karma believer will run into walls and pits when it comes to 'getting' the world, whereas a Leela believer will not. Also a Leela believer will see things that a karma believer may not!

    "To each her own" … but that does not mean that we should not point out deficiencies in others' positions if we see them. Who knows.. maybe the person never considered the cons of their beliefs/positions…maybe s/he overlooked something (I overlooked something too, which I will explain in a short while, and your critique reminded me of it.) A critique encourages people to have a second look at their belief… maybe their belief needs a total overhaul, maybe it only needs a small fix. [Of course such critiques should only be done at proper debate settings (e.g online forums) and not on someone's face.]

    ["A Principle or world view is like an umbrella, but it is you who has to open it. You can't blame the umbrella if you overlooked the weather forecast, didn't carry the umbrella and got wet. That rain was indeed Prabhu's Leela, but your getting wet was your own foolishness….. And hence it is not the problem of the philosophy or the principle but the lack of 'education' and intent of the people"]

    I agree with you. You use the phrase "lack of education" whereas I use the phrase "superficial understanding"… but I think we both mean the same thing.

    Now to the part that I overlooked- Intent of the people. People who 'tweak' the karma principle to fit [nicely] with their personal desires will surely tweak the Leela principle, or will use it as an excuse, for their selfish desires. They will tweak ANY principle and ALL principles if they need to, to get what they want! The cow-worshiper will only have 'prosperity' on his/her mind, s/he will not see the cow until something changes inside him/her.

    Unfortunately for the world, there are too many people like this.. .they only see what they can get out of this world…. they don't see the world! And it will stay this way until something changes inside them!!

    The above two paragraphs may sound fatalist but I really do not know, for now, how to change someone and make them look at the cow, or at the world! However, I will keep my eyes (and my mind) open for any solutions that may pass by.

  6. cchuckc says:

    @knowTheEnemy
    //The fact that people use Karma for selfish excuses instead of respecting it, IS THE MAIN REASON why I believe it is a bane of Indian society.//
    Which is true for any principle. Including the principle of 'Leela' that you were proposing. I am sure that there are a lot of people, just like you, who would say that Muhammad and cholera are both Prabhu's Leela and, unlike you, if I may say, leave it at that!! Why would somebody like to invest time to understand the consequences (it is Prabhu's Leela what can I do about it)? Why will a student study if exams are something which just happens and results are also something which also just happens (School Board's Leela)? I am sorry but that sounds a very fatalist position. It is logical to assume that such a position can reduce a person to give up too soon or give up for too little in the face of difficulty. I see the contrast between this position and the position of Karma (I am the doer, I do). But to each her own!!

    A Principle or world view is like an umbrella, but it is you who has to open it. You can't blame the umbrella if you overlooked the weather forecast, didn't carry the umbrella and got wet. That rain was indeed Prabhu's Leela, but your getting wet was your own foolishness!!

    //I completely agree with that statement! Something has to change inside the person for him/her to respect a principle//
    And hence it is not the problem of the philosophy or the principle but the lack of 'education' and intent of the people

  7. Sakat says:

    "Very famous cricketer" .God bless.I don't want to divulge in next para right now of your above post.

  8. Sakat says:

    Lady
    You know i am not irritated with you personally ,but when you bring that term "belief" along with you makes me very much upset.I am the greatest admirer/and delusional disciple of TARUN SHRI MAHARAJ and i am imitating his "Kadvi Sach" philosophy here all the while (i liked it). God bless

  9. Supriya says:

    Sakat
    I admit that I don't know much about Jyotish shastra. But around 15 experiences made me to believe in Jtotish Shastra. Astrologer Pavan Sinha is an amazing jyotishi. I don't disrespect Krishna, Rama, Buddha, all Jain Tirthankars , rishis, munis,even Jesus Christ. I know every devi or devata symbolizes a particular form of energy.I know all energies belong to Brahman( orParam atma).And most important Leelas of all these Devatas are needed to gain knowledge.
    Om Shanti !

  10. Supriya says:

    Sakat
    /However the person of your state really was not worthy of that prize/
    What do you mean by this?
    I am really amazed that you believe in Buddhism( shunyavad) though you belong to Brahmin caste.
    Let me tell you I belong to Jain community ( Anek vad) but we(my family) believe in Advait vedant( Poorn vad) .
    I told you that I believe in power of thought. I always recite Mantra from the bottom of my heart. I meditate daily for 3 hrs. Sri Sri is my family Guru(just like family doctor). But I always try to gain knowledge from various sources.( such as Prajapita Brahmakumaris , Brahma vidya sadhak sangh)
    Thanks for telling me the reason why woman should not recite Gayatri Mantra.

  11. Sakat says:

    /Didn't you say that you are master of Jyotish shastra ?/
    Yes certainly but how you concluded that ,I am intelligent (impliedly in Jyotish) without practically checking the authenticity.
    You always used certain words while placing your views like ,”I believe” or in “my opinion “ or “I think so” etc what it imply .Either you are ignorant of the subject or you bring logic in between .Science is not based on belief _any one’s view /theory should be put to test practically before it is being accepted .Like wise Indian philosophy is not based on any belief our seers ,yogis ,maharishis were scientist and they made their body as tool to unravel the mystery of universe. Whole of our philosophy is based on practical experiments there is no scope for dogmas or for entry of any Gabriel to convey Allah’s massage .There is no scope for how to pray the almighty . The Semitic religions are based on all these kinds of dirty beliefs so the followers of these religions (except Muslims)have become disheartened and are more and more attracted towards eastern philosophy, that is a different story .
    To understand the true meaning of any word in Indian philosophy or why a particular ritual is being followed in our religion one must know it from heart and not by intelligence, the meaning of the mantra .In other words you have to peep into the mind of that rishi or yogi who is the author of that mantra or ritual and the best way to do is meditation . For example “Gayatri’ Mantra, when Vishwamitra finally attains Brahma Gyan and becomes Brahma Rishi he first went to meet Sage Vasista upon seeing Vasista ,Vishwamitra spontaneously utters Gayatri mantra .This particular mantra has unique power (it contain agnitattava) therefore woman are barred from chanting it (because woman are jaltattva) ,but look at how the mantra being chanted by woman in loudspeaker (it is harmful to them) in the name of woman empowerment . There are many kind of such mantras which are beneficial to the person like “Maha Mritunjaya” mantra (if chanted properly).But without “feeling “ the mantra in your heart it will not help any one . People come to see their Jyotishya ,if I say to them to do jap of certain mantra for certain period (with Purushacharn) ,they straight way go to a priest and engage him to do the japa on their behalf ( this is what the Jyotisya finds its ultimate conclusion).
    /I believe in Vedang Jyotish/
    I am not interfering in any one’s belief relax.As far as Vedang Jyotish the whole Jyotishya shastra is based on it The day to day panchang you refer is prepared on the basis of Vedang Jyotishya .It is a complex system of astrology it has two branch one Rigveda and another from Yejurveda and I bet you none is perfect in that particular Vedang Jyotishya (You may find few in Tamil Nadu) .As far me is concerned I am an armature jyotishi not professional one .I am a professional in different field and my profession brings me enough money so I don’t need to depend on Jyotishya .During Ganesh festival I do the job of priest to my neighbor hood in my native free of cost (perhaps you may understand my cast) . Of course please don’t insult ‘chuck ‘ with Bharat Ratna he deserves Nobel prize.However the person of your state really was not worthy of that Prize.
    If my post had hurt you then I am extremely sorry , however I am always like this ,out worldly I may be harsh but from inside I do not think of harming any creature . I have already said Chuck,Demsci ,I-know-the enemy are real gems and I am no where near to them or do not have their caliber ( I am not jealous either). Let me conclude my post with beautiful Sloka from Ishopanishad,”Ishavashamidam sarvam yatkincham jagatyam jagat ,tein ,tekten Bunjita Ma grad kashya swiddanam “ (precisely it means,don’t go after praise and don’t get disturbed when insulted ,be stable (Stita Pragnya) on all the circumstances ).God bless.

  12. knowTheEnemy says:

    ["My point was that you were telling Supriya that the Karma Principle is the bane of the Indian society. So I don't share your pessimism."]

    The fact that people use Karma for selfish excuses instead of respecting it, IS THE MAIN REASON why I believe it is a bane of Indian society. You say you have seen "a huge number of people who both believe in the principle and have a deep sense of responsibility for their actions".
    Well, I have not, so our experiences have been different. But then people have different experiences in life and they end up with different biases towards things. My bias/prejudice towards the idea that people will firmly believe and respect the Karma principle has not changed and yes, I am a pessimist. You on the other hand are an optimist so like I said, go ahead and try to make people respect the Karma principle. I wish you good luck!

    ["The feeling of responsibility won't come because of the Principle and this is true for all ethical principles."]

    I completely agree with that statement! Something has to change inside the person for him/her to respect a principle.

  13. Supriya says:

    Cool down Mr. Sakat.
    Didn't you say that you are master of Jyotish shastra ? I believe in Vedang Jyotish. Even Mr. cchuckc believe in it.I respect all those persons who have mastered any stream/discipline.Hence I said that you are an intelligent guy. Am I wrong ?

    I think your thoughts are based on prejudice. I disagree with your perception of high caste people.

    Don't you know that Europeans specially British ruled half of the world? Now they have realized that materialistic possessions are not only requirement of human being(conscious being). They are visiting India to seek inner peace.

    I know cchuckc and Demsci are intelligent and rational commentators. If I will get an authoritative power to give Bharat Ratna honor/award , I will honor cchuckc as Bharat Ratna.

    You don't need to bother about my PostGraduation. Concentrate on your work.

    You said I am infatuated because I praised you. You hold worst misconception.
    You tried to hurt me lot. Let me tell you I am not hurt.
    In my opinion Mr. cchuckc is the only person who is mature here. He is rational,intelligent,kind, and down to earth.

  14. cchuckc says:

    //2) Even you see that in practice, people (or sufficient numbers of them) do not take Karma principle seriously at all and do not try to be responsible for their actions. //
    During my stay in India, I have traveled across India including rural India. And I find a huge number of people who both believe in the principle and have a deep sense of responsibility for their actions. So I don't share your pessimism.

    //So what good is a principle that is neither scientifically proven//
    A belief needn't have a scientific proof. As far as how good it is I think you missed my point about how it might have helped Indians to cope up with the many vagaries of the Islamic rule. If I am right on my Dharma and I am anyway going to benefit now or in later lives then even if you put a gun on my head and ask me to become a Muslim, or give me state patronage to become Muslim and then help you in expanding your religion, I won't convert or be afraid to die – A thought like this one might have crossed the millions of innocent Indians who were put to sword by the marauding Muslims. Don't you think it was something of an achievement to stop the Islamic juggernaut and keep it a minority religion even after 500 years of constant assault, followed by 600 years of constant Muslim rule?

    //nor does it give sufficient feeling of responsibility to people who claim to believe in it.//
    1. I think a lot of people take it seriously.
    2. The feeling of responsibility won't come because of the Principle and this is true for all ethical principles. It doesn't mean that the principle is abhorring or useless. You can consider the example of Nuclear Tech in this regard. There are a host of countries who use it to produce electricity while 'n' number of nations are preparing nuclear warhead. What is wrong is the tendency to wage war not the advent of Nuclear Technology as such.

    //IF they firmly believe in Karma principle then yes! //
    Which is what I am saying.

    //But I do not know how to convince people to take Karma seriously//
    Which is a different matter. My point was that you were telling Supriya that the Karma Principle is the bane of the Indian society. I see now your point is entirely different.

    //But the educated will never patronize an idea with zeal if they know that the idea has no scientific basis. //
    Which is a bit hard to believe. I think both educated and uneducated are equally prone to believe in unscientific ideas including pseudo-scientific one. If you don't believe me just tune into any of the Central/Western European, or American TV networks – tarot reading and feng shui programs galore!!

    //This idea is sophisticated, artistic, and may be scientifically correct. //
    What is this idea?

  15. knowTheEnemy says:

    ["Why they are suffering from these diseases in teen age…  
    [ I know scientific causes of these diseases] You believe in Indian philosophy of spirituality. It says bad and good Karmas are founations of Prarabdha( destiny) of every person in next birth.
    "]

    Would you say that incurable diseases have increased in the world? What about sufferings in general? Have they increased? If yes, then [from karma-believer's point of view] would you not say that lots of people were ignoring righteous deeds in their past lives?

    How about we stop obsessing on past karmas and concentrate on doing righteous deeds? Watch these youtube clips (with English subtitles) based on Purans. In the story Vishnu killed a sage woman because she had given shelter to demons who were threatening the world. Do you believe Vishnu was worrying about -ve karma points when he did that? My answer is that he wasn't worrying about any karma points, he simply did whatever was righteous. If something negative happened to him personally because of his deeds he simply added it to his leela. He would never have refused to do the righteous thing because of fear of negative karma.

    Part 1 (3 minutes)

    Part 2 (2 minutes)

    In this puranic story, Vishnu is a positive example! One should live his life [righteously] without worrying about any karma. Through this story, Vishnu is a great example even to those who do not beleive in karma or kaliyug!

  16. knowTheEnemy says:

    So if it is kaliyug going on, do the teachings and wisdoms of rishis (and others) no longer apply? When Bhagwad Gita says "Those who are ignoring their Dharma in life, are committing sin", does this teaching no longer apply (because of kaliyug)??

    My problem is not with the theory of four eons! What bothers me is that people use kaliyug as excuse for their apathy towards social ills. "You see it is kaliyug going on… what can one even do"- this is what we get to hear when we talk about social problems. You did it too… when I first mentioned female-foeticide, you blamed it on kaliyug, instead of showing something that would give the impression that you support movements fighting against the ill. (Note: This is not a personal blame against you. All kaliyug believers do this. I am blaming everyone who uses the kaliyug excuse and is apathetic towards social conditions.) I think it is the belief in kaliyug itself that makes people become like this.

    Strange thing is that I never hear kaliyug-belivers blaming kaliyug when it comes to selfish benefits. For things that benefit them personally, be it school, jobs, business, or health, their attitude always is "Do whatever needs to be done for success!" People study hard, work hard, talk to friends/relatives for ideas, and practice those ideas (they try to take advantage of even the littlest ideas). They visit Gurus, do pilgrimages, contact jyotishis, and do whatever else that they can think of! Even those who do not believe in karma or jyotish go to Gurus and visit jyotishis, just in case there is something that the Guru can do or just in case they missed something about jyotish shastra and the stars and planets may be positioned right this time!
    But they never blame anything on karma or kaliyug! Karma and kaliyug are exclusively reserved for things that do not have anything to do with selfish needs!

  17. knowTheEnemy says:

    There are two things that I get from your post-
    1) You like the Karma principle and you hope people take it more seriously.
    2) Even you see that in practice, people (or sufficient numbers of them) do not take Karma principle seriously at all and do not try to be responsible for their actions.

    So what good is a principle that is neither scientifically proven nor does it give sufficient feeling of responsibility to people who claim to believe in it. There are so many more poeple 'utilizing' Karma as an excuse to ignore [others'] sufferings that it (karma) has itself become a social ill.

    ["…As far as the pros is concerned I think I have you agreeing to the point that if a person is firmly believing in Karma Theory then she is less likely to be attracted by 'success' of despots like Muhammad. That is a huge prospect…."]

    IF they firmly believe in Karma principle then yes! But I do not know how to convince people to take Karma seriously, nor do I know how to make them respect it (so that they do not use it as excuse for their selfish reasons). If you do, please go ahead and try, I wish you good luck! I am also of the opinion that revolutions to make Indian society better, need to start from educated people. But the educated will never patronize an idea with zeal if they know that the idea has no scientific basis.

    My solution is different. Actually it is not MY solution, the idea originated among the ancient rishis and brahmins, among a few others. It (the solution) has to do with Shiv (Mahadev). This idea is sophisticated, artistic, and may be scientifically correct. The biggest pro to this idea/solution imo is that it is universally practical. All kinds of people everywhere, including Atheists, can benefit from this idea.
    Unfortunately the biggest con to this solution is that it is fairly complicated. It takes a fairly good amount of reading and contemplation before one gets a correct understanding of the idea. I was going to start writing about it in response to Carmichael's post, but I am swamped with chores this weekend. On top of that I am not a skilled writer- a prerequisite for someone who wants to effectively explain the idea.

  18. Sakat says:

    Baby
    /You are an immensely intelligent guy/
    How come you know ,that i am immensely "intelligent " ( You are irritating me lot),How do you like to define the term "intelligence" ,as per your understanding ,in what field i should have to conclude that i am intelligent ,do you have any idea , for ex ' like in science,politics ,economy ,philosophy or in deceiving ( i think all the priest community deceived innocent people in the name of Jyosish,thus made them slave of learned people ) .The high cast people found a smart way of subjugation ( a step towards smart diplomacy) .Westerners were not able to understand this term in 16th and 17th century otherwise they could have become unstoppable ruler of this planet ( they have absorbed "0" (Zero) from India but failed to absorb the term "diplomacy" in Indian context which was very effective for ruling the whole colonized world) ,but when it was realized ( restricting to Indian sub -continent) lots of water had passed under the Hawara bridge. "Infatuation " is a very delicate thing ,but as the time passes one will laugh at it because of maturity ,though it is a natural phenomena you cannot drag it to further level ( its influence get reduced as time passes ,it seems you are doing your post graduation ,please concentrate on your study).
    I can really say there are intelligent people like ,Chuck, Demsi ,Know-the-Enemy ,Phoenix,Materialist etc .I am really envy of their intelligence .Don't try to give the Bharath Ratna to a wrong person .We Indians habitually do not try to consider worthy people for worthy post ,therefore ,these intellectuals like ,Chuck ,Know-the-enemy ,phoenix etc have to to take asylum or rather migrate to other counties where their intelligence could be valued. God bless.

  19. Supriya says:

    ccuckc
    In my opinion you are the most rational and intelligent person. Your every view guides me. Dhanyavad !

  20. Sakat says:

    @Chuck
    Really it amazes me how you have digested this much knowledge in every field !!!!!Hats Up my friend ,i second your reply.

  21. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy
    It's a good thing that you worry about consequences Muhammad's actions i.e. Jihad.
    This(jihad) is inevitable in Kali yug.
    I said in earlier post that there are many souls who are ready to listen to divine call of time( i.e. transformation of kaliyug to satya yug). e.g. Dr. Sina and all former muslims are working for transformation of current yug. Jihad will end as time passes (in the end of kali yug).
    You need to know more about srishti chakra, yugas, jyotish shastra.You can't ridicule them by saying ' nonsense'.
    You may read my earlier post : Lavanya's post.[Lavanya is one of my many names]

  22. cchuckc says:

    🙂

  23. cchuckc says:

    @knowTheEnemy
    //then it gives a rather poor impression about normal men, doesn't it!//
    It does. But that wasn't the point. The point was he led a, what can be called on most physical parameters, successful and prosperous life.

    //only because of luck/chance//
    Yes. But that isn't what a person, who wants to be inspired by him, will be accounting for.

    //I assumed that the reader has studied the consequenses of Muhammad's actions//
    Well. If you consider that you are rest of objections are toothless. IF people were responsible of their action India surely wouldn't have been as filthy as you say it is.

    //what about people who only care about themselves…. and there are plenty of such people in the world//
    Tell me how is the principle of Karma to be blamed if some people believe in Karma but don't care about the consequences hypothesized by the principle!! I am sorry but I didn't get your point.

    //Maybe the fear of hell and/or the fear of karma's punishment has stopped many from following on Muhammad's footsteps.//
    Exactly. And that is the kind of equation that is build up when such a theory is believed to be true. That is its practical utility.

    //However, I have seen enough people dumping others sufferings on the karma excuse //
    You may be right. But then you yourself say it is nothing but an excuse. A tax collection system is required, it serves a particular purpose. However there are people who evade taxes and stash the cash outside of the economic/fiscal system. However this situation isn't because of the tax system but because people don't care what such an evasion means socially and legally. One can give such excuse as that the tax system is overly complicated so I evade taxes:-), but that is just an excuse.

    //It is certainly possible that a believer of Karma is more likely to do good things//
    But that is the whole point. There are certainly things that are desirable on the social and ethical plain. But on an individual plain there has to be some incentive for a person to pursue those desirable things which may or may not directly impact that person's life. Similarly there has to be some kind of deterrent/disincentive in not pursuing things which apparently lead to a prosperous life.

    //There aren't many people afraid of -ve karma points nor are there many interested in making +ve karma points.//
    Which as I said before isn't a negative on the principle of Karma Theory but a comment on the people who do not give two hoots over it.

    //The cons of belief in Karma/Kaliyug significantly outweigh the pros!//
    Leave aside Kaliyug for the time being. It is nothing more than a conceptual division of time. I didn't understand the cons of belief in Karma. What you said are cons, are the cons of NOT BELIEVING the consequences of Karma Principle. As far as the pros is concerned I think I have you agreeing to the point that if a person is firmly believing in Karma Theory then she is less likely to be attracted by 'success' of despots like Muhammad. That is a huge prospect. In fact I consider it one of the most important factor why Islam which took only about 40 years to sweep the whole region between Andalusia and Hindukush, took 500 years to seep into India and even then remained a minority despite having a direct ruling muslim class for around 600 (1191 to 18th century) years. Nowhere else in the world it faced a spiritual theory which not only stood up to it but provided no (spiritual) incentive for the populace to embrace it despite huge fatalities.

  24. Supriya says:

    cchuckc
    Thank you very much. Actually I knew the answer of my question. Mr. Sakat questioned my views/beliefs. Therefore I asked him to distinguish between these two philosophies[ He believes in Buddhism and I believe in Advaitavad]

  25. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy
    You are unaware of many fundamental aspects of Indian philosophy of spirituality.Shareer(body) of a person has 3 goonas : 1] Satvic 2] Rajasic 3] Tamasic. And Atma(soul) is Nirgoon.
    As I said that every Srishti Chakra( world drama) has 4 Yugas. First one is Satya yug and last one is Kali yug.Man has gradually come to identify himself with body in successive births i.e. his journey begins with soul consciousness in Satya yug and ends with body consciousness in Kali yug.
    The man is satvic goon prabhavit in Saty yug. The same man is tamasic goon prabhavit in Kali yug.
    Satvic prabhavit means pure and powerful( in +ve way) thoughts or cration / emission of + ve energy out side in atmosphere.
    Tamasik prabhavit means impure and powerful( in -ve way) thoughts or creation/emission of -ve energy outside in atmosphere.
    Hence there is degradation of environment( and also corruption) in Kali yug.
    Forget these envt.conditions and political corruption in India and answer my question : You can find teen aged girls and boys are suffering from many incurable diseases such as various types of cancer, heart disease,even diabetes across the world.
    Why they are suffering from these diseases in teen age ?
    [ I know scientific causes of these diseases] You believe in Indian philosophy of spirituality. It says bad and good Karmas are founations of Prarabdha( destiny) of every person in next birth.
    Please answer me in relevance to Indian philosophy of spirituality .

  26. knowTheEnemy says:

    Well, if it takes a psycho like Muhammad to establish an order among normal men, then it gives a rather poor impression about normal men, doesn't it! We think of them as 'normal men' but they can't even set up an order to work out issues among themselves.

    Muhammad was successful in "establishing a pan-Arabic empire" and in eradicating all his political enemies only because of luck/chance. If I understand things right, the pre-WW2 emperor of Japan also had similar dreams, had a population who thought he was God incarnate, and had kamikazes dying for him, except he wasn't as lucky(?) as Muhammad.

    ["I mean what is the motivation to believe that these examples are not to be followed? "]

    When I wrote "….we learn what NOT to do in our lives…." I assumed that the reader has studied the consequenses of Muhammad's actions, and consequenses of following/supporting an Islam. I also assumed that the reader cares about the world enough that s/he does not want the consequenses to continue or to be repeated.

    But you raised an important point- what about people who only care about themselves…. and there are plenty of such people in the world. These are the people who will be easily impressed by the success story of Muhammad and would want to imitate him (Many have already imitated him, mostly Muslim warlords, to great success!)

    Maybe the fear of hell and/or the fear of karma's punishment has stopped many from following on Muhammad's footsteps. However, I have seen enough people dumping others sufferings on the karma excuse and seen enough of them dumping important problems of society on kaliyug that I have been put off from both of these. The cons significantly outweigh the pros!
    ————————-

    ["In my earlier comment to you too, I expressed my opinion on how a believer of Karma is mentally better disposed to do good (all conditions remaining same)."]

    I revisited that comment. I am afraid that comment is too idealistic. It is certainly possible that a believer of Karma is more likely to do good things, but I am not sure if I have seen enough of that working out in the real world. You don't have to take my word for it. Just take a look at India's environment, especially urban! There is pollution everywhere! Barely anyone is trying to get positive Karma points by doing things that cause less (or reduce) pollution. When it comes to filth, India is second only to Pakistan. Stray dogs with fleas are everywhere- no one is taking care of them for their karma points! People worship cows and if you ask them why? "For prosperity!" Whose prosperity? The cow's prosperity? "No no, OUR prosperity!!" And what happens to the cows after people have milked prosperity out of them? They roam the roads and get into accidents! And they eat plastic bags (because they smell food on them) which get stuck in their stomach and they wither in pain! Now I understand that there are plenty of organizations running cow-shelters but given the population and given the number of stray cows, it is easy to tell that not enough people are trying to get their karma points.
    I don't think I need to write much about the corruption rampant in society, the bottomline should be sufficent- There aren't many people afraid of -ve karma points nor are there many interested in making +ve karma points. Therefore I am afraid, what you said in your comment works effectively in theory only!

    Hence I stand by what I said earlier- The cons of belief in Karma/Kaliyug significantly outweigh the pros!

  27. cchuckc says:

    @Supriya
    //the difference between Advait Vedant philosophy of Hinduism and Buddhism //
    The primary philosophical difference between Advaitvad and Buddhism (although there are many denominations of Buddhism) is that Advaitvat is a Substance Ontology while Buddhism leans toward Process Ontology. In brief it means that Advait believes in an underlying 'substantive' unchanging reality (Brahman) and the change we see is just illusory while Buddhism doesn't think it is necessary (kind of Agnostic) and change is the cornerstone of reality.

  28. cchuckc says:

    @knowTheEnemy
    It is always a privilege to discuss things Indian with an Indian. Also thanks for eulogizing me, although I surely am not deserving of such praise. I know but little.

  29. knowTheEnemy says:

    Let me start by saying that I have read many of your intelligent responses in your debates with others, so I feel honoured that you give me an opportunity to have a discussion/debate with you.

    You raised multiple points in your post so I will have to reply separately. Please bear with me if it takes a day or two for me to give complete response to all your points.

    I have a habit of saying things loud and up-front that makes readers feel that maybe I am a know-everything guy 🙂 but the fact is that I am just an average joe with plenty of biases and prejudices. However I do not hesitate to give up any of my biases/prejudices in the face of solid argument, and so if you can convince me that I am wrong in asking people to give up their beliefs in karma principle and kaliyug, I will happily do so!

    Regarding Jyotish Vedanga, I was not even aware that there was such a subject. Hence everything that I said in opposition was meant for the popular future-predicting jyotish. From now on I will try to make clear that my views do not apply to Jyotish Vedanga (A subject that I know absolutely nothing about).

    To be continued …..

  30. cchuckc says:

    @knowtheEnemy
    //their leelas are useful to us only in the sense that we learn what NOT to do in our lives and what not to support.//
    And why? I mean what is the motivation to believe that these examples are not to be followed? Purely from a practical, material point of view Muhammad was a successful person from every point of view. Coming from a poor background he managed to marry into a rich household, He waged numerous wars and was successful in establishing a pan-Arabic empire. He eradicated all his political enemies. Married as many as 13 times, and had, as reported in Sira, 40 concubines. And most poignantly established a religion that is now the second largest by number of adherent, possibly the most reverent of adherents. Politically, financially, sexually, in establishing an order, you name it, he was a success.

    I completely disagree with your on the point of Karma. Seeing the example of Muhammad what hope and incentive does a person have in NOT following that example? In my earlier comment to you too, I expressed my opinion on how a believer of Karma is mentally better disposed to do good (all conditions remaining same). As far as Jyotishi is concerned, there are two aspects of it, one the more popular and definitely hollow Jyotish of predicting future life events and the second, the original Jyotish Vedanga. So don't issue blanket statements against Jyotish too. The Jyotish Vedanga is a wonderful achievement of the human mind. The first one is actually not completely Indian but the one that developed with the advent of the Greeks in the Western frontiers of India.
    As far as the concept of Kaliyug is concerned, it is just an era and nothing more. I didn't quite follow what is objectionable in dividing eras into the four eons.

  31. Supriya says:

    Sakat
    You are an immensely intelligent guy. Couldn't you understand me ? Anyway I am sorry. I wish you success for spiritual endeavour.

  32. Sakat says:

    Baby
    I am not a " hypocrite" ,please understand when i am not wish to be identified as a "Jyotishi",why you want to congratulate me for it ?. What do you mean by "Success" ? you need/required lots much understanding of the subject and the appropriate words to be used to communicate your feelings to the person who do not want to be part of the subject which he knows thoroughly and having a different views of his own (formed out of practical test).

  33. Supriya says:

    Sakat
    I congratulate you for tremendous success in Jyotish Shastra.
    Good Luck !

  34. Sakat says:

    Lady
    ////#1] Leela : In my opinion Leela is divine play or divine pastime. The life of everyone is Leela. I think Leela is required for worldly persons like us. You may hear about the Leela of Krishna.Mahabharat i.e. battle between Pandavas and Kauravas happened due to Krishna's various Leelas.And this resulted into the wisdom of Bhagatgita given to Arjuna( and we all ) by Krishna/#

    I say Maya is “Mire” or “Delusion” it is a hallucination of a sound mind I said in my earlier post that I tried my level best to understand the term “Maya” and “Leela” as it appeared in the Sanskrit vocabulary with my intelligent mind but since it is based on “belief” I may not be able to find its meaning in the true “Sense”. But when I really started meditation the mystery of Leela and Maya begun to unravel layer by layer .These term cannot be explained intellectually, you have to become them because we are also the part of “Maya” and “Leela”.Maya is delusion and Leela is perfection (therefore I said that gentlemen Mr Know the Enemy understand them ).Both the term have distinct characteristics and are independent of each other .The person who believes this visible world is truth only lives in the domain of “Maya”. The person who stands on the border of absolute and duality knows the reality or rather became aware of truth ,he do not say everything visible is false rather he exclaims everything is truth ,the visible as well the non-visible. Here the term “Maya” get transformed into “Leela” (everything is Brahman).
    As far as Jyotishya Shastra is concerned ,I am a master Jyotisi.Even I have studied “Nadi Jyotishya Shastra” of Kerala the most perfect Jyotishya Shastra..As I said I could have earned lots of money with my Jyotishya knowledge . I am getting phone calls till late night for appointment from politicians (since last couple of days it has increased due to election mania) .My prediction never goes wrong ,one of my customer from Orissa gifted me a car worth 30 lakh ,but I flatly refused it ,I don’t want to become hypocrite. I am proud to say that I am the youngest Jyotisi ,yet I don’t believe in it.
    I suggest you not to surrender your discriminative mind to all these kind of medieval thoughts ,without questioning its “authenticity”. This world is changing very fast .We have to go out of this planetary system sooner than later ,only science can help us and not any Jyotishya or Krishna and Rama. How the planet Shani will effect when you colonized a planet and settle down in other planetary system of any other galaxy. Think of it . I don’t have time to reply elaborately the concept of “Advaita “ now ,but I assure you on appropriate time I will certainly reply it.

  35. Supriya says:

    Sakat
    Could you please explain me the difference between Advait Vedant philosophy of Hinduism and Buddhism ?
    I don't surrender meekly anyone's thoughts. Why do you think Advait Vedanta does not allow to think independently ?
    You questioned my belief. You have to answer.

  36. Supriya says:

    Sakat
    Thanks for suggestion.
    I am going to share my little knowledge/ understanding of Leela, Maya, the reason I believe in Jyotish shastra

    1] Leela : In my opinion Leela is divine play or divine pastime. The life of everyone is Leela. I think Leela is required for worldly persons like us. You may hear about the Leela of Krishna.Mahabharat i.e. battle between Pandavas and Kauravas happened due to Krishna's various Leelas.And this resulted into the wisdom of Bhagatgita given to Arjuna( and we all ) by Krishna.

    2] Maya : I agree with you. Maya is the thing which can be measured. Panch mahabut Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Ether can be measured. Measurement is always relative not absolute. So it is illusive. The world which we can observe, is Maya.
    The thing which can't be measured is not Maya. e.g. Ananda, Shanti, Prem etc. are aspects of consciousness(or Truth) . And they are absolute.

    3] My parents don't believe in Jyotish shastra. My Kundali or Janm patrika was thrown in the corner of store room in house. 3 years back I found my Kundali in store room. At that time I was ignorant of Jyotish shastra.On reading Kundali I was astonished. Jyotishi predicted correctly many happenings of my life such as my career in Technical discipline, my hobbies etc. I am Engineering degree holder.The same Jyotishi predicted career of my cousin sister that she will acquire graduation in Medical discipline. She is 1 st year Medical student. Jotishi predicted correctly the death threatening situation of Vikas( younger brother of my friend Snehal) He passed away at the age of 10. The cause of his death was Brain cancer.These experiences made to believe in Jyotish shastra.
    Basically planets symbolize the effects of past life causes ( deeds, intents).Try to look at it in positive way. You know various concepts of Jyotish shastra.You know the cosmic influence of Shani. Shani punishes harshly for our past wrong deeds and intents. There is an advantage of Shani's punishment. A person suffering due to Sadesati turns inward or begins to inquire about his existence, aim of life. And he becomes more spiritual.I know one of my relative was an atheist. During shani's sadesati he became spiritual( adhyatmic).
    We know the basic principles of Jyotish shastra are time and space[ birth time,birth date, birth place are required for Kundali]. It means we all are born with particular Prarabdha( Providence or destiny)depending upon past life karmas(deeds, intents). We attach emotions with various aspects of life.And this results into Prarabdha. Astrology suggests us to detach from these emotions.
    I also believe in free will and power of thought which can alter our destiny.

  37. knowTheEnemy says:

    ["The slokha explains ,that there is one permanent truth and from it a replica of it appears which is as true as the origin ,yet it is not origin ,its characteristics is always changing ,there fore it is being called Maya or Leela."]

    It appears that you think of Maya and Leela as one two words for the same (or similar) thing. Depending on the topic, that probably is correct. For me Leela is an attempt to see the world positively, since it is God who is doing this Leela. I will not be anxious about what may be coming next, since whatever is coming is all God's leela! – and this is one of the things that I was trying to make Supriya understand. So when we see the world as God's leela then there is no reason left to believe in karma, kaliyug, or jyotish!

  38. Sakat says:

    There are two concept regularly tossed in Vedic literature ,viz, "Leela" and "Maya". Long back i was amazed with these concept and eager to know their exact meaning, so i tried my best to understand their meaning as per the Vedic pronouncement .However i could not do so with my intellectual gimmicks ,but however the answer i found with my limited intelligence were not encouraging .I put full stop at finding or venturing deep into dissecting their real meaning long back. But when i became a Buddhist and really started meditation ,i came to know what is the exact meaning of those term practically without much effort .
    Precisely i can say the meaning of those term ,"Maya" and "Leela" as "apparent truth but not truth".This has been beautifully explained in Rigveda by a beautiful Shloka , "Om purnamada purnamidam purnath purna mudhaschyate ,purnasya purna madaya purna mewa vasishayte..The slokha explains ,that there is one permanent truth and from it a replica of it appears which is as true as the origin ,yet it is not origin ,its characteristics is always changing ,there fore it is being called Maya or Leela. I hope the audience understood this concept. To know the reality one has to cross the boundaries of this Maya or Leela and has to reach the all pervading truth standing at the bottom of this apparent truth which is permanent and not changing.Which could be achieved by regular meditation.. Don't waste your time in intellectual gimmicks but preserve it for meditation ,their lies everyone,s happiness,God bless.

  39. Indian says:

    braindead zombie(to whom rapist,pedophile muhammad has bit)
    Those verses are from the book whose author is your rolemodel PIG "ZAKIR NAIK".

  40. Sakat says:

    One day i woke up to search ,whether there is truth in "Jotishya". To know it properly,I have decided to study it from the bottom ,against my faith and enduring love for science.I have studied it very religiously ,i knew various concepts of Jyotishya Shastra .Varah Mihir an Iranian who has studied Jyotisya Shastra thoroughly in Taxila University.His master piece the "Brahad Jyotishya Shastra "is the base for all the Jhyotishy shastra. I have become very famous horoschope reader and writer .The priest ,those who can write and read the Jyotisya of others used to visit me to know their own Bhavishay (fortune) .I kept Sunday evening as the date to serve the people with my Jyotishya knowledge .I could have earned lots of money ,because i have become so famous that many politician have become my disciples .Let me tell the audience here this Jotishya Shastra is simply pack of fake belief. Many writers have different opinion or views on various aspects of Jyotishya ,Kalyan Varma is differing with Varamihir on many aspect ,then how one can say ,which one is true .Again everything depend on Bhavishya for Jyotisha ,how one can believe this concept without placing it on practical test.

  41. knowTheEnemy says:

    Well.. their leelas are useful to us only in the sense that we learn what NOT to do in our lives and what not to support. My emphasis however was on the concept of Leela- seeing everything in the world as a leela of God, because when we do so, beliefs like karma and kaliyug become unnecessary! Whether it is because of Karma or some other reason, whatever happened in the world, and whatever is currently happening, is all a leela of God. Whether it is satyug or kaliyug, everything that is happening is all a leela of God! Bottomline: Whatever happened IS HOW God wanted to do the leela. Whatever is happening in present IS HOW God wants to do the leela, no matter what karma and what yug! If there were no karma or yugs, then too God would have done the same leela with not an iota of difference!

    ["Could you please explain me how Leela is scientifically proven ?"]

    I didn't come out with the concept of Leela, India's ancient rishis did! I simply agree with them. Now since according to you they believed in truthfulness, therefore you are the one who should be gathering evidence. Maybe you should start with Ali Sina's article 'Karma and the afterlife' where he says we may all be copies of the same particle. Read his articles that you recommended to Carmichael, and of course study Vedanta and other Hindu holy books!

  42. shabeer says:

    FROM NO OF VERSES I PROVED ISLAM NOT LIKE THAT 
    THEN WHO?
    Intolerance and killing in vedas – 

    “Food to him who knows the science of air, and to him who is the chief killer. Homage to the expert in the construction of houses, and to their protector. Food to the wealthy, and to him who makes the wicked weep. Homage to him who abhors sin and to him who practices Virtue” 

                            –  [Yajurveda Ch 16, verse 39, pg.173, Tr. Devi Chand]

     

    “We learned persons accept as our ruler, thee, the introducer of new plans for our advancement, the master of loyal subjects, the embodiment of virtue, the most advanced in noble qualities and acts, the queller of the irreligious, the pure, the specimen of endurance, the master of prowess, and the helper and educator of all.”
     – [Yajurveda Ch 7, verse 36, pg.77, Tr. Devi Chand]
    Killing irreligious foes in Vedas-

    “O king, make progress in thy duty of administration, extend happiness to the virtuous. O terrible chastiser, burn down the irreligious foes. O splendid person, humiliate and consume utterly like dried up stubble, him, who encourages our foe.”
      – [Yajurveda, Ch 13, verse 12, pg.138, Tr. Devi Chand]
    Mass-carnage, killing of innocents – children, females, sick, old, commanded and encouraged in vedas:

    Now let’s see what the barbaric Vedas have to say about this, we’ll show our readers what the so-called “Ahinsac” (non-violent) Vedas command.

    “O friendly countrymen, encourage the commander of the army, and begin the battle with him, who with his physical, mental and military strength, cleaves the enemies’ families, usurps their land, is armed with weapons, slay’s the foes, subdues the enemy in the battle, and conquers him.”                 – [Yajurveda, Chapter 17, verse 38, pg-182, Tr. Devi Chand] 

     

    “May the commander of the army, who, with surpassing vigour pierces in the battles the families of the enemies, is pitiless, wild with anger, unconquerable by foes, conqueror of the enemy’s forces, unequalled in fight, and victor, protect our armies.”
    – [Yajurveda, Chapter 17, verse 39, pg-182, Tr. Devi Chand]
    “I thrust you man out of home, the rival who fights [us], with the oblation of ejectment ; Indra hath demolished him.”
    – [, Atharvaveda, 6.75.1]
    Looting is the way to prosperity according to vedas (‘battle is the source of thy (hindūs) prosperity’):

    Now let’s go to looting, . Let’s see what the Hindū scriptures state about it. Looting is the way to prosperity this is the principle expounded by the Vedas, and other protestant Hindū texts.
    “Chariots and horses, elephants, parasols, money, grain, cattle, women, all sorts of (marketable) goods and valueless metals belong to him who takes them (singly) conquering (the possessor).”    
    [Manu Smriti, Chapter 7, verse 96, pg 231
    “May food be before us, in the midst among us. May food eaten enhance our noble qualities. Yea, food hath made me rich in brave sons. As lord of food may I conquer all regions.”
    [Yajurveda, Ch. 18, Verse 34]
    O learned person, just as the sun kindled in forefront of Mornings, with forward light, long-active, waxing mighty, with thirty three supernatural powers of nature, the Thunder-wielder, smites dead the cloud, and throws light on the portals, so do thou with the help of warriors kill the foes, and open the doors of knowledge and religion.”
     [Yajurveda Ch 20, verse 36, pg.221, Tr. Devi Chand]

  43. shabeer says:

    DEMSCI 
    ORIGINAL JEW TEXT [TODAY THEY FOLLOWING TALMUD ,WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT?]
    Jews Have Superior Legal Status

    Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite…the payment is to be in full."

     
    Jews May Steal from Non-Jews

    Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean…"

     
    Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews
    Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.
    Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."
    Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human
    Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.
    Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

    Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.
    Genocide Advocated by the Talmud

    Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed").

    This passage is from the original Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud as quoted by the 1907 Jewish Encyclopedia, published by Funk and Wagnalls and compiled by Isidore Singer, under the entry, "Gentile," (p. 617).

    This original Talmud passage has been concealed in translation. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that, "…in the various versions the reading has been altered, 'The best among the Egyptians' being generally substituted." In the Soncino version: "the best of the heathens" (Minor Tractates, Soferim 41a-b].
    Israelis annually take part in a national pilgrimage to the grave of Simon ben Yohai, to honor this rabbi who advocated the extermination of non-Jews. (Jewish Press, June 9, 1989, p. 56B).
    On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox Jew from Brooklyn, massacred 40 Palestinian civilians, including children, while they knelt in prayer in a mosque. Goldstein was a disciple of the late Brooklyn Rabbi Meir Kahane, who told CBS News that his teaching that Arabs are "dogs" is derived "from the Talmud." (CBS 60 Minutes, "Kahane").
    University of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein's philosophy: "They believe it's God's will that they commit violence against goyim, a Hebrew term for non-Jews." (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).
    Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).
    Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).

  44. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy
    You mean that Leelas of gangster Muhammad and terrorist Zakir Naik are useful and beneficial. Could you please explain me how Leela is scientifically proven ?

  45. Supriya says:

    Carmichael Singh
    You may find the answer of your question in Dr. Sina's blogs :1] Why I believe in God and the afterlife now 2] Enlightenment .

  46. knowTheEnemy says:

    ["Many of us “higher beings” do not know what is our actual purpose for being here on earth or life on earth."….. "What is missing from all of these religious books [muslim religion is the exception to this question] is the actual purpose of living in this world. We cannot say for sure that we do possess an actual or real reason for living here. I for one am not sure the reason. I am only doing what the masses of men around the world are doing or have done. – went to school, got a job, married my lovely wife, had couple of kids and pay the bills. Do get me wrong, I do enjoy all the above. But, back to my question. And that is: do we really do know what is our sole purpose of us being here at all, other than to pray to god, go forth and procreate?"]

    The fact that you even asked these questions shows that you are at a higher plane of realization. Most others, as you yourself said, simply do whatever the masses are doing and don't even bother to look any deeper.

    I believe I have found the answer to this question. I will do my best to post it in an article this weekend. Many may or may not agree with what I realized but the answer satisfies me at least, and I am pretty sure it will satisfy many others.

  47. Sakat says:

    Mr Sina
    The biggest challenge we are phasing today as to how we could eradicate terrorism (which is sine-quo-none of Islam) .Every one of us infidel is engaged in finding answer to some simple questions ,like ,What is the purpose of our life ?,how we should model ourselves with nature and in comity with other species etc f things .Only Muslims are exceptions to it ,because of the destructive preaching’s of that false prophet .People construct houses ,then go for other comforts like cars or rather all kinds of comfort the human intelligence (we do not ashamed to call it GDP growth or Economy of a country)could provide .I have seen only Muslim countries do want to live with all kinds of comforts provided by infidels intelligent minds (they call it Allah’s meherbani) .The highest amount of electricity is being consumed by middle eastern countries .Every one may be aware of ,how they generate that much electricity ,(it is by petroleum and thus pollute this earth for shunning habitation ).The environmentalist knew the contribution by these Muslim countries for pollution of this earth(Which is maximum than by any industrialized or developing countries ).Why it is so ? , because their prophet was thug and he introduced them (followers) how to live on others cost. There are many endangered animals hebetating the Arabian peninsula, yet these Arabians do not hesitate from poaching(it is their habit, preached and taught by Mohammed the ugly) them why? because they are the disciples of that thug Mohammed.

    These morons rape the kids and children hailing from poor countries in the name of Nikha ,yet their Allah do not debar them from doing it ,why it is so ? , because when a thug become prophet all these kinds of things do occur (it is his preaching s ,how an old man with power can influence any body to give him in marriage his child of 6, for fornication ,so ugly) .
    His followers burnt down the Art of living institution in Islamabad ,only in the name of Islam ,they barred a Sikh principal of a school by its Muslim governor ,for not abiding their dictate in England .the reason being he has not budge from the curriculum of teaching sex education to the children of the school, which is a prerogative in a western education system (most of them were Muslim students in a sound society ocupied by unsound morons (Mohammeds itinery) ). I only can say “Aware my dear westerners ,every single one is not intelligent like you, there are many scoundrels roaming in your society (May be Mohammed in Western garb),be vigilant.

    In the name of Allah they killed more than 200 passengers on board the Malaysian airlines some few days ago the debris are still untraceable .This is the religion of that most ugly looking man and the world’s greatest vampire till date this world has ever seen . I can sacrifice my life for any number of time to eradicate this menace called Islam from this world.

  48. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy
    I repeat questions.1] Why did Muhammad and Guru Nanak follow different scripts ?
    2] Why terrorist Zakir Naik and spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravishankar are following different scripts ?

  49. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy
    The answer should be truthful( beneficial but false answer is not needed).Ancient rishis believed in Truthfulness.
    I agree with you that they are doing Leela.But this is not the answer of question. You smartly avoided the right answer.
    I know you are trying to avoid the fact that you believe in Karma and Reincarnation.

    Note : Karma & reincarnation are useful and beneficial wisdom acquired by rishis.In fact these are primary principles of Bharatiy Adhyatm.

  50. Carmichael Singh says:

    Dearest Supriya

    Thank you for your prompt reply.

    Thank you also in acknowledging that humans are a higher being and we all do have a supreme purpose here on earth. Many of us “higher beings” do not know what is our actual purpose for being here on earth or life on earth. The common thing I keep hearing from people in general is “do good and not harm others or take another live, The middle east arabs muslims do not believe in this rule as I just mentioned, they are the exception to this rule of: Do good and not harm or take another life.

    What motivates these muslims or radical muslims in taking another life is all too familiar to the readers of this forum.

     Almost all the religions of this world teach their believers certain guidelines to live life by. This guidelines tells them what they can consume and what is prohibited in their belief  There are many other such guidelines in their books for the believers on how to conduct their day to day living and so forth, I’ll not bore you with that information, as I know for a fact you are all too familiar on these matters.  
    What is missing from all of these religious books [muslim religion is the exception to this question] is the actual purpose of living in this world. We cannot say for sure that we do possess an actual or real reason for living here. I for one am not sure the reason. I am only doing what the masses of men around the world are doing or have done. – went to school, got a job, married my lovely wife, had couple of kids and pay the bills. Do get me wrong, I do enjoy all the above. But, back to my question. And that is: do we really do know what is our sole purpose of us being here at all, other than to pray to god, go forth and procreate?

    I for one do not think so. But, hey, that’s just me.

    I am happy with my last name “Singh”. It’s who I am.  And it also tells me where my ancestors come from.  Nothing more, at best, I’m just another human in this world.

    “Now-a-days westerners are visiting India to seek inner peace and know Indian philosophy of spirituality.Here westerner commentators believe in Indian philosophy of spirituality.”

    It’s all good and dandy that westerns visit India to seek inner peace and understand Indian Spirituality. I know for sure my grand dad, my father and his two brothers all seek inner peace in the bottom of glass. Seeking peace is common for MAN as HE is the most tormented soul. Hitler and Mu Ham Mad both seek inner peace. I’ll like to add couple of other names to the countless MAN seeking peace. The guy who commissioned Taj Mahal, his ancestors and his son.

    From my personal understanding, I’ve come to conclude only God can give you inner peace, if you seek him. The question remains? Who is the one true God?

    As to why Westerns come to visit India to seek inner peace and understand Indian Philosophy Spirituality? My answer is this: The same reasons why Indians from India would go to Harvard, Princeton, Stamford, Cambridge and Oxford Uni. These degrees look good on our resumes. 

    In conclusion, I like to add a popular saying. Life is a journey. Being a tormented soul is a price us humans have to pay to find who we really are and what do we really want from this life.

    Peace

  51. knowTheEnemy says:

    I certainly am going to answer your questions and I will do my best to give you responses that are fully backed by the *useful and beneficial* wisdoms realized by ancient rishis-

    1] Both of them are avatars of God (Brahman) in this world and they are doing their respective Leela. One is doing the leela (play/role) as Zakir Naik while the other one is doing leela as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. To us, they may be doing different leelas but the fact remains that they are both avatars of Brahman!

    2] Muhammad and Guru Nanak too were both avatars of God (Brahman) in this world and were doing their respective Leela. Now just as in a movie/drama different characters follow different scripts, (Can you imagine all the characters following the same script in a movie?..lol… It would be a joke of a movie!) In the same way, in this worldly leela Muhammad and Guru Nanak were simply following different scripts. By Muhammad's script he was meant to have whatever kind of knowledge he ended up having. Same with Guru Nanak.

    Note: Going by the principle of Leela, you and I too are avatars of Brahman. The wise thing to do however is to only see others in the world as avatars of God. Our outlook towards our own selves should be totally different. This is because one of the things that we are doing as part of our leela is to somehow remove the veil of ignorance (Maya) that is keeping us from realizing who we really are.

  52. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy

    First of all , you answer my question :1] Why one baby becomes Zakir Naik within 20 yrs from birth time And another baby becomes Sri Sri Ravishankar within 20 yrs from birth time ?

    2] You know Quran is revealation of Muhammad And Guru Granth Sahiba is revealation ofGuru Nanak. There is vast difference in the content of both holy books. Why did Muhammad and Guru Nanak differ in their knowledge?

  53. Demsci says:

    Supriya, All Afghan, Pakistani and Indian and all Muslims will deny forceful conversion of their ancestors, don't you think? But Mahmood of Ghazni and quite a few Delhi Sultans committed great slaughter of Hindus.

    And as late as the 17th century the last powerful Mogul AURANGZEB (he had power over # 100-150 million people) was trying to force Hindu's to convert into Muslims, and he was destroying Hindu temple's. He was in favor of Shariah law and he probably also practiced jizya, the extra tax that non-Muslims must pay, which is not levied from Muslims, and surely is both much higher and more enforced than the zakat of Muslims.

    So levying Jizya was a highly unfair tactic by Muslims when they ruled over non-Muslims which was designed to let non-Muslims convert into Islam for reasons of money and survival and promotion. So perhaps the ancestors of Shabeer and SlaveOfProphet converted into Islam because of the Jizya. But this they will never admit.

  54. knowTheEnemy says:

    Vrahamihir was also primarily a mathematician and astronomer. Whatever time he spent on astrology, today we know he was only wasting that time! Astrology has no benefits other than placebo effects!

    ["Basically you don't believe in Bhagwatgita , veda , vedic rishis and their wisdom(acquired through intuitions during meditation)"]

    I only believe in those things that have proven themselves to be correct or otherwise beneficial! Gita, Vedanta, Purans etc have many wisdoms that can help people greatly. They also have many things that are false or harmful. I reject those things. Karma, and kaliyug are a few such things.
    ——————

    ["I am firm believer in ancient vedic rishis wisdom"]

    Again, some of their 'wisdom' is correct and beneficial, the rest is not. I too believe in the correct and beneficial wisdoms.
    But there is more to the story. People cherry-pick what they want to obsess on and ignore other things. In India they obsess on jyotish and other easy to practice things, and ignore everything else. The fact however is that a lot of rishis' [correct and beneficial] wisdom is very hard to practice!
    ——————

    ["This is your misconception that astrologer can't guide you for spiritual aspects."]

    I am sure many astrologers have a good understanding of spiritual topics (in addition to astrology) and can guide people. My emphasis however was on people who visit them. They don't go to astrologers for spiritual aspects. They contact astrologers only to know how they can keep fulfilling their hedonistic wants and desires. When was the last time you heard someone say "I really want to know what the festival of Holi is really about and I am contacting Mr. Jyotishi to know what the best time is to start my research!"!!
    —————-

    ["How could you say that karma and jyotish are superstition?"]

    Because THAT is what they are! Even worse they keep people from contemplating on other Indain wisdoms. People spend all their available time obsessig about jyotish and getting Guruji's darshan and there is no time left for anything else!

    Take you for example. You believe in Karma, kaliyug, and jyotish. I want to see if you have a high quality understanding of other things. The festival of Holi is 4-5 days from today. You have most probably celebrated Holi many times in your life. Tell me what is the festival really about! Give me an explanation of Holi that makes even the atheists go "Hmm…that is an interesting thought!" Please don't post links to others articles unless if your belief is exactly like theirs. Tell me in your own words what you know about Holi!!
    —————

    ["It seems that you don't believe in Guru Nanak and Guru Granth Sahib"]

    The Gurus of the Sikhs believed both in Karma and in Kaliyug, though they didn't believe in jyotish. So the Sikh followers too believe in Karma and Kaliyug but reject Jyotish! The followers don't have a brain of their own. If the Gurus believed in jyotish, the followers too would have believed in it. This is called blind belief!

    I am OTOH not a blind believer. The only thing that I blindly believe is that "Mother Goddess always loves me" and I did thorough research and contemplation before deciding to put my blind belief into this. I reject Karma and Kaliyug even if the Gurus believed in them! Jyotish at least has placebo benefits, Karma and Kaliyug have none!!
    —————

    ["I am not Andra.That is not my comment."]

    My emphasis was on the BG quote; It doesn't matter who posted it! The quote contains the phrase "bound by cause and effect", and this phrase is the root reason behind the belief in Karma principle. Hindus say "Oh the book of God says 'bound by cause and effect' so Karma principle has to be true"!

    Except that it is not true, and it will be in Hindus great long term benefit if they grab a permanent marker and blacken that phrase out for good. (Note: This is not an insult to BG. Indian society REALLY will benefit if they reject karma, jyotish, and kaliyug)

  55. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //Is God the all or less than the all? ??
    Depends on how you identify 'all':-). To a theist God is beyond all that is material.

    //If he is less than the all then he is finite. //
    You couldn't counter infinity – finite = infinity. Moreover, considering transcendence, the comparison is simply meaningless.

    //This is your nonsense,asking "how" causality works//
    So you are ascribing Causality as a miracle :-).

    //causality is an explanation as to how everything works//
    Causality can't explain how things work, but just a label for an observed phenomenon. For example, when you see an apple falling from a tree, common sense prompts you to think of some reason. This common sense is termed Causality in this case. Thats all. How it fell and why it fell and what different state it achieved while falling and after the fall isn't 'explained' by Causality but by different scientific theories.

    //It is not "mundane" knowledge to those who truly understand this principle and what it means we are as beings//
    Merely saying what it is, is a mundane knowledge. No matter how grandiose your claims of 'truly understanding' is concerned.

    //All logic is an "assumption" that doesn't mean its false. //
    Without evidence or logical reasoning to back it up, it doesn't mean it is true. The truth of a claim is subjected to logical rigours not the possibility of it not being false.

    //You was the one trying to claim causality would not exist in a world with "souls and gods". //
    Where? Moreover, I simply said that all causal chains terminate in the Big Bang Singularity. However that wasn't the point. You have now said that : "Souls" and "gods" are existent things. in response to my saying that in some possible world it is possible for non-material stuff to exist. By your statement it is apparent that you are suggesting that souls and gods exist.

    //That's because the "old thing" is something //
    Which is nothing here nor there. The point was that they have boundaries.

    //You was claiming a car is "more" than just the sum of its parts, so its not a red-herring. //
    You are now lying. That statement was about team-work and not car. But anyway, car is more than sum of its part, this was proven by your acceptance that a design is anyway required in the assembly of the parts to form the car.

    //I was asking where the boundaries of a thing are? They don't exist because reality is not fixed in concentrate but is a seamless continuum. //
    Long back I asked you whether there is a point on the wall where the clock wasn't. You haven't replied yet. Same as with the skin of the apple.

    //I cannot find any "beginning" to my mother.//
    Do you even read the comment against which I respond? You said, //A "life time" which is defined by us.// I showed you the example of your mother and black hole, none of which required your identification before being existent. In this context I didn't raise any point about 'beginning'. By the way your mother is expected to have been conceived and born. Take any of those points as her beginning. Remember Hitler and 1889?

  56. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //If you have candle flame and blow out the flame and then immediately light a new flame, then the new flame will be identical to the previous now dead flame.//
    But it will not be the same flame, unless there is something with which you identify the flame and envision the transfer of this carrier of the identity into the new flame. Doesn't matter how you phrase it.

    //It would be rebirth of "your" character. //
    I said it doesn't necessitate a rebirth even if thought in this manner. If it is even remotely possible for an exact replica of mine physically, genetically and characteristically after my death, the same possibility remains during my life too. Would you then say that I am reborn even when I am alive? If yes, then death has no significance in this context.

    //Buddha denies such a thing//
    Which remains unclear given the passage I have quoted. Second Buddha needn't always be correct. He was a human being like you or me and is susceptible to errors.

    //or instance my corpse may fertilize the soil after my death. //
    Which is then not a rebirth, but just a transformation of physical elements.

    //from the Darwinian point of view…biological evolution obviously doesn't have a "view". //
    Wrong. Obviously it is a view, namely Darwinian as you say. There is no 'Nature's' view. Your example is wrong.

    //The "incorporeal soul" view which totally contradicts that of one of Buddhas core doctrines i.e that of no-self. //
    Buddha has his own theories. No-self or anatman is just a particular version of the soul theory. When specifically asked Buddha kept mum. When he was asked is there a soul, he said that is not the point, when asked is there no soul then, he said even that is not the point :-).

    //Okay all "world views" are religions then? //
    If they are world views describing how things work in different alleged planes of existences then they are religions.

    //The higher mode of not living with the illusion of an independent self.//
    Ha ha. I repeat the statement: When man dies the body is dissolved into its elements, but the spirit is not entombed.
    Clearly the emphasis on 'after the person dies' isn't lost on you!!

    //Because such a person (call them a Buddha or a genius or whatever) realizes that they//
    Buddha isn't talking about Buddha here, but any person who dies. It is a pretty generic statement he made there.

  57. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Then the flame isn't reborn every moment. There is a definite time t2 when every single characteristic of the flame doesn't continue to exist." If that flame lights other flames then as long as those flames are still alive then its characteristics will continue in those flames even after that particular flames death. Just like something of the parent (i.e its genetics in this case) continues in the child.

    "1. There may not be another flame to be lit." In my example their is.

    " 2. It requires external agency to lit the second flame." Every finite thing requires an "external agency" for its existence.

    "3. Depending on the material of the 'wick' the second flame may not each and every attribute of the earlier flame. It will not even produce the same kind of ash after having burnt." If you have candle flame and blow out the flame and then immediately light a new flame, then the new flame will be identical to the previous now dead flame.

    "This doesn't even necessitate 'rebirth'!!!" It would be rebirth of "your" character. 

    "Those of which your body was composed disintegrates and your genetic material can't be replicated the exact same way, at least not naturally." I was not talking about Resurrection,  If for example a exact clone of you was made then your character would continue in him. 

    "For you to continue you need that special 'thing' which identifies your attributes and characteristics." Buddha denies such a thing, a person (or indeed anything else in the universe) is just the things which make it what it is (i.e its causes), their is no "soul" or "independent self" in their.

    "If you agree something continues beyond your material existence you are simply saying a particular version of the soul theory" The only way in which will continue beyond my physical life is through my effects, for instance my corpse may fertilize the soil after my death.

    "If you agree that nature doesn't have a view then your all points starting with "In nature's view", are fallacious" Not its not, if for example I say "from the Darwinian point of view, the purpose of our lives is to pass on our genetic material to the next generation" is not fallacious, even though biological evolution obviously doesn't have a "view". 

    "simply he is speaking about the incorporeal soul as reverberated in the then prevailing Indian spiritual view. " The "incorporeal soul" view which totally contradicts that of one of Buddhas core doctrines i.e that of no-self.

     "But you are right, if it is a world-view then it the founder is a religious teacher, even if he is an Atheist." Okay all "world views" are religions then? 

    "The question then only returns to haunt you what is this 'uncreated nature' that leads a higher mode of life after the person dies." The higher mode of not living with the illusion of an independent self.  "In fact if it is whole of nature or universe what it has to do with one or any person's death?" Because such a person (call them a Buddha or a genius or whatever) realizes that they personally are infinite and beyond the relative terms of life and death and they are immortal.

  58. mysticalmind3 says:

    "How? Infinite – finite = infinite." Is God the all or less than the all? If he is less than the all then he is finite.

    "After all if you are talking about something so astounding deep as you want us to believe then you should have answer to why and hows." This is your nonsense,asking "how" causality works is just nonsensical, causality is an explanation as to how everything works, asking "how" causality works is nonsense because this "how" will itself be part of causality. 

    " As far as 'what' is concerned we already know it, and it is just a mundane knowledge, not a very deep knowledge." It is not "mundane" knowledge to those who truly understand this principle and what it means we are as beings.

    "Why? It is nothing more than an assumption." All logic is an "assumption" that doesn't mean its false.

    "If you agree then what you are arguing about? " You was the one trying to claim causality would not exist in a world with "souls and gods".

    "See back the example of your mother and Black Holes" I cannot find any "beginning" to my mother.

    " The point was that the old 'thing' has temporal bounds." That's because the "old thing" is something that exists only for a finite time before it changes form.

    "Rhetoric and Red-herring. I didn't say it exists beyond it members. " You was claiming a car is "more" than just the sum of its parts, so its not a red-herring.

    "Exactitude wasn't a question at all." I wasn't talking about "exactitude" I was asking where the boundaries of a thing are? They don't exist because reality is not fixed in concentrate but is a seamless continuum.

    "So if it s label according to our own purpose, it is simply an invention of mind." Not is not, the mind doesn't bring causality (or anything else) into existence, what we do however is carve reality up based on our sensory inputs.

     

      

      

     

     

  59. Supriya says:

    Demsci
    Shabeer is very proud muslim. But he doesn't know that his ancestors were butchered, raped, frightened by barbaric Arabian intruders to convert to Islam in middle age. I think slaveofprophet is genuine muslim who follows every instruction of third grade Muhammad.

  60. Demsci says:

    //"WHO R ACTUALLY HERE MISUNDERSTANDS ,DEMSCI PLAYING BETWEEN LIE WITH SOME EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR & QURANIC TEACHING……………..HE HAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROOF "//

    You do know about Jihad Watch, of Robert Spencer? That website is constantly reporting and joking about the difference of interpretation of Islam by Islam-apologists and of radical Muslims, by saying something like: "we can trust that Islam-apologists will fly to the country of the radical Muslim, which the other DAY AGAIN, for the umptieth time, said something contradictory to what the Islam-apologists say that "Islam means or does not mean, Islam prohibits or does prescribe. To explain to them that they are mistaken, just as the Islam-apologist explain misunderstanding of Islam to the infidels".

    And with that Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch provides evidence by the boatload, he provides evidence of it almost every day. And it is good evidence, because it is taken from MEMRI-TV, which monitors and tapes TV of Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Palestinians.

    You may not like Jihad Watch but it is showing EVIDENCE all the time, Shabeer. Evidence of "misunderstanding Islam", BY RADICAL MUSLIMS,  according to YOUR Islam-apologist-propaganda.

    I suppose you are lucky that many doubting Muslims do not know Jihad Watch or Ali Sina's website here. YET!

  61. Demsci says:

    //"5: 32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. "//

    I refer to the comment of David Wood/ Sam Shamoun on "Answering Christianity' website. They said: Look, this was FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. In verse 33 there is quite a different prescription for the MUSLIMS. They further explained that this particular instruction came to the jews through Rabbi's, humans, NOT FROM ANY GOD. But Mohammed treated this passage in Jewish religious, but rabbinical, texts, as if it had come from God. I think Shabeer here quoted texts out of context.

  62. Demsci says:

    //"POLICE & GOVT SEARCHING /PUNISHING INNOCENT PEOPLE AS LIKE A TERRORIST ,WE R AGAINST IT"//

    But Shabeer, that surely is ONLY because the terrorists, on purpose, HIDE among the innocent people. It is called the "dead child strategy". If terrorists get hit, but at the same time innocent children get also hit, then "public opinion" will be against the Westerners.

    But remember the terrorists who are killed are no longer capable of killing themselves which they would have done had they lived. Also, potential terrorists are discouraged from killing by the police killing terrorists, because the potential terrorists get deterred.

  63. Supriya says:

    shabeer
    Don't blame ATS cops. I know you are a lier. all Indian muslim terrorists should be executed.I wish ATS cops will find every Indian terrorist and their Aka.

  64. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy
    1] look for Warahmihir
    2] Basically you don't believe in Bhagwatgita , veda , vedic rishis and their wisdom(acquired through intuitions during meditation)
    3] You asked me that how do planets influence human life ? I answered you.( I am firm believer in ancient vedic rishis wisdom)
    4] I provided you Pavan Sinha's link so that you could question him.( He is not only astrologer but also spiritual guru). This is your misconception that astrologer can't guide you for spiritual aspects.
    5] How could you say that karma and jyotish are superstition?
    6] It seems that you don't believe in Guru Nanak and Guru Granth Sahiba.
    7] I am not Andra.That is not my comment.

    YOU CAN'T IMAGINE BHARATIY ADHYATM WITHOUT KARMA AND POONARJANM. (This is universal truth)

  65. shabeer says:

    6: 151. Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited you from: Join not anything in worship with Him; be good and dutiful to your parents; kill not your children because of poverty – We provide sustenance for you and for them; come not near to Al-Fawâhish (shameful sins, illegal sexual intercourse, etc.) whether committed openly or secretly, and kill not anyone whom Allâh has forbidden, except for a just cause (according to Islâmic law). This He has commanded you that you may understand.
    Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 371
    Yazid al-Faqir said: This view of the Khwarij (i. e. those who commit major sins and would be eternally doomed to Hell)
    Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 159 ,160
    Ubaidullah b. Abu Bakr said: I heard Anas b. Malik saying: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) talked about the major sins, or he was asked about the major sins. Upon this he observed: Associating anyone with Allah, killing of a person, disobedience to parents. He (the Holy Prophet further) said: Should I not inform you about the gravest of the major sins, and (in this connection) observed: False utterance or false testimony. Shu'ba said. It was most probably" false testimony".
    17: 33. And do not kill anyone which Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause. And whoever is killed (intentionally with hostility and oppression and not by mistake), We have given his heir the authority [(to demand Qisâs, Law of Equality in punishment or to forgive, or to take Diya (blood money)]. But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life (i.e he should not kill except the killer only). Verily, he is helped (by the Islamic law).
    25: 68. And those who invoke not any other ilâh (god) along with Allah, nor kill such life as Allah has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse and whoever does this shall receive the punishment.
    49: 6. O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done.
    Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 89 :: Hadith 320
    Not to join anything in worship along with Allah, (2) Not to steal, (3) Not to commit illegal sexual intercourse, (4) Not to kill your children, (5) Not to accuse an innocent person (to spread such an accusation among people), (6) Not to be disobedient (when ordered) to do good deeds.
    Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 58 :: Hadith 233
    Narrated 'Ubada bin As Samit:
    I was one of the Naqibs who gave the ('Aqaba) Pledge of Allegiance to Allah's Apostle . We gave the pledge of allegiance to him that we would not worship anything other than Allah, would not steal, would not commit illegal sexual intercourse, would not kill a person whose killing Allah has made illegal except rightfully, would not rob each other, and we would not be promised Paradise if we did the above sins, then if we committed one of the above sins, Allah will give His Judgment concerning it.
    Muslim :: Book 7 : Hadith 3142
    Abu Huraira, (Allah be pleased with him) reported. When Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, granted Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) victory over Mecca, he stood before people and praised and extolled Allah and then said:…………it (this territory) was not violable to anyone before me and it was made violable to me for an hour of a day, and it shall not be violable to anyone after me. So neither molest the game, nor weed out thorns from it. And it is not lawful for anyone to pick up a thing dropped but one who makes public announcement of it. And it a relative of anyone is killed he is entitled to opt for one of two things. Either he should be paid blood-money or he can take life as (a just retribution).
    Muslim :: Book 17 : Hadith 4238
    Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 83 :: Hadith 6
    Muslim :: Book 16 : Hadith 4156
    Dawud :: Book 39 : Hadith 4487
    Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 83 :: Hadith 21
    Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 92 :: Hadith 423
    Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 83 :: Hadith 2,3,6,9, 17, 19,37,
    Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 82 :: Hadith 840
    Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 73 :: Hadith 8
    Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 58 :: Hadith 194 ,233
    Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 59 :: Hadith 628
    Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 51 :: Hadith 28
    Bukhari :: Book 3 :: Volume 48 :: Hadith 821
    Muslim :: Book 43 : Hadith 7171,7172,7173
    Muslim :: Book 16 : Hadith 4152,4154
    Muslim :: Book 20 : Hadith 4555
    Dawud :: Book 35 : Hadith 4247

  66. shabeer says:

    ############And if the "true Muslims" really mean it when they say that they do not want the execution and practice of the interpretation of Islamic texts by the "Misunderstanders", ………………..
    WHO R ACTUALLY HERE MISUNDERSTANDS ,DEMSCI PLAYING BETWEEN LIE WITH SOME EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR & QURANIC TEACHING……………..HE HAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROOF ……………………OK W NEED TO TEACH HIM ,WHO WAS THAT ?
    Prophet tries to stops killing innocent people:
    Muslim :: Book 19 : Hadith 4399
    It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. Muti' who heard from his father and said: I heard the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) say on the day of the Conquest of Mecca: No Quraishite will be killed hound hand and foot from this day until the Day of judgment.
    Muslim :: Book 7 : Hadith 3142
    Abu Huraira, (Allah be pleased with him) reported. When Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, granted Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) victory over Mecca, he stood before people and praised and extolled Allah and then said:…………it (this territory) was not violable to anyone before me and it was made violable to me for an hour of a day, and it shall not be violable to anyone after me. So neither molest the game, nor weed out thorns from it. And it is not lawful for anyone to pick up a thing dropped but one who makes public announcement of it. And it a relative of anyone is killed he is entitled to opt for one of two things. Either he should be paid blood-money or he can take life as (a just retribution).
    Muslim :: Book 9 : Hadith 3506
    God did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He has sent me to teach and make things easy.
    Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 3 :: Hadith 122
    Narrated Jarir:
    The Prophet said to me during Hajjat-al-Wida': Let the people keep quiet and listen. Then he said (addressing the people), "Do not (become infidels) revert to disbelief after me by striking the necks (cutting the throats) of one another (killing each other)."
    Muslim :: Book 30 : Hadith 5689
    …………..I am not afraid that you would associate anything with Allah after me, but I am afraid that you may be (allured) by the world and (vie) with one another (in possessing material wealth) and begin killing one another, and you would be destroyed as were destroyed those who had gone before you. 'Uqba said that that was the last occasion that he saw Allah's Massenger on the pulpit.
    Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 3 :: Hadith 112
    Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 83 :: Hadith 19
    Prohibit killing with unjust:
    3:21. Verily! Those who disbelieve in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah and kill the Prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings, announce to them a painful torment.
    5: 32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!.

  67. knowTheEnemy says:

    I would like to add that another poster posted the following from Bhagvad Gita-

    "That absolute and homogenous reality, the Brahman, which transcends mind and speech, became split into two, the objective universe and the thinking subject. One is nature, bound by cause and effect, the other is consciousness absolute, the witness" 
    –Sree Krishna 
    Bhagavata XI.XIX. III

    We need to realize that just because it is in the Gita does not make it true or beneficial! Gita was written centuries ago by Brahmins who had certain knowledge about things, some of which was correct knowledge, some was incorrect. We know from today's available knowledge that karma and jyotish are nothing but superstitious stuff (The benefits of jyotish at best are because of placebo effects).

    Therefore we need to get rid of such worthless superstition! There will still be plenty of stuff available to study in Eastern thoughts. As an experiment, if you take out the "bound by cause and effect" from the above BG quote, you will be left with-
    "That absolute and homogeneous reality, the Brahman, which transcends mind and speech, became split into two, the objective universe and the thinking subject. One is nature, the other is consciousness absolute, the witness" 
    –Sree Krishna

    As you can see, we can still tell what the quote is talking about and contemplate on it.

  68. shabeer says:

    Thouba[forgiveness] for apostate:
    3: 89. Except for those who repent after that and do righteous deeds. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
    5: 34. Except for those who (having fled away and then) came back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power; in that case, know that Allâh is Oft¬Forgiving, Most Merciful.
    9: 11. But if they repent, perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât) and give Zakât, then they are your brethren in religion. (In this way) We explain the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for a people who know.
    49: 14. The Bedouins say: "We believe." Say: "You believe not but you only say, 'We have surrendered (in Islâm),' for Faith has not yet entered your hearts. But if you obey Allâh and His Messenger (SAW), He will not decrease anything in reward for your deeds. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
    Malik :: Book 36 : Hadith 36.18.16
    Prophet pray for apostate
    9: 80. Whether you (O Muhammad SAW) ask forgiveness for them (hypocrites) or ask not forgiveness for them … (and even) if you ask seventy times for their forgiveness … Allâh will not forgive them, because they have disbelieved in Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad SAW). And Allâh guides not those people who are Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient to Allâh).
    Malik :: Book 36 : Hadith 36.18.15

  69. shabeer says:

    Apostate ordered killing when they are fighting against Islam: committed murder and theft
    Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 83 :: Hadith 37
    "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and >>>>>>>>>>>>>(3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle<<<<<<<<<<<<, and deserted Islam and became an apostate."
    Bukhari :: Book 6 :: Volume 60 :: Hadith 134
    …………… "I do not know that killing a person is lawful in Islam except in three cases: a married person committing illegal sexual intercourse, one who has murdered somebody unlawfully, or>>>>>> one who wages war against Allah and His Apostle.<<<<<<<<<" …………..
    Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 261
    Apostate not killed:
    Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 56 :: Hadith 814
    Bukhari :: Book 3 :: Volume 30 :: Hadith 107,108
    Muslim :: Book 31 : Hadith 6087 [not blindly kill innocent people]
    Prophet allow Apostate to live
    Muslim :: Book 20 : Hadith 4593
    Muslim :: Book 20 : Hadith 4593
    It has been narrated by Salama b. al-Akwa' that he visited al-Hajjaj who said to him: O son of al-Akwa', you have turned apostate and have come to live again in the desert with the Bedouins (after your migration). He said: No, but the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) has permitted me to live in the desert.
    Apostate killed wrong meaning: [actually it for adultery & killer, prophet used the word [li'l-jama'ah or al-jama'ah]
    Muslim :: Book 16 : Hadith
    Muslim :: Book 16 : Hadith 4152,4154
    Allah will punish apostate:
    3:86. How shall Allâh guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and after they bore witness that the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) is true and after clear proofs had come unto them? And Allâh guides not the people who are Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers).
    3:87. they are those whose recompense is that on them (rests) the Curse of Allâh, of the angels, and of all mankind.
    3:88. they will abide therein (Hell). Neither will their torment be lightened, nor will it be delayed or postponed (for a while).
    3: 90. Verily, those who disbelieved after their Belief and then went on increasing in their disbelief (i.e. disbelief in the Qur'ân and in Prophet Muhammad SAW) – never will their repentance be accepted [because they repent only by their tongues and not from their hearts]. And they are those who are astray.
    3: 177. Verily, those who purchase disbelief at the price of Faith, not the least harm will they do to Allâh. For them, there is a painful torment.
    4: 137. Verily, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe (again), and (again) disbelieve, and go on increasing in disbelief; Allâh will not forgive them, nor guide them on the (Right) Way.
    9: 74. They swear by Allâh that they said nothing (bad), but really they said the word of disbelief, and they disbelieved after accepting Islâm, and they resolved that (plot to murder Prophet Muhammad SAW) which they were unable to carry out, and they could not find any cause to do so except that Allâh and His Messenger had enriched them of His Bounty. If then they repent, it will be better for them, but if they turn away, Allâh will punish them with a painful torment in this worldly life and in the Hereafter. And there is none for them on earth as a Walî (supporter, protector) or a helper.
    16: 106. Whoever disbelieved in Allâh after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allâh, and theirs will be a great torment.
    9: 101. And among the Bedouins round about you, some are hypocrites, and so are some among the people of Al-Madinah, they exaggerate and persist in hypocrisy, you (O Muhammad SAW) know them not, We know them. We shall punish them twice, and thereafter they shall be brought back to a great (horrible) torment.
    Apostate Double face/lie:
    3: 72. And a party of the people of the Scripture say: "Believe in the morning in that which is revealed to the believers (Muslims), and reject it at the end of the day, so that they may turn back.
    47: 25. Verily, those who have turned back (have apostate) as disbelievers after the guidance has been manifested to them, Shaitân (Satan) has beautified for them (their false hopes), and (Allâh) prolonged their term (age).
    26. This is because they said to those who hate what Allâh has sent down: "We will obey you in part of the matter," but Allâh knows their secrets.
    Apostate heart sealed:
    63: 3. That is because they believed, then disbelieved, therefore their hearts are sealed, so they understand not.
    4: 137. Verily, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe (again), and (again) disbelieve, and go on increasing in disbelief; Allâh will not forgive them, nor guide them on the (Right) Way.

  70. shabeer says:

    Symbols of hypocrites /layers/looser/break the bond/quarrels/cheat/fear:

    9: 67. The hypocrites, men and women, are from one another, they enjoin (on the people) Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief and polytheism of all kinds and all that Islâm has forbidden), and forbid (people) from Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm orders one to do), and they close their hands [from giving (spending in Allâh's Cause) alms, etc.]. They have forgotten Allâh, so He has forgotten them. Verily, the hypocrites are the Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient to Allâh).
    33: 60. If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al¬Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbors but a little while.
    58: 14. Have you (O Muhammad SAW) not seen those (hypocrites) who take for friends a people upon whom is the Wrath of Allâh (i.e. Jews)? They are neither of you (Muslims) nor of them (Jews), and they swear to a lie while they know.
    15. Allâh has prepared for them a severe torment. Evil indeed is that which they used to do.
    59: 11. Have you (O Muhammad SAW) not observed the hypocrites who say to their friends among the people of the Scripture who disbelieve: "(By Allâh) If you are expelled, we (too) indeed will go out with you, and we shall never obey any one against you, and if you are attacked (in fight), we shall indeed help you." But Allâh is Witness, that they verily, are liars.
    4: 141. Those (hyprocrites) who wait and watch about you; if you gain a victory from Allâh, they say: "Were we not with you," but if the disbelievers gain a success, they say (to them): "Did we not gain mastery over you and did we not protect you from the believers?" Allâh will judge between you (all) on the Day of Resurrection. And never will Allâh grant to the disbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers.
    Bukhari 1.2.32,33
    Bukhari 3:43:639
    Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 51 :: Hadith 12
    Bukhari :: Book 3 :: Volume 48 :: Hadith 846
    Bukhari :: Book 3 :: Volume 43 :: Hadith 639
    Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 2 :: Hadith 32, 33
    Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 111 ,112,113
    Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 88 :: Hadith 229 , 30
    Muslim :: Book 38 : Hadith 6686
    Bukhari :: Book 1 :: Volume 8 :: Hadith 417
    Allah will punish the people who act against the prophet:
    33: 57. Verily, those who annoy Allâh and His Messenger (SAW) Allâh has cursed them in this world, and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating torment.
    58: 15. Allâh has prepared for them a severe torment. Evil indeed is that which they used to do.
    Allah will punish the people who act against the Muslim:
    33: 58. And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear on themselves the crime of slander and plain sin.
    85:10. Verily, those who put into trial the believing men and believing women (by torturing them and burning them), and then do not turn in repentance, (to Allâh), will have the torment of Hell, and they will have the punishment of the burning Fire.

  71. shabeer says:

    @Anti Terrorism Squad in searching Indian Mujahiddin and SIMI terrorist………………….ITS OK,BUT POLICE & GOVT SEARCHING /PUNISHING INNOCENT PEOPLE AS LIKE A TERRORIST ,WE R AGAINST IT

  72. knowTheEnemy says:

    I looked up Aryabhata on wikipedia and it says he was a great mathematician and astronomer, not an astrologer! I hope you are aware that astronomy and astrology are two different subjects. Nowhere on his wiki page do the words 'astrology' or 'astrologer' even appear!

    I also looked up one of the astrology eulogizing links that you provided, and it says "astrology, as practiced in India, is very respected. Hindu astrologers are referred to as "Pandits" and known to be trusted advisors – oracles – giving voice to the divine intentions of the universe." It goes on to say "The deeper spiritual lessons of life are shown by the planets, astrology signs and astrology houses."

    But how many people consult astrologers for "deeper spiritual lessons of life"? Look up any advertisement posted by astrologers and they promise to provide 'holy solutions for problems with marriage, in-laws, business, jobs, blockage in success, court cases, black magic, bad dreams etc etc'… and where they can get away with it- how to have male children instead of females!

    Why do you think they post such ads? Well… because they know that these are the only things that people care about. Have you ever seen an astrologer ad that says "I will help you find some auspicious time to study Gita with translations", or "find auspicious time to read the Purans so you know what it is that they are talking about", or "time to clean up the rivers" and/or "auspicious time to improve the environment for the birds and animals"??? I never have either! Astrologers know that karma-believers don't care about these things… that they only care about themselves. If they post such ads, no karma-believer will visit them or call their hotline!

  73. Supriya says:

    Shabeer
    If you are really @ war with muslim terrorists then why don't you help Anti Terrorism Squad in searching Indian Mujahiddin and SIMI terrorist ?

  74. Supriya says:

    Carmichael
    It's a good thing that you believe in higher being which created you and this wonderful world. Indian philosophy says that you are higher being and there is supreme purpose of your life.
    It seems that you don't like to be called as Singh.
    Now-a-days westerners are visiting India to seek inner peace and know Indian philosophy of spirituality.Here westerner commentators believe in Indian philosophy of spirituality.

  75. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy
    Karma refers to the totality of our actions and intents in this and previous life,all of which determine our future.

    There is a section in Yajur veda called Vedang Jyotisha which discusses the Grahas(planets) and Nakshatras(constellations).

    Vedic Astrology discusses not only problems and their solutions but also the longer objective of human life i. e. realisation of supreme power.

    Aryabhatta was ancient Indian Mathematician and Astrologer. (author of math. treaties such as arithmatic, algebra, trigonometry etc.)

    I would like to suggest you to consult Astrologer Pavan Sinha
    Link : http://www.paavanchintandhara.com

    Following links give explanations of the way planets influence Karma : astrology.richardbrown.com http://www.radioastrology.com
    vedicastrologycenter.net http://www.astrobrix.com http://www.astrology.com

  76. Demsci says:

    //"I will accept my mistake if anyone proves me wrong on the bases of Quran & I have not met any Muslim here who is in disagreement with me on  bases of Quran verses and shabeer also nowhere in objection with me."//

    Don't be so sure, Slave. Shabeer writes many things and I think he DOES disagree with you on occasion.

    Take for instance "the deathpenalty for apostasy". Shabeer argued on this site that passages in the Quran, 2.217, and 9.66, about "hypocrites" were NOT about apostates.

    He responded to writers on our side, jonmc, Robert Spencer and others, who had explained that the "hypocrites" in those passages were the apostates, and that that meant that according to the Quran apostates should be killed. And on MEMRI-tv we saw an influential Egyptian cleric proclaim: "Of course the "hypocrites mentioned in the Quran" are the apostates (and so apostates of Islam should indeed be killed)! Who else would they be?!"

    Anyway, from the sahid hadiths, esp. Bukhari, it becomes clear that there is deathpenalty in Islam for apostasy and Robert Spencer told us that all 4 of the influential Sunni schools of thought; Shafi, Hanafi, Hanbali and Maliki, and also Al Azhar in Cairo and even the Shiites, are unanimous that the deathpenalty for apostasy is firmly in Islamic law.

    Now, because Shabeer knows how thoroughly undemocratic and unfair this deathpenalty is, he argued that deathpenalty for apostasy was NOT in Islamic law. As did The American Muslim and only the other day an influential Pakistani lawyer also and many more Islam-apologists.

    Now, with who do you agree about the deathpenalty for apostasy in Islamic law and especially in the Quran? With Shabeer and other Islam-apologists or the Sunni schools of Islamic thought???

    On this issue you can't agree with both sides. And the "Islamic schools of thought" DO AGREE with Robert Spencer on the interpretation of the texts about deathpenalty in Quran and Hadiths. Only the "Islamic schools of thought" are in favor and Spencer is against this interpretation and practice of this law.

  77. Carmichael Singh says:

    Sweetie [and I mean this endearment in a positive way] 

    You, my dear are an Indian citizen. I, on the other hand am not. My great grand dad left Punjab and settled outside of India. My brothers and sisters are the 3rd generation born of this nation. We retain our name Singh, as this is our given name in all our identification. I have the right to use this given name and it has nothing what so ever to do with India, your nation.

    You think I am being malicious in my comments. And I understand why you should think so. My name “Singh” does not make me an Indian Citizen and thus in your mind I should “defend” some “things” of my Indian heritage. There are a heck of lot of Irish people who immigrated and settled in the USA. The common name Sean or last name Smith{common from England} in America does not make the current “Seans and Smiths: English or Irish. They just Americans.

    I reckon, it’s you who is being malicious by pointing out my name “Singh”.

    Cricket, maybe the most popular game in India. On my account football is the most watched played and popular game in the world. Half of the kids in this world have heard the name “bend like Beckham”

    Sachin, like Brian Lara on the other hand may not be recognized names in my part of the world.

    Soccer or football world cup has ten times the TV audience over cricket. India, your “10th largest GDP and 3rd “PPP” only need to pick 11 players to bring home the next soccer world cup. Do you think India, your nation of over 1 billion people is capable to produce a world class soccer team or do you still think that Jyotish shastra is able to help predict who will be the next soccer world champions?

    I am with the gentleman who commented that Jyotish Shastra is a band aid solution to people who are in fear. 

    It has nothing to do with if I believe in-Jyotish Shastrat or in the Indian philosophy of spirituality. If you must know I do believe in a higher being who created me and this wonderful world, but I dare say I do not believe in “ Jyotish or in the Indian Philosophy spirituality. Now then my dear, does my thinking makes me less or more Indian or am I allowed to believe in what I believe is the truth?

    Please make your deductions based on me, first as a human rather than being than Indian.

    As for creating or running a NGO in India, I’ll let my friend Bill Gates do that. He has a purpose in life to those less fortunate than him. Incidentally most “gora” people do a better job as NGO than non gora people. At least gora people, don’t make things appear from thin air, unless of course they work in the big rooms in Vegas.

    You may be right that India is the 2nd largest growing economy after China, but correct me if I am wrong, isn’t India one of the top 5 nations in this world where a large percentage of its people had difficulties in securing 3 decent meals in a day?

  78. Andra says:

    This is what Hindu philosophy says……

    "That absolute and homogenous reality, the Brahman, which transcends mind and speech, became split into two, the objective universe and the thinking subject. One is nature, bound by cause and effect, the other is consciousness absolute, the witness"
    –Sree Krishna
    Bhagavata XI.XIX. III

    .Vedanta does leave the possibility of multiple universes as this universe is not infinite.But where is "multiple gods" and "sleeping gods"????

    I never thought of you as someone who speaks without first gaining sufficient understanding of a subject.

    "Consciousness is thought."

    In Vedic philosophy it is NOT .
    In Platonic and western philosophy it is.

    Consciousness is not thought.Consciousness neither has intentionality nor contents nor parts nor can it be equated to mind or its processes. Infact neither Quantum physicists nor neurologists have a definition for consciousness . It is the only non physical phenomenon mankind knows about.

    "Carl Sagan dismissed the Hindu notion of the universe being the dream of God."

    That is not what hindu philosophy says. Creation is the voluntary superimposition of names , forms and processes (which is the latent power of the primal state of singularity that God is) upon God ( who is of the nature of consciousness, Pure Existence and Infinity) by God.Many philosophers argue that creation is real and others that it is an illusion, because it is impermanent.

    I have never heard of any Hindu sect propagating this "dream" theory. Propably it is a little known unimportant bunch.

    " In Hinduism, the universe is but the dream of the god who after a 100 Brahma years (864 billion years) dissolves himself into a dreamless sleep"

    I have no Idea where this comes from. Only humans experience dream, dreamless sleep and wakefulness.
    Even when we do so, our consciousness does not undergo these experiences. That is why we wake up saying "I slept well but I cant remember " —consciousness is unchanging link between the three states of awareness.

    " According to this philosophy, there are an infinite number of universes, each with its own god dreaming the cosmic dream."

    This, Mr Sina is baseless. I did not expect this from you. No major Indian philosophy—Vedanta, Samkhya, Buddhist , Jain,— talks of this "Multiple God theory".

    Brahman is singularity, an unqualified, unconditioned infinity.

    Infinity cannot have parts. Space is the very first think that evolved from Brahman.

    Can you count space?

  79. Ali Sina says:

    Well said, I agree with you on this.

  80. Lavanya says:

    Dr. Sina
    This world will become a better place to live in and will soon have the Golden age or the era of peace and purity if man realises the Self as distinct from the body, practices soul-consciousness and on the basis adopts motto of World of Brotherhood. In order to end Iron age, the society has to understand that root cause of all sufferings and troubles in the world is that man has gradually come to identify himself with the body i.e. from soul consciousness to body consciousness in multiple births. Today little does he realise and much less he practice the truth that, in this body which made of inert matter dwells a conscient and immortal entity-the eternal spark of life and light called the soul.
    The body is like a temple and soul is like the flame of candle or the deity n temple. The body is like a car and soul is like it's driver..The body is an assamblage of instruments in the shape of various organs,wheres the soul is it;s userThe body and brain are are like a computer hardware and soul is that which programs it and utilizes it.The body is not for it's own sake but for a conscient user called the soul.
    The soul is like a micro star. It abides in the body midway between two eye brows where a devout in India apply Tilak-a sacred mark.Hence it is connected with brain and nervous system. The soul has 3 intrinsic abilities which the body or anything else made of mater does not possess.Thy are 1. The ability to think or wish or will,2. The ability to judge , understand or investigate,3. the ability to retain impressions, past thoughts in the form of moods,attitudes, habits in multiple births. The first is known as Mind, second is Intellect, third is Sanskaras, Resolves or Latencies.
    It is these abilities which distinguish one person from other and determine the mental state of person. One who is given to violence and other evils is known as a sinner,the other who makes efforts to purify his thoughts,judgement and resolves is known as Mahatma or an elevated soul whereas the one who has completely divinised himself in called as Devatma or deity.It should thus be clearly borne in mind that it is the soul that suffers or enjoys because of it's bad or good karmas(actions, intents), for mind is not an entity separate from the soul,rather it is the name given to the manifestation of soul's consciousness.

  81. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //then why not nature itself? //
    The question was about the temporal limits on Causality and not nature itself.

    //If their is something "not God" then such a God is not infinite. //
    How? Infinite – finite = infinite.

    //You ask the nonsense question of "how" causality works//
    If you can't answer, you say it is meaningless:-). You first attempt to answer that question was saying 'what' Causality is. After all if you are talking about something so astounding deep as you want us to believe then you should have answer to why and hows. As far as 'what' is concerned we already know it, and it is just a mundane knowledge, not a very deep knowledge. An ordinary day to day observed phenomenon. If philosophy only says 'What' Causality is then it is a pitifully hollow subject:-)

    //"Second in all possible worlds there may not be existent things, it is just an assumption." Which is a correct assumption.//
    Why? It is nothing more than an assumption.

    //"Souls" and "gods" are existent things. //
    If you agree then what you are arguing about?

    //A "life time" which is defined by us. //
    A "life time" which is identifiable by us. Doesn't matter whether it is defined or identified actually. See back the example of your mother and Black Holes:-)

    //The old thing doesn't become nothing and that's the point here, there is just a process of change. //
    :-). The point was that the old 'thing' has temporal bounds.

  82. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //How you came to that conclusion is beyond me, a car is just a collection of parts end of story. //
    Yes it may be beyond you. I second your opinion.

    //Show me the "social study" which claims a team (and the things it produces) exists "beyond" its members?//
    Rhetoric and Red-herring. I didn't say it exists beyond it members.

    //Show me where a boundary of any object you can name is then?//
    You have agreed that things have boundary. Now don't start all over again. You have for example agreed that there was a time t1 when the flame wasn't and a time t1 when it will not be. Exactitude wasn't a question at all.

    //The mind is a product of causality and functions by causality, causality is not "an invention of the mind". //
    If it is not then you are contradicting yourself since the following took place:
    I said: Then Causality is also no more than a label "according to our own purposes", using your words."
    You said: Correct.
    So if it s label according to our own purpose, it is simply an invention of mind.
    On the other hand if it not an invention of mind then also you are contradicting yourself since you are saying mind is a product of Causality:-).

    //"Define 'reborn'." Continuation of a things character or attributes.//
    Then the flame isn't reborn every moment. There is a definite time t2 when every single characteristic of the flame doesn't continue to exist. When the flame extinguishes, the wick is burnt into ash and can't be burnt into a flame again, the heat it produced is dissipated in the environs etc etc.

    //o use Buddhas example of a flame, if a flame is extinguished and another flame lit which is indistinguishable from the first, then that would be rebirth in this context (as "that" flame is dead but its attributes have continued).//
    1. There may not be another flame to be lit.
    2. It requires external agency to lit the second flame.
    3. Depending on the material of the 'wick' the second flame may not each and every attribute of the earlier flame. It will not even produce the same kind of ash after having burnt.

    //If he is indistinguishable from you in every way//
    Which is simply not possible. You first have to collate all my attributes exhaustively and then only venture to compare with another person. In fact if it is possible for two persons to be indistinguishable in every aspect then there is not need for her to be in the future. She could as well be present not and in that case you have two 'you's. This doesn't even necessitate 'rebirth'!!!

    //"2. which doesn't cease to be itself (doesn't die)," Not necessary. //
    Is necessary. As I said if your 'identity' has to be restored then it can't be the physical aspects as you claim. Those of which your body was composed disintegrates and your genetic material can't be replicated the exact same way, at least not naturally.

    //You are just all of the things which make you what you are, (i.e your characteristics and attributes) if those continued in the world, then it would not matter if "your" physical body is dead.//
    For you to continue you need that special 'thing' which identifies your attributes and characteristics. Theist call it soul. If you agree something continues beyond your material existence you are simply saying a particular version of the soul theory:-)

    //Because its not a bounded finite thing//
    If you agree that nature doesn't have a view then your all points starting with "In nature's view", are fallacious.

  83. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //So you believe in the literal interpretation which makes no sense at all? //
    It does make sense. You are not prepared to take the meaning. Very simply he is speaking about the incorporeal soul as reverberated in the then prevailing Indian spiritual view.

    //"And see how 'meaningful' it remains" Depends what is meant by "spirit". //
    Which you failed to tell us what it is in that context. You tried with 'nature' and I told you to place that word in the sentence and see how meaningful it remains.

    //According to that definition then Karl Marx was also a religious teacher since he also propounded a world view. //
    If somebody takes an epistemological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) interpretation of Communism then off-course it is a world view. As far as I know nobody ventured that far with this theory:-). But you are right, if it is a world-view then it the founder is a religious teacher, even if he is an Atheist.

    //"spirit" is what we really are.//
    Which is? Here is a definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spirit?s=t
    the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.

    //My interpretation makes logical sense, yours makes no sense//
    :-). Lets see what sense it makes. I am replacing the word by your phrase, making grammatical adjustments only:
    When man dies the body is dissolved into its elements, but the 'uncreated nature' is not entombed. It leads a higher mode of life in which all the relative terms of father, son, wife, mother, are at an end, just as a guest who leaves his lodging has done with it, as though it were a thing of the past.
    The question then only returns to haunt you what is this 'uncreated nature' that leads a higher mode of life after the person dies. In fact if it is whole of nature or universe what it has to do with one or any person's death?

  84. mysticalmind3 says:

     "You have simply decided to go by your confirmation bias. " So you believe in the literal interpretation which makes no sense at all? 

    "And see how 'meaningful' it remains" Depends what is meant by "spirit".

    "Well he propounded a world view. So he was indeed a religious teacher." According to that definition then Karl Marx was also a religious teacher since he also propounded a world view.

    "Which is?" "spirit" is what we really are. We are a whole lot more than just consciousness. What we really are is unbounded. 

    "Remember to put this phrase in the above original text and see what comes out of it" My interpretation makes logical sense, yours makes no sense at all and the correct interpretation is that which is accordance with reason.   

     

  85. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Which proves that it is not simply sum of its parts. " How you came to that conclusion is beyond me, a car is just a collection of parts end of story.

    "Now you are trying to falsify various management and social studies. best of luck. " Show me the "social study" which claims a team (and the things it produces) exists "beyond" its members? 

    "The point was about having boundaries." Show me where a boundary of any object you can name is then? 

    "And then therefore we can say that Causality isn't 'ultimate reality', it is just an invention of mind." The mind is a product of causality and functions by causality, causality is not "an invention of the mind". What I said is things don't exist inherently that means "causality" ultimately is just a tool which we use use to be able to function and survive. 

    "Define 'reborn'." Continuation of a things character or attributes.

    "1. There is no continuity of the attributes of that material after its 'death'. It becomes (changes to) something else, which will have differnet attributes. Otherwise how will you identify 'death' in the first place?" To use Buddhas example of a flame, if a flame is extinguished and another flame lit which is indistinguishable from the first, then that would be rebirth in this context (as "that" flame is dead but its attributes have continued). 

    "2. Even if another person is born with exactly same character he is still a different person materially." If he is indistinguishable from you in every way, then for all intents and purposes he is "you", just like a flame which indistinguishable from another.

    "1. With which some sort of identity can be uniquely established," If he looks physically the same, has the same memories,  and the same personality then he would think was you and would be indistinguishable from you. "the identity" would be your character and attributes which would continue in him.

    "2. which doesn't cease to be itself (doesn't die)," Not necessary.

    "3. which follows some mechanism to render itself in another physical body."  You are just all of the things which make you what you are, (i.e your characteristics and attributes) if those continued in the world, then it would not matter if "your" physical body is dead. Unless like Kutadanta you do not care for that kind of continuation and are cleaving to the self?

    "Nature doesn't have a view" Because its not a bounded finite thing.

     

     

  86. mysticalmind3 says:

    "given that the whole of reality was in Singularity One major problem I have discussing science with people who aren't correctly initiated in the Big Bang model is the failure to understand that Big Bang wasn't an explosion in space, it was an expansion of the space (and time) itself.  " If the whole of reality was in this singularity, and their was no time or space. Then this singularity must have been 1) Timeless 2) Boundless (i.e infinite as their was no space). Now if this singularity can be timeless and space-less (without boundary's) then why not nature itself?

    " Then there is no 'ultimate reality' which you were claiming Philosophy tries to unearth." The "ultimate reality" is that which has no appearances. , no boundaries is formless and is infinite. Some have called it Tao, others Brahman and the Buddha called the emptiness.

    "Denial is no proof. " Show me how a finite bounded thing can exist inherently? You have not shown any such thing.

    "The purpose was to show that an infinite God is still infinite even if there are some 'not God' material existing. " If their is something "not God" then such a God is not infinite.

    "The claim can't be part of the prove." You ask the nonsense question of "how" causality works, when than is exactly what causality is – a description of how things work. .

    "Second in all possible worlds there may not be existent things, it is just an assumption." Which is a correct assumption.

    " In a hypothetical world it is theoretically possible to have only non-material entities like souls and gods. " "Souls" and "gods" are existent things.

    "Even if a measurement of change, the life time exist and forms the boundary for the entity's existence." A "life time" which is defined by us.

    "The old thing ceases to be, otherwise 'death' is meaningless." The old thing doesn't become nothing and that's the point here, there is just a process of change.

     

      

      

  87. Slaveofprophet says:

    @Demisci
    I will accept my mistake if anyone proves me wrong on the bases of Quran & I have not met any Muslim here who is in disagreement with me on  bases of Quran verses and shabeer also nowhere in objection with me. My belief based on holy Quran verses and I always give reference from Quran in support of my belief.
    I believe almighty Allah will punish you (demsci) in eternal hellfire for not believing in him. Allah can forgive all sins like raping, looting, mass-murdering except non-belief in him. Holy Quran says for non-believers
    (Quran 21:98-99)
    “Indeed, you (disbelievers), and that which you worship other than God,[2]  are but fuel for Hell.  Verily, you will enter it.  Had these (false deities) been (actual) gods, they would not have entered there, but all will eternally abide therein.” 
    And for believers
    “And whoever obeys God and the Messenger – those will be with the ones upon whom God has bestowed favor – of the prophets, the steadfast affirmers of truth, the martyrs and the righteous.  And excellent are those as companions!” (Quran 4:69)

  88. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //Yes cause and effect would break at this singularity. //
    Which proves that your initial assertion against which I objected that Causal chains could move infinitely backwards is proven wrong. I don't think there is any more need to harp on this subject.

    //"Give me the proof what existed at big bang was the whole of material existence?" And it was not a claim.//
    Well, if you are casting aspersions to a particular position you are hinting on the opposite. After all that is generally the purpose of question tags!!

    //What seems much more likely is that what evolved from our big bang was simple a portion of reality. //
    :-). Then the immediate question will be what portion of reality didn't evolve out of Big Bang, given that the whole of reality was in Singularity. One major problem I have discussing science with people who aren't correctly initiated in the Big Bang model is the failure to understand that Big Bang wasn't an explosion in space, it was an expansion of the space (and time) itself.

    //Reality is nothing but appearances. //
    :-). Then there is no 'ultimate reality' which you were claiming Philosophy tries to unearth.

    //You shown nothing, A cannot logically exist without Not A end of story. //
    Denial is no proof.

    //Wrong since their is nothing other that "infinity" their is nothing to add to it//
    The purpose was to show that an infinite God is still infinite even if there are some 'not God' material existing. Hence the comparison with anything is an immediate failure.

    //Which is something only philosophy and not science could tell us, so if that is what it says then it says a great deal. //
    Which says nothing:-).

    //Causality just "IS" its not "how". //
    Even if it 'is', it must have a mechanism of working, the 'how' part.

    //Causality operates by existent things, in all possible worlds their must be existent things, therefore their must be causality. //
    The claim can't be part of the prove. Here the claim "Causality operates" is the premise and also the fact in question. A vain attempt at introducing fallacy. Second in all possible worlds there may not be existent things, it is just an assumption. In a hypothetical world it is theoretically possible to have only non-material entities like souls and gods.

    //you seem to say both" No I say neither.//
    If so then you simply don't have an opinion. Simple:-). Why spin so much yarn around it then?

    //No because a "life time" is just a measurement of change. //
    Even if a measurement of change, the life time exist and forms the boundary for the entity's existence.

    //If everything has a birth and death then everything must change//
    Must change to become something that it is not. That new thing isn't the same old thing. The old thing ceases to be, otherwise 'death' is meaningless.

  89. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //No it doesn't, all it proves is that the cars existence is also dependent on external factors (i.e its parts being arranged in a certain way). //
    Which proves that it is not simply sum of its parts.

    //No it doesn't.//
    Now you are trying to falsify various management and social studies. best of luck.

    //An identity which is just us carving up reality. //
    That is not the issue. The point was about having boundaries.

    //"Then Causality is also no more than a label "according to our own purposes", using your words." Correct.//
    And then therefore we can say that Causality isn't 'ultimate reality', it is just an invention of mind. You have falsified yourself.

    //It has an identity, in that it has particular attributes, but then again it has no identity in that it always changes and a new flame is "reborn" every moment. //
    Define 'reborn'. By the way, its identity as a flame doesn't always changes, at a particular point of time it ceases to be a flame and another particular point of time it wasn't yet a flame. So 'always' is meaningless.

    //It basically just means a continuity of a things attributes//
    Problem are:
    1. There is no continuity of the attributes of that material after its 'death'. It becomes (changes to) something else, which will have differnet attributes. Otherwise how will you identify 'death' in the first place?
    2. Even if another person is born with exactly same character he is still a different person materially. The only way it can be the same person in essence, if there is something : 1. With which some sort of identity can be uniquely established, 2. which doesn't cease to be itself (doesn't die), 3. which follows some mechanism to render itself in another physical body.

    //Which is completely meaningless to nature.//
    Nature doesn't have a view :-). It is enough that there is a boundary of some sort.

  90. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //It contradicts what Buddha teaches elsewhere where he is very clearly about what he means. //
    I think here also it is very clear. If it doesn't agree with your idea or what you want to pick from Buddha's saying, what can I do? You have simply decided to go by your confirmation bias.

    //I said he meant that as returning to nature (I.e being infinite) and leaving this finite worldly life//
    Replace that phrase in the original text : When man dies the body is dissolved into its elements, but the spirit is not entombed. It leads a higher mode of life in which all the relative terms of father, son, wife, mother, are at an end, just as a guest who leaves his lodging has done with it, as though it were a thing of the past.
    And see how 'meaningful' it remains :-).

    //Buddha was a philosopher, not some religious Guru//
    Well he propounded a world view. So he was indeed a religious teacher. Otherwise Buddham Sharanam gachchhami, sangham sharanam gachchhami, Dhammam sharanam gachchhami wouldn't have been uttered.

    //That which is unborn and as such truly immortal. //
    Which is? Remember to put this phrase in the above original text and see what comes out of it:-)

  91. Demsci says:

    SlaveOfProphet, I am not sure Shabeer WANTS to do that. Shabeer tries to whitewash Islam and make it look true, wise, beneficial, tolerant to doubting Muslim readers.

    Painting really horrible pictures of hell for EVERYONE who does not believe (enough) may not fit in well with his Islam-propaganda-program.

    Maybe Shabeer considers you, SlaveOfProphet, one of the //" [wrong/misuse/unknown/pagan/terrorist"// believers  with whom "true Muslims"  are at (verbal) war.

    You should understand that everytime Shabeer refutes something counterjihadists say, you must make sure that you do not advocate the same interpretation as that of the counterjihadists, because then Shabeer is in disagreement and verbal war with you too.

    And on occasion you WERE in agreement of interpretation of Quran-Hadiths-Sira with counterjihadists here.

  92. Demsci says:

    //"actually we are @ war [not by sword or ak 47 ,but by quran and sunna] with both [wrong/misuse/unknown/pagan/terrorist &nbsp;believers & who declare war with Islam with lie/personal opinion]"//

    You talk about "True Muslims" at verbal war with TWO groups. A. Those who declare war (including verbal I suppose) with Islam with lie/ p.opinion. B. "Wrong/ Misuse/ Unknown/ pagan/ terrorist BELIEVERS. "Misunderstanding Muslims".

    Group A includes Ali Sina, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, David Woods and many posters at their websits, the counterjihadists I suppose. Who only fight verbally and democratically.

    Now about this group B YOU mentioned. I am so glad you admit that a (big) group of Misunderstanding Muslims (you said believers) exist. and that you are at war with them.

    But this war on two fronts puts the "true Muslims' in a difficult position. The "true Muslims" know by now how well versed the counterjihadists Ali Sina, Robert Spencer and David Woods are in the Quran-Hadiths-Sira. And the "misunderstanding muslims" nowadays are monitored very well by MEMRI TV and the media and the counterjihadists.

    And now it is clear that much of the interpretation of texts of Quran-Hadiths-Sira by the "Misunderstanders of Islam" is the same interpretation as the counterjihadists give to those texts. The only difference is that the Misunderstanders are in favor of the practice and execution of that interpretation, which is what the counterjihadists are very much afraid of and against.

    And if the "true Muslims" really mean it when they say that they do not want the execution and practice of the interpretation of Islamic texts by the "Misunderstanders",

    then it follows that "true Muslims" now in many cases must stand by the side of the counterjihadists and oppose the side of the "Misunderstanders of Islam".

    Will there be then, on occasion, on some interpretations, some kind of alliance between Shabeer and other True Muslims with Ali Sina, Robert Spencer, David Wood? Against Taliban's, Al Qaida's and other "misunderstanders of Islam"?

  93. mysticalmind3 says:

    "If this is one of the possibility according to you then it means that you are hinting that Buddha contradicted himself or lied." No because I don't believe in your interpretation of what Buddha says, because 1) It makes no logical sense and 2) It contradicts what Buddha teaches elsewhere where he is very clearly about what he means.

    "you haven't yet explained what other explanation you can offer." I said he meant that as returning to nature (I.e being infinite) and leaving this finite worldly life, which you yourself admitted "is what he may have meant".

    "Second Buddha was also a religious teacher." Buddha was a philosopher, not some religious Guru.

    "But you haven't told us what that different thing is/was." That which is unborn and as such truly immortal.

     
     

     

  94. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Which proves that a car isn't just a sum of its parts" No it doesn't, all it proves is that the cars existence is also dependent on external factors (i.e its parts being arranged in a certain way).

    " I said a coordinated team produces more than sum of the individual efforts. " No it doesn't.

    "They are bounded in space and time therefore they could be labeled with a identity." An identity which is just us carving up reality.

    "Then Causality is also no more than a label "according to our own purposes", using your words." Correct.

    " The flame has an identity otherwise we can't even say this particular thing is flame." It has an identity, in that it has particular attributes, but then again it has no identity in that it always changes and a new flame is "reborn" every moment.

    "Because then you have to redefine the word 'reborn' in this context." It basically just means a continuity of a things attributes (or at least some of its attributes) , so for example a candle can be "reborn" in any other flame it lights or a teacher reborn in his student, or to use Buddhas example of a person with the exact same character and attributes as you living after your death would be "rebirth" in this context.

    "If there is a political difference then we do have a boundary." Which is completely meaningless to nature.

     
     

  95. mysticalmind3 says:

    "What this then means is that Causality breaks at this point too." Yes cause and effect would break at this singularity.

     "Give me the proof what existed at big bang was the whole of material existence?" And it was not a claim. Although it seems highly unlikely to me (and big bang theory does not claim) that all the matter in the universe (i.e everything) was contained in the so called big bang. What seems much more likely is that what evolved from our big bang was simple a portion of reality.  

    "If "exist" to you means "to present an appearance", then your knowledge also doesn't exist in reality but only 'presents an appearance'," Reality is nothing but appearances.

    "She exists only in the sense that she makes an appearance to your mind, by all means she couldn't have been existing before you were born!!" My mind is only a an infinitesimal small part of the entire universe.

    " I have already shown the logical pitfalls to that position" You shown nothing, A cannot logically exist without Not A end of story.

    "infinity + finite = infinity." Wrong since their is nothing other that "infinity" their is nothing to add to it.

    "What does philosophy tell us about nature? Nothing is the answer." Which is something only philosophy and not science could tell us, so if that is what it says then it says a great deal.

    "I asked you how does it work?" Causality just "IS" its not "how".

    "You have no answer at all other than merely saying that it explains everything. " It explains that everything is logically bound and things happens by necessity and not by magic and supernatural nonsense.

    "Claim. Prove?" Causality operates by existent things, in all possible worlds their must be existent  things, therefore their must be causality.

    "Things either have boundaries or they don't have, you seem to say both" No I say neither.

    "If you agree it has a lifetime then off course that establishes temporal boundaries." No because a "life time" is just a measurement of change.

    " What you say after 'therefore' is meaningless and you can't prove it." If everything has a birth and death then everything must change, if their was no change then nothing would ever be born or die, but since everything has a birth and death then everything changes.

     

  96. slaveofprophet says:

    @Shabeer
    I request you to guide these non-believers from Holy Quran verses that  how severally Allah will punish non-believers in him in eternal helfire 

  97. shabeer says:

    @supriya:
    YES I KNOW ,THAT IS THE REGULAR FINAL STEP FOR THE NON MUSLIM ,ESCAPING FROM THE TRUTH ……………..actually we are @ war [not by sword or ak 47 ,but by quran and sunna] with both [wrong/misuse/unknown/pagan/terrorist  believers & who declare war with Islam with lie/personal opinion]

  98. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    // Time is simple the measurement of change, so if big bang theory is correct then obviously their wasn't any time "before" it, as the universe *as we know it* did not exist then. //
    :-). At last I see good sense prevailing!! So if Big Bang limits time, it limits the freedom to 'change' too (as you say change is measured on the scales of time). What this then means is that Causality breaks at this point too. You can't escape this conclusion without introducing the Creator God.

    //I didn't make any such claim//
    Lying again. You did try to make such a claim. I quote from your comment: "Give me the proof what existed at big bang was the whole of material existence?"

    //It does, my definition of "exist" means to present an appearance, (and as a result it means an existent thing is necessarily bounded). What is wrong with this definition? //
    You should first come with a glossary of your definitions I think. If "exist" to you means "to present an appearance", then your knowledge also doesn't exist in reality but only 'presents an appearance', and so does your mother. She exists only in the sense that she makes an appearance to your mind, by all means she couldn't have been existing before you were born!! But you said she did!!

    //That is nonsense, at the very least God existence would depend on the existence of "everything not God". //
    Which is non-sense. Because A doesn't depend on everything that is not A. I have already shown the logical pitfalls to that position (the evenness of 16 can't be proven by testing the oddness of all the other numbers).

    //Since their exists something which is "not God" (according to the Abrahamic religions) then clearly he is less than everything//
    infinity + finite = infinity. It doesn't mean that the first infinity is less than something finite. What you say is logically superflous. There is also a category error since everything other than God (and soul) is material and God is immaterial. So the question of comparison doesn't arise.

    //That is its main problem. //
    :-). It is still better than looking at nothing and pass gas.

    //What is "ultimately real" is what must be true in all possible (or conceivable) worlds. //
    Your answer is similar to the following Q&A:
    Q: What is your name?
    A: My name is what I am known with.
    Simply superflous. I asked you what this "ultimate reality" is?

    //Meaningless question. Nature is simply a "brute fact". //
    See you couldn't even answer this!! And you were saying that your branch of study will unearth answer to some 'big question'. By the way, I said the same about Causality that it is just an observed phenomenon, not a big question. When you say it is a brute fact, you simply echo what I said about it.

    //What does physics tell us about nature? Nothing is the answer. //
    What does philosophy tell us about nature? Nothing is the answer.

    //"tell me how Causality works," By cause and effect.//
    Wrong answer. Causality IS the existence of causes and relatable effects. Thats what it is defined to be, not how it is. I asked you how does it work?

    //"then tell me how that is an "ultimate explanation" " Because it explains everything.//
    Which everything? I asked you 'how' it is an 'ultimate explanation'. You have no answer at all other than merely saying that it explains everything.

    //Because its true in all possible worlds. //
    Claim. Prove?

    //If a thing lacks inherent existence then it cannot be bounded, (since it depends on other things), this is not hard to understand. //
    Looking London, talking about Tokyo. I showed you that your own points 1 and 2 are contradictory. Things either have boundaries or they don't have, you seem to say both:-).

    //That's the whole reason a thing changes "because it has a life time" as you put it, //
    If you agree it has a lifetime then off course that establishes temporal boundaries. Point proven.

    //and every existent thing has a birth and a death, therefore everything changes//
    If everything existing has a birth and death they have temporal boundaries. What you say after 'therefore' is meaningless and you can't prove it.

  99. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    // Yes those parts need to be arranged in a particular way, for the car to come into existence. //
    Which proves that a car isn't just a sum of its parts:-).

    //Explain it then and also explain how a "team effort" is somehow more than what the team produces. //
    Fallacy. You replaced 'individual produces' by 'the team produces' :-). I said a coordinated team produces more than sum of the individual efforts.

    //They are bounded in space and time only because they are labeled with a identity. //
    You have already confessed that both your mother and black holes existed, and only there labels were missing. So the correct statement is: They are bounded in space and time therefore they could be labeled with a identity.

    //Will label things according to our own purposes.//
    Then Causality is also no more than a label "according to our own purposes", using your words.

    //So you agree with Buddha that the flame is constantly being reborn and as such lacks identity? //
    Absolutely not. The flame has an identity otherwise we can't even say this particular thing is flame. As far as being reborn is concerned it is a loaded question. Because then you have to redefine the word 'reborn' in this context.

    //Boundaries that are drawn based on our own practical purposes – just like all other boundaries. //
    :-). Red herring. If there is a political difference then we do have a boundary.

  100. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    // I don't say Buddha is a liar//
    🙂 I quote you: either Buddha contradicted himself . If this is one of the possibility according to you then it means that you are hinting that Buddha contradicted himself or lied.

    //when he speaks about a spirit has nothing to do with how religious understand it//
    I have quoted that text and you haven't yet explained what other explanation you can offer. Second Buddha was also a religious teacher. So "how religious understand it", can't exclude the religion that Buddha was establishing. As I said, the views from Buddha are also religious views and it includes his views about soul, after-life, identity etc which may differ from other religious views.

    //Since his concept of "soul" has nothing to do with how religious people understand it, he is talking about a completely different thing.//
    May be. But you haven't told us what that different thing is/was.

  101. mysticalmind3 says:

    "You are prepared to call Buddha a liar" I don't say Buddha is a liar, what he says in my view, when he speaks about a spirit has nothing to do with how religious understand it. Also you say "my dogma" Buddha taught exactly the same as what I have said, i.e things lack inherent existence, body more permanent than the mind and change being the only constant with identity an illusion of the moment. So perhaps it is you who must think Buddha was a liar or at least a fool.

    "The modalities, working principles etc may differ between different views!!" Since his concept of "soul" has nothing to do with how religious people understand it, he is talking about a completely different thing.

  102. mysticalmind3 says:

    "2. Wrong. Any arbitrary assembly of the car parts won't produce the car. Other than the car parts you need a specific design to assemble the car parts in order to get the car." Yes those parts need to be arranged in a particular way, for the car to come into existence. 

    "Clearly you haven't read about human synergy. " Explain it then and also explain how a "team effort" is somehow more than what the team produces.

    " Things change, yes, but they change to become other things. Which also have identities and hence they have boundaries in time or space or in any other dimension you can think of. " The things they become didn't magically pop of of nowhere, but are a result of change. They are bounded in space and time only because they are labeled with a identity.

    "3. If Causes and Effects won't have boundaries you won't be able to label items or events as cause and effect. " Will label things according to our own purposes.

    "At least not 'that' flame."  So you agree with Buddha that the flame is constantly being reborn and as such lacks identity?

    " If Canada and US are separately identifiable then they obviously have boundaries (this could be political, geological, linguistic etc)." Boundaries that are drawn based on our own practical purposes – just like all other boundaries.

  103. mysticalmind3 says:

    "I only concerned myself to the non-existence of time at the Big Bang." Time is simple the measurement of change, so if big bang theory is correct then obviously their wasn't any time "before" it, as the universe *as we know it* did not exist then.

    "On the other hand you claimed that "what existed at big bang wasn't the whole of material existence". Now a claim puts the burden of proof on you." I didn't make any such claim.

    "It doesn't." It does, my definition of "exist" means to present an appearance, (and  as a result it means an existent thing is necessarily bounded). What is wrong with this definition? 

    "The Abrahamics would say that the God is creator of everything else and is itself uncreated, uncaused." That is nonsense, at the very least God existence would depend on the existence of "everything not God".

    "There doesn't arise a question of 'more' or 'less' than anything."Since their exists something which is "not God" (according to the Abrahamic religions)  then clearly he is less than everything.

    "Science looks at the parts to understand the whole." That is its main problem.

    " You couldn't even explain what 'ultimate reality' is. " What is "ultimately real" is what must be true in all possible (or conceivable) worlds.

     "Tell me, why is there Causality? " Meaningless question. Nature is simply a "brute fact".

    "That comes into the purview of natural sciences, for example Physics." What does physics tell us about nature? Nothing is the answer.

    "tell me how Causality works," By cause and effect.  "then tell me why it works," Nonsense question again, things don't happen for "reasons". "then tell me how that is an "ultimate explanation" " Because it explains everything. "and finally tell me what is 'ultimate' about that 'explanation'. It is nothing more than an observed phenomena." Because its true in all possible worlds.

    "Oh no I did!! And found it absurd. If existence, inherent or otherwise, implies your point 1, which was "things are finite and bounded" then can't imply your point 2, which was "all things that it contains are without boundaries"." If a thing lacks inherent existence then it cannot be bounded, (since it depends on other things), this is not hard to understand.

    "How do you know? Each particular change has a life time, in fact that life time determines the temporal boundary between the Cause and Effect." That's the whole reason a thing changes "because it has a life time" as you put it, and every existent thing has a birth and a death, therefore everything changes.

     

     
     

     

     

  104. Demsci says:

    //"Girl are taught unislamic things in these school of Christians supported so Taliban banned."//

    Oh? And when Americans see that UNDEMOCRATIC things in these madarsha's are taught to boys, and girls, what should they do? From your logic then the Americans should BAN MADARSHA's. But of course they leave them completely free. This shows how noble Americans are compared to egoistic Muslims who will deny girls all she can learn at schools and use in later life, like mathematics, history, languages, and so much more, which is also very beneficial to mankind when practiced by the educated girls.

    The radical part of Muslims are so arrogant and egoistic that they insist that boys and girls are indoctrinated, brainwashed in Islam. And as soon as competing religions and "unislamic" things are also, next to Islam, taught in schools, the radical Muslims want to stop this education completely, because the radical Muslims, very egoistically, don't want honest competition for Islam in the mind of young people.

    The radical Muslims treat their children as if they own them, and  as if it is the right of the parents to determine the choice of religion for the entire life of the children. But we Westerners think that beyond their 18th birthdays children are independent and their own persons.

    And we think it is an egoistic crime to brainwash children into only one religion and to deny children the information about the other religions, and the freedom to choose between them.

    And supposedly THAT (the freedom to choose religion) is the UNISLAMIC thing that was the reason that the arrogant, ignorant, egoistic, mysoginistic, TALIBAN with violence tried to shut down these schools.

    Which Christians in reverse position never try to do, violent or peaceful. And then to know that  the radical Muslims call the Americans imperialistic, when in a sense it is they who are the most imperialistic of all humans.  Women and reasonable men should have contempt for the radical Muslims.

  105. slaveofprophet says:

    @Supriya
    Girl are taught unislamic things in these school of Christians supported so Taliban banned.

  106. Supriya says:

    shabeer
    I am not interested in your blah blah. You muslims can do nothing except thinking of ………
    Educate Talibanese who shoot school going girls.

  107. shabeer says:

    DEBATE WITH SINNA:
    here & faithfredom ,number of times he escape from my question ………………………….number of time he says " there re lot of contradiction in quran "…………..100 TIME I REPEAT MY CHALLENGE ,PRONE ONLY ONE ………………HE NEVER ANSWERED IT,BEC' S ,HE KNOW THE TRUTH………………………………

    PLZ ASK HIM TO COME TO DEBATE WITH ME ………………..ANY TOPIC ……………………..I AM READY HERE……………..[REMEMBER THE THINGS TRUSTFUL EVIDENCE NEEDED FOR THE PROF ,PERSONAL OPINION,NOT A VALID PROOF]

  108. shabeer says:

    THE AGE OF PUBERTY
    ——————————————————————————–

    Even though we have established that puberty has been the historical, cultural and religious norm for indicating readiness for marriage, some may wonder at which age puberty normally takes place. This is somewhat meaningless in regards to our specific discussion of Muhammad and 'Aishah, since the hadith literature makes it clear that she had reached puberty. However, in regards to puberty and at what age most girls have their first menstrual cycle, 'Abdul-Hamid Siddiqi says: 

    Islam has laid down no age limit for puberty for it varies with countries and races due to the climate, hereditary, physical and social conditions. Those who live in cold regions attain puberty at a much later age as compared with those living in hot regions where both male and female attain it at a quite early age. "The average temperature of the country or province," say the well-known authors of the book Woman, "is considered the chief factor here, not only with regard to menstruation but as regards the whole of sexual development at puberty."5 Raciborski, Jaubert, Routh and many others have collected and collated statistics on the subject to which readers are referred. Marie Espino has summarised some of these data as follows: (a) The limit of age for the first appearance of menstruation is between nine and twenty-four in the temperate-zone; (b) The average age varies widely and it ay be accepted as established that the nearer the Equator, the earlier the average age for menstruation.6

    Additionally, an article entitled Puberty in Girls by an Australian government Public Health organization, says: "The first sign of puberty is usually a surge of growth: you become taller; your breasts develop; hair begins to grow in the pubic area and under the arms. This may start from 10 years to 14 years – even earlier for some and later for others." An article Physical Changes in Girls During Puberty has this to say: 
    "During puberty, a girl's body changes, inside and out, into the body of a woman. The changes don't come all at once, and they don't happen at the same time for everybody. Most girls start showing physical changes around age 11, but everyone has her own internal schedule for development. It's normal for changes to start as early as 8 or 9 years of age, or not until 13 or 14. Even if nothing looks or feels different yet, the changes may have already begun inside your body."

    Many will readily agree with the information above, but still may harbour reservations about whether a marriage to an older man could be happy for such a young girl. Putting aside the modern Western notions of "happiness" for a moment, the marriage of 'Aishah and the Prophet was a mutually happy and loving one as in expressed in numerous hadeeth and seerah books. That happy marriages occur between people with a fairly large difference in ages is known among psychologists:

    "When the differences (in ages) is great, e.g. exceeds fifteen to twenty years, the results may be happier. The marriage of an elderly (senescent) not, of course, an old (senile) man to a quite young girl, is often very successful and harmonious. The bride is immediately introduced and accustomed to moderate sexual intercourse" 7

  109. shabeer says:

    @supriya:
    ——————————————————————————–
    PUBERTY = MATURITY = MARRIAGE
    ——————————————————————————–

    The above points having been presented, some additional details on a few of them is worthwhile. An interesting article on the age at which people married in Biblical times is Ancient Israelite Marriage Customs, by Jim West, ThD—a Baptist minister. This article states that: 

    "The wife was to be taken from within the larger family circle (usually at the outset of puberty or around the age of 13) in order to maintain the purity of the family line;"
    This is just one reference to the fact that the onset of puberty was considered the age at which young people could marry. That people in Biblical times married at an early age is widely endorsed. While discussing the meaning of the word 'almah, which is the Hebrew word for "young woman" or "adolescent female", Gerald Segal says: 

    "It should be noted, however, that in biblical times females married at an early age".3

    In spite of its somewhat arrogant Western talk of "primitive cultures", An Overview of the World's Religions makes it clear that puberty is an age old symbol of adulthood: 

    "Almost all primitive cultures pay attention to puberty and marriage rituals, although there is a general tendency to pay more attention to the puberty rites of males than of females. Because puberty and marriage symbolize the fact that children are acquiring adult roles, most primitive cultures consider the rituals surrounding these events very important. Puberty rituals are often accompanied with ceremonial circumcision or some other operation on the male genitals. Female circumcision is less common, although it occurs in several cultures. Female puberty rites are more often related to the commencement of the menstrual cycle in young girls."
    Some female authors agree:

    "Puberty is defined as the age or period at which a person is first capable of sexual reproduction, in other eras of history, a rite or celebration of this landmark event was a part of the culture." (Rites of Passage: Puberty, by Sue Curewitz Arthen) 
    "Getting your period" marks a rite of passage for young girls entering womanhood (From the Women's Resource Center)

    Another contemporary reference relating marriage age to puberty is an article on Central Africa, which says: ". . . women marry soon after puberty"4. The previous quotations, and plenty of others which were not used, should prove to any intelligent person what anthropologists and historians already know: in centuries past, people were considered ready for marriage when they reached puberty. 
    It should be mentioned that from an Islamic point of view, many problems in society today can be traced back to the abandonment of early marriage. Due to the way that Almighty God has created man and woman, i.e. with strong sexual desires, people should marry young. In the past, this was even more true since life expectancy was very low (i.e. you were considered "old" if you made it to 40!). Not only does marriage provide a legal outlet for people with strong sexual desires, but it usually produces more children. One of the main purposes of marriage is to produce children—"be fruitful and multiply" as the Bible says (Genesis 8:17). This was especially important in the past, when people did not live for as long as they do now and the infant morality rate was much higher. 

  110. slaveofprophet says:

    @surpiya
    Yes, I attended Madarsha for 5 years. I believe they are world best educational institutions. Because Quran is is main Subject of study in Madarsha. I believe Quran is world best book. My prophet & Allah also declared this already in Quran. So, I do not need certificate of non-believers. My prophet said on this in Holy Quran 3:28
    The believers must not establish friendship with the unbelievers in preference to the faithful. Whoever does so has nothing to hope for from God unless he does it out of fear or taqiyah (pious dissimulation). God warns you about Himself. To God do all things return"

  111. Supriya says:

    slaveofprophet
    I think you are not taught Biology in school. You must be Madarsa student.
    Tumhare bachchonko sarakari school main padhao( agar tum private school fees afford nahi kar sakate ho to).

  112. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy
    I'll try to explain Jyotish-shastra and it's relevance to spirituality in some days.
    [ Frankly,I can justify Jyotish-shastra properly in my mothertongue Marathi. ]

  113. knowTheEnemy says:

    What has Jyotish got to do with Indian philosophy/spirituality?? Please give me a decent explanation about how the two are connected and how this connection makes sense!

    I believe that Jyotish is a band-aid solution for people who are fearful and/or unsure about their future. But then, I do not blindly believe anything. So if you can explain to me how jyotish improves people's lives and how it uplifts them spiritually, you will get a convert right here!

    Note: Please give me sensible explanations, even if they are not scientifically correct. Take a whole week to write a response if you need to, but please give reasonable response. Silly and childish explanations won't cut it! Thanks.

  114. ihateislam says:

    Slave mentality,
    Muhammad was a very vile creature. If his standard was that a girl who has not menstruated should not be slept with by a man, he defied that rule, like he always exempted himself from every law that he made. Aisha could not and did not menstruate before Muhammad defiled her. She had her first menses in his house and was ignorant about what had happened. But long before then he had already violated her severally.He went on to prescribe in the quran how to divorce a wife who has not yet menstruated. He was an immoral, cunning, dishonest and violent bastard.

  115. slaveofprophet says:

    @Supriya
    Aisha was 9 years old at the time when prophet (PBUH) consumed the marriage although at the time marriage with prophet she was 6 years old. Prophet taught us morality that we must not consume the marriage if girl does not go through menstruation. He had set great example before the Arab people's prevailing immoral custom and rest of the world.

  116. Supriya says:

    Shabeer
    In your opinion the 9 year old girl is not minor( under age or non adult). I appreciate your immoral view. You couldn't answer my other questions.
    Instead of challenging me why don't you challenge Dr. Sina? Are you able to refute him? What do you think of Malala Yusufzai?

  117. Supriya says:

    Carmichael Singh
    Your malicious comment shows that you hate India ( though you are a 'Singh').

    Don't you know that Cricket is most popular sports in India?
    India has won Cricket world championship twice.

    India is second fastest growing economy after China.
    The economy of India is 10th largest in the world by GDP and 3rd largest by ppp( purchasing power parity).

    Why don't you establish NGO for charity to help those poor people?

    Do you believe in soul, consciousness, spirituality? If yes, what do you mean by them?
    You need to understand Indian philosophy of spirituality, then you will be able to understand Jyotish shastra( As I said that Jyotish shastra is a branch of ancient Indian philosophical / spiritual science.)

  118. slaveofprophet says:

    @Shabeer
    Dear Brother Great response, in above list of rape statics country wise nowhere name country of believers in the line. Why?  because of Sharia & Muslims. Prophet (PBUH) always set high standard of morality for his followers. Prophet rightly said for non-believers 
     
    Quran (9:5) – "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." 

    Quran (9:14) – "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace…"

  119. shabeer says:

    sister plz ,i don't  want sinna/agniveer/spencer/galler/mehr/…………….. personal opinion about Islam & prophet ,we r human being ,we have a brain,sense organ ,etc plz behave kindly /sensually …………..ie plz bring the evidence that prophet did like that[u'r claim] ,someone say 2+2=345435435 ……………..r u believe it or not ?????????
    hijab for protection:
    [033:059] O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested get hurt or harmed. And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
    [002:222] And they ask thee concerning menstruation. Say, `It is a harmful thing, so keep away from women during menstruation, and go not in unto them until they are clean. But when they have cleansed themselves, go in unto them as ALLAH has commanded you. ALLAH loves those who keep themselves clean.'
    1-  Psychological hurt, which comes from sexual harassments and stares of men towards the woman.  Women in the West also have the constant fear of being stalked, attacked/kidnapped and raped by stranger men, or even by men whom they know.  It also comes from the name-callings and the degrading and demeaning titles that the woman receives from others, such as "a walking vagina", "a cunt", "a sexy babe", "a whore", "a prostitute", "a chick", etc…  Such titles are common in the West for non-Muslim women.  
    plz&nbsp ;http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac9.htm#links
     

  120. shabeer says:

    second bring me the evidence that my prophet marry ' minor girl '
    AGE OF MARRIAGE ACCORDING TO QURAN & SUNNA:
    Noble Verse(s) 17:34
    [017:034]  Come not nigh to the orphan's property except to improve it, until he attains the ''age of full strength''; and fulfil (every) ''engagement'', for (every) engagement will be enquirer into (on the Day of Reckoning).

    [004:006]  Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up.

    [024:059]  But when the children among you ''come of age'', let them (also) ask for ''permission'', as do those senior to them (in age): Thus does God make clear His Signs to you: for God is full of knowledge and wisdom.

    Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 86 :: Hadith 101 

    Narrated 'Aisha: 

    Allah's Apostle said, "It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage)[HER PERMISSION REQUIRED #1]. I said, "A virgin feels shy." The Prophet; said, "Her silence means her consent." Some people said, "If a man falls in love with an orphan slave girl or a virgin and she refuses (him) and then he makes a trick by bringing two false witnesses to testify that he has married her, and then she attains the age of puberty[REMEMBER SHE MUST REACH AGE OF PUBERTY FOR MARRIAGE#2]  and agrees to marry him and the judge accepts the false witness and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, he may consummate his marriage."

    FROM #1 #2 WE CONCLUDE THAT ISLAM THE ONLY RELIGION ON EARTH PROMOTE MORAL[HER PERMISSION REQUIRED] & SCIENTIFIC[REMEMBER SHE MUST REACH AGE OF PUBERTY FOR MARRIAGE] CONDITION FOR AN IDEAL MARRIAGE:

    i say proudly " islam the only " ,bec's none of religion[except Islam] ever claimed/authorized /prove their religion allow the basic morality of marriage  ……………………….is there ,plz take my challenge ,prove here…………

    A CHALLENGE:
    ANY RELIGION ON  EARTH[EXCEPT ISLAM] CLAIMED THAT THE ABOVE TWO  CONDITION REQUIRED FOR THE MARRIAGE

  121. shabeer says:

    plz advice first them ,if u have little bit morality against  the pedophile:
    UN Rape Statistics:
    RANK
    1 United States of America   93883
    2 Australia                   18237
    3 United Kingdom        13272
    4 France                                   10408
    5 Germany      8766
    6 Russian Federation   8185

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics http://www.yellodyno.com/pdf/Rape_Statistics.pdf

    CHILD PROSTITUTION:

    Romania: 2,000 minors victim to prostitution. 

    The Netherlands: 1,000 children walk the streets. 

    Northern Italy: 40% of prostitution affects minors.

    Belgium: All sorts of young Albanian, Bulgarian, or Ukrainian girls ages 13- 16 years old were discovered in Brussels in 2000. 

    France:  The number would hit 8,000 according to estimations from 2003. 

    Cambodia: One-third of 50,000 to 70,000 of prostitutes are children.

    Popular China: It is estimated that there are between 200,000 and 500,000 child prostitutes. 

    India: According to UNICEF, India is one of the countries with the most child prostitutes. According to a study from the magazine India Today, between 400,000 and 500,000 children are prostitutes in India. 

    Japan: In this country, child prostitution is frequent. Research has shown that most of the young girl prostitutes do not suffer from economic problems but are "victims" of a culture of consumerism. Minor girls decide to sell their bodies or participate in a pornographic film in order to buy luxury products: cell phones, shoes, clothes. This often comprises very young girls who have either problems in their family or in school.

    Nepal: It is estimated that 12,000 Nepali children, the majority girls, are victims each year of commercial sexual exploitation, whether in Nepal or in brothels in India or other countries.

    Philippines: Between 80,000 and 100,000 children, the large majority girls, are victims of prostitution in the Philippines.

    Sri Lanka: 30,000 children, mostly boys.

    Taiwan: 100,000 minors subjected to sexual exploitation

    Thailand: A study of the black market by the International Labor Organization in Thailand in 1998 estimates that prostitution represents 10-14% of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the country in 1998. It is believed that one-third of Thai prostitutes, 24,000-40,000, are minors, sometimes abducted and sold. More than one-quarter are infected with HIV. 

    Vietnam: 12,000 minor prostitutes according to UNICEF. According to other NGOs, the figures would much heavier. More than 450 Vietnamese children less than 15 years old have been sent to Cambodia to be prostitutes in 2001 (UNICEF).

    Brazil: One of the countries most affected by child prostitution (Fortaleza Airport has seen a constant increase from foreign visitors). There are no statistics for prostitution, but 100,000 children on the streets are "exposed" to sexual exploitation. Certain NGOs estimate much higher numbers. 

    Colombia: 5,000 to 7,000 children in Bogota

    Venezuela: 40,000 minors victim to prostitution

    Costa Rica: According to NGOs, there are at least 250 child prostitution locations.

    United States: Between 244,000 to 325,000 child prostitutes 

    Canada: The country is becoming alarmed by the rise in child prostitution, notably amongst children of native peoples, victim to the sex industry. This child prostitution is caused by racism, lack of education, and poverty.

    http://www.fondationscelles.org/index.php?option=

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

    Child sex tourism :

    Thailand : 40% of prostitutes are child in Thailand
    Northern Italy: 40% of prostitution affects minors.
    Cambodia: 1/3 of prostitutes are child
     India : 1.2 million child prostitutes
     Brazil:  1.2 million child prostitutes
    United States: Between 244,000 to 325,000 child prostitutes.
    China: It is estimated that there are between 200,000 and 500,000 child prostitutes. 
     Mexico:16,000 children in Mexico were involved in prostitution
     Sri Lanka, there are nearly 40,000 child prostitutes
    In the Philippines, there are 60,000 to 100,000 prostituted children
    In Nepal approximately 30% of them were found to be children.
    in Vietnam, and 20,000 of these are children.
    in Ukraine, research has shown that between 30 and 40 percent of prostitutes are between 11 and 18 years
    in Russia approximately 20 to 25 percent of Moscow's sex workers are minors.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sex_tourism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_of_chilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse
     

  122. Carmichael Singh says:

    Makes senses to me.

  123. Carmichael Singh says:

    @Supriya
    "Jotish shastra ( Astrology) is ancient Indian spiritual Science. There are many Jotishi in India who can predict your future with higher degree of accuracy.They are able to explain you whether you will live like a queen in present life
    I do not wish to sound brash at your statement. I just need to understand the concept of fortune telling from a realistic point of view.  In essences in the Indian culture the concept of visiting fortune tellers is a popular one. Even here in my country [not India] they local Indian population consult fortune tellers before agreeing to go into a marriage if their union would held yield.

    This rises two questions: One, Those who take the advice of these fortune tellers before being married to one other do end up with divorces[most divorces are expensive and it leave a bitter taste in the mouth.]
    Two: There still exist people in your country, poor people who have difficulties in having a square meal a day. 

    Shouldn’t the Jotish shastra ( Astrology) society with their “know how” go around the country and help these people get out of such poverty? Or is this all part of karma?

    With a population of 1 billion, surely, India is able  find 12 footballers to bring home the world cup.
     or not."

  124. Demsci says:

    Hi, Supriya, I am glad you participate here and that you question Shabeer, SlaveofProphet and Narcole so well. You illicit interesting responses from them. Well, don't know what Shabeer's motive and tactic here is;

    Of course he is keen to do "dawa", but he must realize that the regular infidel visitors here are not going to be influenced by his "copy pastes" (that is his trademark, he does this a lot, he himself speaks English rather bad).

    But perhaps he aims to be a counterweight to Ali Sina and posters here. But for visitors of this website who are young Muslims who are still "influencible, open, thinking, doubting, researching" and he does not want THEM to hear only our side of the argument here without &nbsp;reading also a strong Muslim response to it.

  125. Demsci says:

    //"If the impact of the rights which the Qur'an allowed – nay, 
    achieved – for the woman is to be fully appreciated, the position of the 
    woman during the time of its revelation must first be understood.

    jadajadajada

    It was in such a social context that the Qur'an first 
    began to speak on the rights of woman. "//

    Shabeer, what you wrote where I placed "jadajadajada" may well be partly true. But is doubted and debunked that Arab women really were worse off in Arabia before Mohammed. And the big question for you is: "if it is true what you say, how then could Khadija be such a rich, influential woman"?

    And: What if the infidel world before, during and after the mission-period of Mohammed really was so bad, mysoginistic? That infidel world, since the 18th century enlightenment, and voting rights for women around 1920, and the invention of the washingmachine, which gave women more time and allowed them to go to work themselves, has progressed immensely.

    So even if (a big IF) Islam did improve the circumstances of women, why still cling to Islamic laws and customs now, with the infidels  with their current laws and customs having far surpassed those Islamic laws and customs? Clearly Islam did and still does not go all the way with equal rights for women, as the infidels do. Due to rise in their civilization and technology.

  126. Supriya says:

    Demsci
    I agree with you. Shabeer is trying to misguide us.

  127. Supriya says:

    Shabeer
    Do you think that you can misguide me easily ?
    What are criteria of morality for islamists if their rolemodel muhammad 1] married a 9 year old minor girl child? 2] did lust and rape own daughter-in-law? 3] had sex with the deadbody of his aunt?
    Don't you know that islam demands for monarchy?
    Do you know ARAB SPRING? Why muslims demanding democracy, liberty, freedom of speech & expression are experiencing hellfire daily in siriya, libiya, yemen, egypt etc.?
    In your opinion muslim woman enjoys all rights : 1] why shariyat does not allow her alimony? 2] why she has to wear Burqa to cover her whole body? 3] why minor girls are married with much older boys ? 4] why she is not allowed to drive car in saudi arabia?

    Your views made me to think that you are comparitively rational man. Why do you believe the lies of 7 th century muhammad? I would like to suggest you to join the movement of Dr. Sina and enlighten other muslims who are being converted to jihadists.

  128. ihateislam says:

    Shabby,
    Your copied and pasted article does not explain the topic you are defending. If muhammadanism does not envision a male dominated society, why did Muhammad say that a society ruled by a woman can never prosper? Why was there never any woman caliph? And why has a woman not served as an imam of a mixed muhammadan congregation?

  129. Demsci says:

    //"But those who think over the existence of human society which is grounded in 
    morality can never say that even one among the Qur'anic laws is in 
    favour of male domination."//

    How can you say that, Shabeer? What with all these examples of favoritism towards males in Quran-Hadiths-Sira? And with 1400 years of Islamic history?

    Second; even if you are right with this, then still could it not be that in a FINITE but immutable authoritative guiding texts (Quran, but also Hadiths-Sira) this message is too ambiguous, incomplete, and too PRONE to misunderstanding? As the supposed followers of these texts show all the time all over the world?

    And isn't some kind of correcting misunderstanders of Islam urgently in order BUT MISSING? Because MALE DOMINATION, in a coercive, not voluntary way is clearly present among many MUSLIM societies and groups. But you only seem to want to correct the OBSERVERS (us counterjihadists) that report about it. We don;t see you trying to correct the Taliban, do we?

    And anyway, where do your highest allegiances lie? Is still the Ummah commanding your highest allegiance? Then say so. Because then you side with the misunderstanders of Islam, who very much practice coercive male domination. And not first and foremost with democracy, human rights organisations. Which you should do, if you really realize and mean what you argue for here. Because by being allied with the Ummah first and foremost you deliberately risk that the misunderstanding Muslims, the mysoginists, get the power, over us, over women. You should join Zuhdi Jasser, who, while being Muslim, really favors democracy over autocracy. But he get's rejected by the majority of Muslims. Why?

  130. shabeer says:

    5. The right to education and free thought: The Qur'an’s view is
    that women have the right to education and free thought. This view is,
    however, not restricted to mere advice. The Prophet had practically
    demonstrated this. The great yearning for knowledge exhibited by the
    woman who followed the Prophet is universally acknowledged. For it
    can be seen from the history of the times that women used to always
    approach the Prophet and his wives to acquire knowledge. Indeed it is
    seen in the hadith reported by Imam Bukhari that the Prophet had set
    aside one day for his discussions with them.
    6. The right to criticize: Islam provides the woman with the
    right to criticize and question. The incident wherein quoting from the
    Qur'an a woman once criticizes the Caliph Umar when he prepared to
    control the value of Mehr as men were finding it difficult to pay their
    due to the constant increase in its value and wherein he corrected
    himself saying: “Everybody – even an old woman – knows better than
    Umar.’’ (Muslim), is quite well-known.
    The first verses of Surah Mujadilah (Those who question) were
    revealed in response to the questions put by a woman companion who
    argued with the Prophet concerning the traditions of lihaar which
    prevailed during the time of Jahiliyyah. This makes it quite clear that
    even women were permitted to discuss matters freely with the Prophet
    when it came to the issue of their rights. It is especially relevant that at
    no point in these verses has the argument raised by the woman been
    frowned upon.
    7. The right to take part in social activities: Although it is only
    natural that men take part in politics, Islam has granted the freedom to
    participate in matters pertaining to the nation to the woman also. Islam,
    however, does not compel women to take part directly in the campaigns
    for freedom of belief. But Muslim women did take part in helping out
    those who were fighting in the field of battle. History does give us
    accounts of woman-companions of the Prophet who proceeded to the
    battlefield accompanying the men, prepared food for them, distributed
    water and nursed the wounded. There has been in Islamic history
    even those precious few who, under dire circumstances, went with
    the men to very thick of the action on the battle field. Indeed, it was Ayesha, the Prophet’s wife, who led her side in the Battle of the Camel
    which transpired as a result of the contention , and the opposition to it,
    that Ali was not to be elected as Caliph until the assassins of Caliph
    Usman were apprehended and punished.
    8. The right to dower: It is the right of the woman being married
    to recieve Mehr. The woman has the right to demand the Mehr of her
    choice through her guardian. It is the duty of the man to give this
    dower. The dower which is given to her is then considered as the
    wealth of the woman. None can take from it except with her permission.
    “And give the women (on marriage) their dower as an obligation; but
    if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it
    and enjoy it with right good cheer.” (H.Q. 4:4) – this is the
    commandment of the Qur'an.
    9. The right to divorce: The woman has the right to get a divorce
    under circumstances wherein she becomes unable to live with her
    husband. The divorce from the woman’s side is referred to by the two
    terms Khul’a and Fasq. The first is the divorce wherein the dower is
    also to be returned while the second is the one in which it is not
    returned. In any event, Islam does not force the woman to live with
    a husband whom she does not like. Under compelling circumstances,
    she can recieve a divorce.

  131. shabeer says:

    The Qur'an speaks to both man as well as to woman
    concerning their duties and rights. “Divorced women shall wait
    concerning themselves for three monthly periods. And it is not lawful
    for them to hide what Allah hath created in their wombs, if they have
    faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better
    right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation.
    And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them,
    according to what is equitable; but men have a degree over them and
    Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” (Qur'an 2:28). This is the clear and
    unambiguous statement of the Qur'an. How then can it be said that
    the Qur'an, which contains this declaration is the creation of a
    patriarchial system? In reality, there is no other religious text, like the
    Qur'an, which deals with the rights of the woman in so clear and
    exhaustive a manner.
    If the impact of the rights which the Qur'an allowed – nay,
    achieved – for the woman is to be fully appreciated, the position of the
    woman during the time of its revelation must first be understood. Greek
    philosophers considered woman to be the very personification of the
    devil. The Roman law was such that it granted complete freedom for
    the male to even murder his wife. The Indian woman was given the
    religious advise to immolate herself at the funeral pyre of her husband.
    The attitude of the Jews towards the woman, the cause of sin, was
    most cruel. No better was the case of Christianity which followed in
    the footsteps of the Jewish religion. Even as late as the 16th century,
    the subject of discussion amongst the church fathers was the question
    as to whether or not woman did possess a soul. As for the Arabia
    before Prophet Muhammad (e), the condition of the woman there
    was even worser off. She was not even allowed to have the right to
    live. It was a society which was ever ready to bury alive the infant if
    it was a female. It was in such a social context that the Qur'an first
    began to speak on the rights of woman.
    The rights accorded to woman by the Qur'r'an may be summarized
    as follows :
    1. The right to live. The Arabs were a people who, on knowing
    that one’s wife had delivered a female child, contemplated killing it
    (Qur'an 16:59). The moral level of contemporary society, which, through
    modern technological devices, identifies the sex of the embryo and on
    learning that the child to be born is a female, one resorts to killing it in
    its embryonic stage itself, is hardly above that of the Arabs of primitive
    times. The Qur'an criticizes that narrow- mindedness which would
    not permit the girl child to live. (Qur'an 16:59, 81:9). It declares that
    like man, she, too, has the right to birth and to life.
    2. The right to own property : The Qur'an has given the woman,
    like the man, the right to earn wealth. The view of the Qur'an is that all
    her earnings, whether it be through her personal efforts or by way of
    inheritance, belongs to her and to her alone. None, not even the husband,
    has the right to take anything, whatsoever, of her earnings without her
    explicit permission. “And in no wise covet those things in which Allah
    hath bestowed His gifts more freely on some of you than on others: to
    men is allotted what they earn; But ask Allah of His bounty. For Allah
    hath full knowledge of all things.” (Qur'an 4:32)
    3. The right to inheritance : It is the Qur'anic recommendation
    that daughters, too, have a share in the wealth of their parents. In
    reality, no other religious scripture has declared the right to inheritance
    of the woman. Even in Europe, which boasts to be very civilized, the
    right to inheritance for women was recognized and put into effect only
    since the last couple of centuries. The Qur'an had, however, declared
    and brought into effect the law fourteen centuries ago that women
    had the right to inheritance. “From what is left by parents and those
    nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women,
    whether the property be small or large – a determinate share.” (Qur'an
    4:7)
    4. The right to choose a mate : Islam recommends that while
    putting forth marriage proposals, the likes and dislikes of the woman
    must be seriously considered. None, not even the father, has the right
    to marry off his daughter to a person whom she dislikes. Prophet
    Muhammad(e) had said, “The widow is not to be given in marriage
    without her consent. The virgin is not to be given in marriage without
    consulting her for her acceptance. Her silence constitutes her
    acceptance’’ (Bukhari, Muslim)

  132. shabeer says:

    How substantial is the allegation that the social setup envisioned
    by the Qur'an is a male dominated one?
    This is a baseless allegation. Certainly, it is the Creator of man
    and woman who is best aware of their natures. On giving a little thought
    it will become clear that the moral system recommended by the Lord
    God can never be the cause of the overlordship of one group to the
    detriment of the other. The problem is then not of the moral system as
    such. It is more a problem of the type of criterion that is used to
    measure it.
    The Qur'an teaches that it is the cooperation and mutuality
    between man and woman which works as the foundational basis for
    the very existence and furtherance of the institution of the family.
    Indeed, the Qur'an formulated laws on the ground that to ensure the
    permanence of any moral code it is necessary that the institution of
    the family is itself manifested in good order. It is possible, however,
    that those who believe in the ideology of the necessity of the collapse
    of the family, will find the Qur'anic laws unacceptable. But those
    who think over the existence of human society which is grounded in
    morality can never say that even one among the Qur'anic laws is in
    favour of male domination.
    The Qur'an teaches that in the preservation of the solid edifice
    of the family, both the man and the woman are to play their respective
    roles. It is from this foundational basis that the Qur'anic laws
    concerning their rights, responsibilities and duties emanate. The
    Qur'anic vision with regard to man and woman may be summarised
    as follows:
    One : Both man and woman originated from the same soul.
    They are like the two sides of a coin. Although both are independent,
    it is their mutuality which gives each its fullness.
    Two : Neither can a woman be like a man nor a man be like a
    woman. Each has its very own different, yet, potentially mutual,
    existence.
    Three : Both man and woman have then rights. However those
    rights are to be attained not through violence. It must be through mutual
    cooperation.
    Four : Both have their respective duties. It is only by virtue of
    fulfilling these duties that both the individual and the society can survive.
    Five : It is against the very law of nature for a man to undertake
    the responsibilities of a woman and for a woman to try to fulfill those
    of a man. Each has to perform its own duty.
    Six : It should not be at the expense of the other’s rights that
    each seeks to fulfill one’s obligations and enjoy one’s own rights.

  133. Supriya says:

    Shabeer
    If you don't need 1000 errors in Islam from the website which I provided you then answer my following question.
    Do you know following Nobel Prize Winning women ( in Physics, Chemistry, Medical) : 1]Marie Curie 2] Irene Joilet Curie 3]Grety Theresa Cori 4] Maria Geoppert Mayer5] Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin 6] Francoise Barre Sinoussi 7] Elizabeth Blackburn
    Doesn't Islam say that" women are slowlearners. They are deficient in knowledge" ?
    Explain me on what basis you say that these women are not intelligent?
    Lets see how intelligent muslim man is !!!

  134. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical,
    //If you have not perceived it then it might exist or might not.//
    Yet another point where you are now softening. So there is a possibility for the as-yet-unperceived to be existing (and similarly a possibility for 'it' to not exist). This stance is different from your earlier stance that if the thing isn't perceived it doesn't exist.

    //No if a scientists (or anyone else) claims big bang is the origin of existence itself//
    This is your invention. I only concerned myself to the non-existence of time at the Big Bang. As Causality requires temporal metrics it fails at Big bang. I never claimed that the Universe didn't exist at the Big bang. It was existing the Singularity that we associate with Big Bang.
    On the other hand you claimed that "what existed at big bang wasn't the whole of material existence". Now a claim puts the burden of proof on you.

    //My definition works perfectly //
    It doesn't.

    //either this God is the totality of all that exists or is less than the totality.//
    or beyond the totality of material existence.

    //The theists of course will say their God is not everything but he is not less than everything either he is "more than everything" but that is a impossibility //
    The Abrahamics would say that the God is creator of everything else and is itself uncreated, uncaused. In that sense reality = God + material existence. There doesn't arise a question of 'more' or 'less' than anything. The pantheist would say that the God is in the essence of everything that exist. And in that sense too a question of 'more' or 'less' than anything doesn't arise.

    //Science only looks at the parts and not the whole.//
    Science looks at the parts to understand the whole.

    //They are not "meaningless" since they deal with ultimate realty.//
    Unqualified statement. You couldn't even explain what 'ultimate reality' is.

    //looking at the truth of causality isn't.//
    Ok. Tell me, why is there Causality?

    //Science does not get to the roots of cancer – only it treatments. //
    It can't treat if it doesn't do root cause analysis. Whether or not it succeeds in each individual case doesn't matter.

    //So mankind is only motivated by its own self interest //
    Rubbish. Mankind includes philosophers too:-)

    //is not interested in understanding nature //
    That comes into the purview of natural sciences, for example Physics.

    //Since causality explains everything, the "ultimate explanation" is right there in front of your nose //
    tell me how Causality works, then tell me why it works, then tell me how that is an "ultimate explanation" and finally tell me what is 'ultimate' about that 'explanation'. It is nothing more than an observed phenomena.

    //Didn't you read when I say all things lack inherent existence?//
    Oh no I did!! And found it absurd. If existence, inherent or otherwise, implies your point 1, which was "things are finite and bounded" then can't imply your point 2, which was "all things that it contains are without boundaries".

    //No it doesn't change never stops, everything changes the only thing that doesn't change is change itself.//
    How do you know? Each particular change has a life time, in fact that life time determines the temporal boundary between the Cause and Effect.

    //"but you can certainly say that at some point in time the combustion hadn't started yet and at some point in time the combustion was already over." Only because we define it.//
    if it didn't exist we wouldn't have defined it. Simple.

  135. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical,
    //Buddha makes it clear he does not believe in a permanent self or so called soul, so either Buddha contradicted himself or what he means by "spirit" IS very different to how religions understand it.//
    You are prepared to call Buddha a liar just to put forth your dogma:-). If you think he meant something different, you may as well say what he meant.

    //Or maybe he meant the soul returns to nature and leaves the world of finite happenings?//
    He may have meant this, but that means then that he believed in 'soul' in the first place!! The modalities, working principles etc may differ between different views!!

  136. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //They are everything that makes the car.//
    1. But they aren't the car.
    2. Wrong. Any arbitrary assembly of the car parts won't produce the car. Other than the car parts you need a specific design to assemble the car parts in order to get the car.

    // The car doesn't magically exist somehow without its parts. //
    When did I say that?

    //No its not, a team is just a collection of individuals.//
    It is a collection of individuals but co-ordinated teamwork produces results that are 'more' that the combined individual efforts. Clearly you haven't read about human synergy.

    //"You haven't proven that they don't have boundaries and then assuming it for the effects as if it is a proven fact." Things just change, consider Buddhas example of non-identity things are in a constant change due to cause and effect, and cause and effect doesn't have "boundaries". //
    1. Non Sequitur. Your response doesn't correspond to the fallacy I have raised in your last response.
    2. As far as Buddha's version is concerned, I am under no obligation to accept it. Things change, yes, but they change to become other things. Which also have identities and hence they have boundaries in time or space or in any other dimension you can think of.
    3. If Causes and Effects won't have boundaries you won't be able to label items or events as cause and effect.

    //Something of the flame goes into you, and remember a new flame is born every moment.//
    Wrong. Something 'from' the flame goes into me. It causes something, but that new 'something' isn't a flame. At least not 'that' flame.

    //Its not nonsense, we say what a "hand" is and what is not a hand, if we define hand then obviously it can't be a leg or where the leg is, just like Canada cannot be in united states//
    It is non sense. If Canada and US are separately identifiable then they obviously have boundaries (this could be political, geological, linguistic etc). Your point was that there is no boundary in Earth, by that logic your legs are superimposed on your hands:-)

  137. shabeer says:

    i don't want 1000 lies from the anti Islamic sites ,if u have confidence ,plz prove here ' only  one '…………….

    expecting response …………  

  138. mysticalmind3 says:

    "You said things exist because we perceive them." No, existent things are just an appearance to mind – by definition but mind doesn't "create" things, reality is primary – not the mind.

    "Stretching your own theory, you are perceiving that you know, not that you know 'in reality'." I know I am having experiences.

    "The bus exists, plain and simple. It doesn't matter whether you have identified it or perceived it." If you have not perceived it then it might exist or might not. 

    " However if you say something else then the proof of burden lies on you. " No if a scientists (or anyone else) claims big bang is the origin of existence itself (which big bang theory doesn't claim so I don't know where you getting that idea from) then they have to prove it.

    "Remember your definition of 'exists' doesn't work. " My definition works perfectly either this God is the totality of all that exists or is less than the totality. The theists of course will say their God is not everything but he is not less than everything either he is "more than everything" but that is a impossibility and as a result that argument can be dismissed out of hand.

    "The various streams of science does exactly do that. What is your complain then?" Science only looks at the parts and not the whole.

    "useless, meaningless and serve no practical purpose?" They are not "meaningless" since they deal with ultimate realty. 

    "Well, if so then it only may have academic interest but no purposeful insight." No things like "big bang cosmology" are of academic interest only, looking at the truth of causality isn't.

    " If science attempts to alleviate cancer then it is certainly finding the 'truth' behind that solution." Science does not get to the roots of cancer – only it treatments.

    " To mankind that is of far greater value than any perceived 'truth' that you were alluding to. " So mankind is only motivated by its own self interest and is not interested in understanding nature or to put it into religious/poetic speech “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

    "Unfortunately it is still not a 'big question' but just an observed phenomenon." Since causality  explains everything, the "ultimate explanation" is right there in front of your nose – not in some science text book or the latest new age guru's nonsense babbling about "quantum consciousness" or the "universal mind".

    "These two statements together are absurd, illogical." Didn't you read when I say all things lack inherent existence? 

    "Change begins and ends." No it doesn't change never stops, everything changes the only thing that doesn't change is change itself.

    " You may not say at which point the combustion started and finished," That because its just a process – during which nothing new at all comes in to existence. 

    "but you can certainly say that at some point in time the combustion hadn't started yet and at some point in time the combustion was already over." Only because we define it. 

      

     

      

     

  139. mysticalmind3 says:

    "car parts aren't the car." They are everything that makes the car. The car doesn't magically exist somehow without its parts.

    "But teamwork is know to achieve more than the individuals can individually achieve. An example of whole greater than the sum of the parts." No its not, a team is just a collection of individuals.

    "You haven't proven that they don't have boundaries and then assuming it for the effects as if it is a proven fact." Things just change, consider Buddhas example of non-identity things are in a constant change due to cause and effect, and cause and effect doesn't have "boundaries".

    "It is only an effect which is bounded by the time the flame burned you" Something of the flame goes into you, and remember a new flame is born every moment.

    "Nonsense." Its not nonsense, we say what a "hand" is and what is not a hand, if we define hand then obviously it can't be a leg or where the leg is, just like Canada cannot be in united states. 

     

     

  140. mysticalmind3 says:

    " I will again quote what Buddha says:" Buddha makes it clear he does not believe in a permanent self or so called soul, so either Buddha contradicted himself or what he means by "spirit" IS very different to how religions understand it.

    "the body dissolves away the soul still remains (and in a higher mode at that) untouched by the family ties, unattached, disassociated." Or maybe he meant the soul returns to nature and leaves the world of finite happenings? That makes more sense given what he says in his teaching of "identity and non- identity".

     

  141. mysticalmind3 says:

     "way quanta are defined." That doesn't disprove my logic all that says is they are the smallest thing possible in the universe.

    "I demonstrated that with examples." And I demonstrated it with my example of the cake. 

  142. mysticalmind3 says:

     "Until the end of the 19th century, chance and probability were taken by most scientists and philosophers as expressions of ignorance, and not as basic components in the structure of the world." The view then was that if we could know what all the causes of something are we would be able to predict future events with certainty. That view is wrong not because things are uncaused but we CANNOT KNOW all the causes -not even in principle. That is why its impossible to predict with certainty and only probability and chance.

    "fluctuations in the radioactive decay process were real and acausal," Which means it was unpredictable.

  143. mysticalmind3 says:

    "If humans were purely a product of their environment then changing their behaviors by treating their cognitive processes would've been completely futile." Codswallop, the self is a constantly changing entity and these treatments obviously have an effect on it and can be used to change behavior. Drugs can be used to treat these disorders, are you going to argue next that drugs proves free will?

    "which states that beliefs are ineffective and non-existent." It states that beliefs are the result of causes – and that's it.

  144. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Because I read. http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/stapp.html " Which is just a load of incoherent jargon and contains zero proof that the decay is uncaused.

    "There is experimental evidence that radioactive decay is uncaused." Utter nonsense.

    "I gave you the definitions" Actually that dictionary confirms what I said, it gives the 2 different meanings of the word indeterminism the first 1 is how it is used in philosophy i.e "Theory that holds that not every event has a cause" the second 1 is how the word is used in science i.e  "the quality or state of being indeterminate; especially : unpredictability" So again what "indeterminism are you talking about the philosophical (a thing is uncaused)  or the scientific (a thing is unpredictable)?

    "Humans are not limited to cause and effect because we have free will" Where is the proof of this free will? You have none. Every aspect of the human being is a result of cause and effect.

     

  145. DeciDela says:

    funny

  146. DeciDela says:

    The truth is so very obvious to the limit that it is hard to believe……we die, then decompose and turn to dust….or cremeted and turn to ash. That's the end, and the world generate new ones, and the same process is repeated over and over…..if you want to know what's after death, just try to remember what was there before you were born.

  147. Sakat says:

    @Slaveprophet ,
    Ha ha ha!!! .First come out of slavery and then salute and talk us/we masters of your ( kind) destiny ha ha ha !!!! .You are the obnoxious rat in my kitchen ha ha ha!!! ,and i know very well how to evaporate u from the vicinity ha ha ha!!!.If your Mad Mohammed meets me on the street ,i assure u ,i will chop the rod (his)and will make "kheema "out of it ,to feed u later in IFTAR fest , ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

  148. Nizamuddin Sheikh says:

    @Slaveofprophet 

    This is not shame for myself because I don't believe in falseness and you mentioned Surah 3 Ayath 91 and Surah 40 Ayath 70-72  about those who became  but did you understand Quran or only read without understanding. If I or other Murtad will be in Hell then where will be your beloved Mu-hum-mad?

  149. Slaveofprophet says:

    @Nizamuddin Sheikh
    Its shame on you being a Muslim you are favouring to non-believers in prophet & Allah. Don,t you know

    “Indeed, those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers – never would the (whole) capacity of the earth in gold be accepted from one of them if he would (seek to) ransom himself with it.  For those there will be a painful punishment, and they will have no helpers.” (Quran 3:91)

    “Those who deny the Book (the Quran) and that with which We sent Our messengers – they are going to know, when the shackles are around their necks and the chains; they will be dragged in boiling water; then in the Fire they will be filled (with flame).” (Quran 40:70-72)

  150. Supriya says:

    cchuckc
    slaveofprophet is daydreamer.

    I appreciate your vast Indian philosophical wisdom.[ I think that you are not an Indian but westerner]

  151. cchuckc says:

    @slave
    You asked for one, I gave you one:-)

    //Pakistan was a Hindu country//
    Since its creation it is a Muslim majority country.

    //Bangladesh was a Hindu country//
    Since its creation it is a Muslim majority country.

    //India was a Hindu country but later declared itself secular country because of Muslims. //
    India was a Muslim ruled country before the British, and undivided India under British and independent India was secular all the way. Nothing to do with Muslim.

  152. Nizamuddin Sheikh says:

    @slaveofprophet

    Yes you can only laugh because you have not mind to understand a person who can not get the simple calculation 2+4+2=6 then what we will aspect to you?

  153. Supriya says:

    slaveofprophet
    There are two assumptions :1] You are lying . or 2]If he does not respond you , it means that he is busy. You wait for his reply.
    Why did your Saudi Arabian ancestors enter the land of India ?
    It's answer : They intruded India to frighten, murder Hindus to convert them to Islam.
    As I said that Islam was invented by Muhammad in 7 th century. He frightened Arabian residents to convert them to Islam. And then he employed converted arabian muslims to loot, murder, frighten hindus to get convert them to Islam. You may discuss with your elder family members and mulla,mullani and other islamic preachers. Your ancestors were also converted muslims.

  154. Phoenix says:

    If my first article on radiactive decay was too long then read this shorter one:

    According to Erwin Hiebert, a science historian at Harvard University who spoke at the March APS Meeting, the discovery of radioactivity was one of the first milestones in terms of toppling the inertia of causality in physics. Until the end of the 19th century, chance and probability were taken by most scientists and philosophers as expressions of ignorance, and not as basic components in the structure of the world. With the discovery of radioactivity in 1896, such views began to be questioned. "Here was an event, obeying an exponential decay law, in which chemical elements were known to disintegrate and transmute into other elements in a process that could not be made to alter its course by external changes; fluctuations in the radioactive decay process were real and acausal," he said.

  155. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy
    I think you are an opinionated person . I can't convince you. If you don't get convincing explanations from ordinary Hindus( who are not interested in spirituality but only in possessions) then you should talk and ask to a real spiritual Guru.The Hindu philosophies( which you have not mentioned in your posts) you are studying are the wisdom of those ancient rishis who believed( or discovered through intuitions during Tapasya) in karma, reincarnation, kaliyug(swastika), Jyotish-shastr.
    I didn't intent to hurt you. If you are hurt then I apologize.
    I don't think that you will be reincarnated as a pig or cockroach but as a human being.

  156. slaveofprophet says:

    @Supriya
    I have challenged to Dr. Sina many times. But he does not accept my Challenge. Ali Sina is a coward man he knows he can not stand before me. You can persuade him to debate with I will be grateful to you. 
    My ancestors were Arabs my great great great grand father came from Saudi Arbia. I am proud to be decedent of Arab. I am not converted Muslim like rest Indian Muslim. I laugh on stupidity of writer of anti-Islamic blogs.

  157. phoenix says:

    Which does not falsify it, people who succeed in life, despite harsh upbringings are given opportunities by their society and were helped by other people. No of which has anything to do with "free will".//

    Cognitive Behavorial Therapy treats patient's dysfunctional emotions,thoughts and behaviors successfully treated countless of patients.If humans were purely a product of their environment then changing their behaviors by treating their cognitive processes would've been completely futile. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/anxiety-files

    This evidence alone refutes Materialism and its subcategory determinism,which states that beliefs are ineffective and non-existent.

  158. Supriya says:

    slaveofprophet
    Everyone including Muslims know that every muslim's ancestors were frightened , murdered to convert to Islam.This is truth not rumor.
    Don't you feel insulted on reading anti-islamic blogs? I suggested you to dare and mail Dr. Sina. Be ready to debate with him. If you win then Dr. Sina will acknowledge his defeat.
    Apane musalman hone ka farz ada karo. Isase bhago mat. Agar Islam sachcha majahab hain to tum jarur jitoge.

  159. slaveofprophet says:

    @Supriya
    Little doubt in Islam will lead oneself in eternal hell. No one doubts in Islam. Do not spread rumors. Allah is only true God. Hindu worship false God.

  160. slaveofprophet says:

    @chuckc
    India  was a Hindu country but later declared itself secular country because of Muslims.
    Pakistan was a Hindu country but later declared itself a Muslim country.
    Afganistan was Hindu and Buddhist country but later declared itself a Muslim country.
    Bangladesh was a Hindu country but later declared itself a Muslim country.
    Irak & Iran also had Hindu background but they also declared themselves Muslim country.

  161. Phoenix says:

    Alright then how do you know the decay of an atom is "uncaused"?//
    Because I read. http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/stapp.html

    Which is just an argument from ignorance, we don't know what causes a atom to decay therefore its uncaused." An argument from ignorance means there's no evidence to prove or disprove a phenomena,so proof is assumed.There is experimental evidence that radioactive decay is uncaused.

    In other words creation ex nihilo i.e magic.// You're inventing your own dictionary definitions. Acausal = not governed or operating by the laws of cause and effect. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/engl
    Nowhere in that definition is any mention of 'creation from nothing'

    No I am asking you to state your position clearly.What are you talking about predictability or something being "uncaused"? As you keep changing what you're saying// I'm not changing anything.I gave you the definitions but youcan't accept them because you need to redefine them for your own agenda.Which is irrational. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indeter

    1

    a : a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes

    b : a theory that holds that not every event has a cause

    2

    : the quality or state of being indeterminate; especially : unpredictability
    Tell me why you don't think humans operate by cause and effect?// Humans are not limited to cause and effect because we have free will

  162. knowTheEnemy says:

    You are right. Vivek does not take Karma head-on, but he does make a strong case that if one sees everything coming from his/her Guru, then there is no reason left to believe in the Karma principle. I explained this in more detail as a reply to one of Supriya's comment. Here is a direct link to that comment.
    ————————–

    The two examples (one hypothetical, one not) that you provided tell me more about how sophisticated the Guru is than it does about Karma. If the Guru understands human psychology very well and s/he is skilled at counselling people, s/he can successfully help the devotees. It doesn't matter if either one believe in Karma principle.

    Also notice in both your examples that the devotees followed their Guru's advice out of devotion to the Guru, and not because they had Karma on their minds. This shows the power of devotion but does not say anything about Karma.
    ——————–

    ["So a believer of Karma is more likely do good deeds than the one who doesn't (assuming they have similar character, situations, conditioning, education and opportunities to do good or propensity to do bad)."]
    I get your point. However, I believe that if people are encouraged to study other things in Hinduism, instead of obsessing over Karma and Jyotish, and encouraged to live by what they study (and agree with), then they will be doing things in life that are far more beneficial to the world than whatever 'good' deeds they will be doing to get their '+1' karma points. This is because a correct understanding of Hindu thought will permanently change them (for the better) on the inside!

  163. knowTheEnemy says:

    You raise multiple points in your post so I will be replying to them separately. It can get long but I will try to make it easy to read.

    [" I can understand him because he is not an Indian and doesn't believe in soul and consciousness. But you are an Indian…."]

    Just because I am Indian does not mean that I blindly believe everything that is of Indian origin. (Nor does it mean that I do not accept useful foreign beliefs). One should believe in something only if it is scientifically proved, or if it is apparent that belief in it is helping people become stronger, even if it is scientifically incorrect. Take my belief in Mother Goddess. Is it scientifically correct? No, it isn't. But I have experienced clear personal benefits (not hedonistic) to believing in her, an so I believe in her and advise others to do so too.
    If OTOH a belief is both scientifically incorrect AND it is harming/ weakening people (and societies), it should be trashed. Jyotish, and especially Karma and Kaliyug are a few such beliefs. All they do is irrigate Hindus' devotion in hedonism and in social-status, and keep people from seeing the destruction that is going on in India, and from acting upon it.

  164. knowTheEnemy says:

    ["Don't you know that karma philosophy is primary principle in Indian religious teachings ( Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism)?"]

    Karma is not the only principle in Eastern religions; there are many other principles. But people tend to spend way too much of their time and effort on Karma and that other total nonsense called Jyotish (astrology)! And they do it at the cost of ignoring everything else available in their religions. When I talk to Hindus they usually know all about where the stars and planets have to be for success in business and job and exams and such. It is as if they spent months and months learning about all the stars and planets in the universe. But when I talk to them about topics other than Karma and Jyotish, they mumble and fumble and give me childish explanations! (Or their explanations are incorrect). Just watch some Zakir Naik videos and you will know what I mean. Zakir is a charlatan, but he is absolutely correct when he says "Hindus know next to nothing about their religion"! And he is taking full advantage of it.

    Karma and Kaliyug are also used as excuses to ignore social problems and to turn a blind eye to others' sufferings. This should be unacceptable to any concerned person. I oppose Islam because belief in Islam leads to hellish conditions in the world. I oppose Karma and Kaliyug for similar reasons. Belief in these things leads to increased misery in the world and keeps believers from spiritual upliftment! (Jyotish probably doesn't lead to increased misery but it does keep people from spiritual upliftment.)

  165. knowTheEnemy says:

    ["Karma is fundamental principle to define reincarnation. It seems that you don't believe in reincarnation."]

    Do I blindly believe in reincarnation? No, I don't! Maybe it is true maybe it is not… I let the philosophers and the professors wrack their brains on this topic for their Phd's. My attitude towards these things is just as Vivek Shauq's attitude (Hope you listened to his speech). The only difference is that Vivek believes in his all powerful Guru, I believe in Mother Goddess. Whatever I get in my life, good or ugly, is a blessing from Mother. Whether Mother chooses to give it to me because of my Karma or for some other reason does not matter to me at all. All I know is that it comes from Mother and whatever it is that I get, is always a blessing; it is never a 'punishment'. Whatever I get in my next life will also be a blessing, no matter what it is! If I become a pig or a cockroach in the next life, it will be a blessing from Mother, nothing else! If I do not get re-incarnated and this life is it, so be it, I am not worried. I have total trust in Mother. What is it that I trust about Mother, you may ask? That whatever happens to me will be a blessing, nothing else. I do not even need hints to get an idea of what it is that may happen to me (in this life or next)!

    With such attitude towards my life (and my future), I have little use for Karma or for Jyotish (astrology). I do not have to waste a single minute on these things. What do I do with all the time and effort that I save? Study other things (in Eastern thought), of which there are plenty. Many of these things are far more useful, both to people and societies, than the nonsense of Karma, Jyotish, or Kaliyug!

  166. knowTheEnemy says:

    ["You told me that you believe in karma in previous post. Now you are ridiculing karma as nonsense."]

    I also said I believe in a certain version of Karma and I gave you examples. In my version of Karma, it is others who suffer from my actions, not me! Here is the directlink to that comment. That version of Karma is scientifically correct, that is why I believe in it.
    Then there was Nishkam Karma (desire-less action). However, this Karma has nothing to do with the Karma principle. In order to practice Nishkam Karma, one has to be at a higher plane of realization. People who believe in the usual Karma nonsense have a long way to get there!
    ——————-

    ["Karma can be defined as the saying" as you sow , so shall you reap". Do you deny this saying ?"]

    I do not deny this saying but I am not going to argue if it is same as Karma principle. What I know for sure is that the cons of believing in Karma are far greater than its pros, and therefore people should completely ditch this belief!

  167. knowTheEnemy says:

    ["….Gravity brings order to the physical world, karma is divine system of justice that is self governing and infinitely fair. It automatically creates the future experience in response to current action."]

    Gravity is scientifically proven, Karma principle is not! I take from your post that you believe there ought to be some "divine system of justice", and if there is none, then it means God has created an unfair world. Well… the truth is that God has indeed created an unfair world! So how does one live in an unfair world without doing wrong things (actions that make a normal person feel guilty for doing them). The answer is available in Hinduism, in things other than Karma, Jyotish and Kaliyug. One has to study them and try to make sense out of them. I have been fortunate to do that (I studied things on my own and there is plenty more to study). When I have more time, I will write articles and point out everything that I realized from studying Eastern thought and how devoting oneself to this thought can make him/her internally strong and beneficial to this world. My articles will be helpful to all, including atheists. You will rarely come across stuff like Kaliyug or Jyotish in my articles. And the only 'Karma' that you will see in my articles is Nishkam Karma, and I will explain exactly what it is that makes a person capable of performing Nishkam Karma.

  168. cchuckc says:

    @knowTheEnemy
    // Watch this great you-tube speech (in Hindi) by Vivek Shauq.//
    Saw the speech. Good one actually. Liked it (Yes, with some effort I can understand Urdu, Hindi and Punjabi). But this doesn't say anything against Karma as such.

    // let alone hope someone absorbs it! //
    I find this 'absorbing karma' a little simplification. For a brief moment lets say Law of Karma operates well. So in this birth and the next, things go well or wrong for you, depending on what your deeds are. I find this very interesting as it puts the onus directly on you. Suppose you have a propensity to beat your wife, so you are adding negative karma (say -1 for each such beating). You visit a Guru and she tells you to attend some assemblies of her devotees (Satsang), listen to her speeches in the night before going to bed, and donate 1 $ everyday for a good cause. Now purely out of devotion to your Guru you follow her advice to the letter. As you can see this leaves you with far lesser time to beat your wife. So you are adding positive karma more regularly and negative karma less frequently. The sum total is likely to be positive.Does the devotee have to worry about this? I think not. But is it a likely representation? Seems so to me.

    I was in Mayapur once, and saw a Krishna devotee (a rickshaw puller) massaging his wife's legs simply because he was told do that by his Vaishnav Guru. This person is now less likely to beat his wife. I would say that purely in this very sense that the Guru has absorbed his negative karma.

    The assumption of Karma leaves a positive impact on you if you are really striving to make your life and the next better than what it is now (I am not saying whether it is correct or rebirths happen). It seems to incentivise doing good deeds. So a believer of Karma is more likely do good deeds than the one who doesn't (assuming they have similar character, situations, conditioning, education and opportunities to do good or propensity to do bad).

  169. cchuckc says:

    @Slave,
    //Can you give me name of one single country which were Islamic but now declared it self non-Islamic//
    Turkey.

  170. Supriya says:

    slaveofprophet
    Islam was political agenda of Muhammad in 7 th century to fulfill his private passions. Muhammad converted i the residents of Arabia using sword and frightening them,initially . Those converted Muslims continued the forceful conversion of other civilised people. Not only zakir naik's ancestors but your ancestors were also converted forcefully to Islam( Islam belongs only to Muhammad). For me ,zakir naik is not scholar but idiotic person who is converting innocent Indian muslims to terrorists.

    If you believe that Islam( imagination of Muhammad ) is the only and exclusive religion, then challenge Dr. Sina. I hope you will win. You need to mail him. I am looking forward for your debate with rational Dr. Sina.
    ALL THE BEST !!!

  171. slaveofprophet says:

    @Supriya
    I do not pay much attention to any Zakir Naik. I do not think he is a scholar. He is a Joker. He is Indian converted Muslim. He ancestors were not Arabs but Indian Hindu. He may be scholar only for the stupid people like you. He is earning his livelihood on the name of propagating Islam otherwise he has not much concern for Islam. Ask your boss Ali Sina to debate with me.

  172. @Jamalaya says:

    But the biggest killing machine globally is Islam bar none. This is undeniable fact, from the Middle East's continuous prosecution of non-mulsim to Pakistan and beyond. They are even killing themselves now. There is no hatred like Islam. Those you quoted are the act of sick individuals or a twisted sect and they don't compare to the sheer numbers of Islamic hatred globally anywhere (it is embedded in the religion and teaching itself). Hitler did not use religion, like muslim to kill in its name. Hitler was defeated by Christians and others. Unlike your kind, who specifically kill in the name of Allah and Islam (it is all there in your holy book for all to see and practice). There is a huge difference and your ignorance and desperate attempt to equate with others is all too obvious for everyone to see.

  173. Supriya says:

    slaveofprophet
    You are looser. You could not answer my first two questions. You know very well that not only zakir naik and you but also Muhammad( If he will appear one day) can't prove Dr. Sina wrong . Because he speaks only truth. He knows that Islam was the political agenda of Muhammad to fulfill his private passions
    . Your ancestors were butchered, brutally raped, murdered by Arabian Muslim invaders in middle age to convert to Islam. They( ancestors) were loosers like you who got frightened of Islamic sword and converted to Islam forcefully. I pity you and your family.
    Keep on laughing and satisfy your wicked wishes. A time will come when you feel to remorse.

  174. slaveofprophet says:

    @Supriya
    haaaaaaaa you are really ignorant woman. I believe anti-islamic movement totally failure. Why and How Can I claim this?  Can you give me name of one single country where Muslims population on decline in numbers not in percentage? Can you give me name of one single country which were Islamic but now declared it self non-Islamic. Interestingly your own country political leader are doing everything to make India Muslim country for the vote bank of Muslims. 

  175. Supriya says:

    Demsci
    I believe that anti-islamic movement of ex-muslims is resulting into success. Islam will extinct in upcoming 15 to 20 years. Muhammad's statue will be in a corner of museum( especially in Saudi Arabia). We all need to thank Dr. Sina.

  176. Supriya says:

    slaveofprophet
    1] Answer my first two questions.

    2] I would like to suggest you to loose the cotton strip bound on your eyes. Make search on google and youtube, you will find that thousands of muslims have left Islam and they are successful in enlightening their family members and muslim friends.
    Do you know Arab spring? Muslims in arabian countries are demanding for democracy, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom for women. Don't you think that democracy is alien( or enemy) to Islamists ?
    One of my muslim friend's elder sister is promoting this site.( She is an officer in Administration department of Maharashtra).

  177. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy
    Mysticalmind3 ridiculed Karma philosophy and reincarnation as supernatural nonsense. I can understand him because he is not an Indian and doesn't believe in soul and consciousness. But you are an Indian. Don't you know that karma philosophy is primary principle in Indian religious teachings ( Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism) ?
    Karma can be defined as the saying" as you sow , so shall you reap". Do you deny this saying ?
    Don't you know that karma is natural law of mind , just as gravity which is law of matter. Gravity brings order to the physical world, karma is divine system of justice that is self governing and infinitely fair. It automatically creates the future experience in response to current action.
    Karma is fundamental principle to define reincarnation. It seems that you don't believe in reincarnation.

    You told me that you believe in karma in previous post. Now you are ridiculing karma as nonsense.

  178. Demsci says:

    But never do Muslims openly admit that they really are choosing Islam over truth, when Islam and truth contradict each other. And we know that sometimes you cannot have both Islam and truth. It would be honest and fair if Muslims at least admitted this.

    Muslims promise young Muslims and converts heaven and threathen with hell if they choose against Islam. But what is this promise and threath worth if Muslims always choose Islam over truth? Heaven and hell according to Muslims very likely are not true. The Muslims give promises and threats with no guarantee. They advocate a gamble at extremely low odds, under 0,1 % chance.

    And what I wrote, yes, that hurts Muslims, and parents and loved ones of apostates. And perhaps apostates of Islam will hurt much also.

    But it is better that 2 generations of born Muslims suffer in this respect, than it is that Islam get's perpetuated,

    because mankind and so many young Muslims have so many great opportunities for personal and societal happiness and progress that are blocked by Islam.

    And the generation after the 2 suffering generations will have a much better life than they would have if the second generation born Muslims (young Muslims now) obediently and blindly accommodated the first generation born Muslims (Muslim parents now) in believing Islam and indoctrinating their own children with with Islam, blackmailing them too with their love and possible anxiety to stay in Islam.

  179. Demsci says:

    The future decisions about religion of young Muslims are very important. There are now available to mankind much better government + societal systems, morality systems, happiness "systems" than what Islam advocates. So, I daresay, it is important if Young Muslims choose better beliefsystems than Islam.

    Islam, which does have good points and may have improved mankind's fate somewhat in it's time. But which is mostly stuck in the past and which keeps many Muslims stuck in the past.

    Muslims like SlaveOfProphet demand from young Muslims born in Islam that they stay in Islam on pain of death(penalty for apostasy). They blackmail them that only being loyal to Islam will give them the love of their community and loved ones.

    They in effect tell them that being in Islam is more important than trying to find the highest truth one can find, with an open mind. If Islam and truth contradict each other, Muslims want young Muslims (and converts to Islam) to choose Islam over truth.

  180. slaveofprophet says:

    @Supriya
    Islam spreading in India rapidly. At the time of partition Muslim were 66% and Hindu were 34% in Bangladesh but now Muslim are 93% and Hindu are  just 7% in Bangladesh. Who are leaving decide yourself?

  181. Demsci says:

    Hi Supriya, good posts. Checked your link and it was very good. SlaveOfProphet (SOP) and Shabeer responded. We know that they are steadfast Muslims, and they are not likely to apostasize,

    and of course you are a steadfast truthseeker, you have discovered there are some things that are much much better than what Islam offers, so you hardly will convert to Islam,

    but we hope that young Muslims see debates like this one and that it influences them. Young Muslims hopefully in big part will live even to 100 years, in a hopefully abundant society, offering so much good and nice, so much information, besides Islam, including very beneficial and meaningful philosophies, ways of life.

    But while Shabeer at least tries to offer young Muslims some justification for Islam with links and debates (in which Islam is consistently beaten), SlaveOfProphet merely advocates a "leap of faith", blind faith. And "THEN, OOOOOH, THEN", he says, all will fall into place. But followers of every faith will ask young muslims that. In contrast to Science, which just asks young Muslims to think and argue hard and logical.

  182. Supriya says:

    slaveofprophet
    Are you able to refute Dr. Sina ? Why coward Zakir Naik is not ready to debate with Dr. Sina ? Why muslims are leaving Islam?

  183. slaveofprophet says:

    @Supriya
    Religion makes the man enlightened. Enlightened are those you know Allah and his messenger. Prophet (PBUH) did not consume  marry with his 6 years old wife Aisha. It teaches us morality that we should not have physical relations with immature girls as prophet exemplified. Prophet marriage with a old women Khadija teaches us we should respect the sentiments of widows. Prophet marriage with a captured girl Safiya whose husband, father, children get killed in war teaches us that slave woman also deserve respect.

  184. Supriya says:

    Shabeer
    Are you confident that Islam is scientifically proven? Refer to the site http://www.1000mistakes.com
    I think you are in deep sleep. Wake up. My 3 Muslim friends visit this site daily. They have begun to doubt Islam and Muhammad's intentions. Now it's your time.

  185. Supriya says:

    slaveofprophet
    Mind of a person does not depend on the religion of that person.
    First of all , refute Dr. Sina( if you have rational mind) and then teach me the scientific( ? ) Quran.

  186. slaveofprophet says:

    @Ali Sina
    Why on the web page of this site has advertisement for Narender Modi? Are u agent of Modi? Do you know to Modi? Why not add. of  any Non-Indian political party? What is your concert from India? Are u Indian in disguise of Iranian? If you advertise any Iranian personality on your website page then it is understandable but India's political leader makes no sense if you are not Indian.

  187. slaveofprophet says:

    @Supriya
    Dear to understand Islamic / Quranic science you need Muslim mind. Firstly, accept Islam then you will understand scientific life of prophet(PBUH). All science contain in Quran and prophet life activity. What was not scientific or moralistic act of prophet's life?

  188. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //A car is nothing but the sum of its parts.//
    car parts aren't the car.

    //" And no, the whole can be greater than or even other than the sum of its parts." No it can't. //
    Well it may be. I gave you two examples.

    //A team is just a collection of individuals. //
    But teamwork is know to achieve more than the individuals can individually achieve. An example of whole greater than the sum of the parts. This is called Synergy.

    //In "natures view" Everything is indeed boundless, look at a flame where is its boundary?//
    In time t1 and t2 that you already have accepted to be existing:-). Second nature doesn't have a 'view' it is just your mind doing overwork.

    //and those effects don't have boundaries//
    You haven't proven that they don't have boundaries and then assuming it for the effects as if it is a proven fact. This is called Affirming the consequent:-). An argument of this form is logically invalid.

    //It continues in its effects, say for example a flame scars your hand, the flame will continue – through that scar//
    No, the scar will continue as the scar It is only an effect which is bounded by the time the flame burned you and the time the scar disappears because of some medication. Although you are free to have a poetic look at things.

    //If we say what a "flame" is, and measure the time its burns for then yes. //
    That is all that is required for the 'flame' part of the Causality chain.

    //"No. " The material called "black holes" existed yes. //
    That is exactly what I said. I never concerned myself with the label. Existence is an apriori requirement for identification. Your mother and black holes both existed before she conceived you or the human mind conceived Black Holes. You earlier assertion : "The object didn't exist, since its existence depends on their being a concept of it" was therefore invalid.

    //The hand doesn't begin, its a concept its like drawing a line between countries, such a line is drawn for our purposes bur as far as the earth is concerned their is no "boundary". If we define "Canada" and draw its boundaries then by definition it cannot be in the united states. Same with the hand and leg.//
    Nonsense.

  189. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //1) I don't say things are "created" by the mind.//
    You said things exist because we perceive them. See your answer to my question about Black Hole.

    // 2) I know I am perceiving things right now, get it? //
    Stretching your own theory, you are perceiving that you know, not that you know 'in reality'.

    //A "bus" has causes yes, but before it was perceived it was not identifiable as a "bus". //
    I am repeating this, but I have said that it isn't about labels we put up, but the objects themselves. The bus exists, plain and simple. It doesn't matter whether you have identified it or perceived it.

    //Give me the proof what existed at big bang was the whole of material existence?//
    The Big Bang deals with Universe. You have agreed Universe is the 'whole of material existence'. However if you say something else then the proof of burden lies on you. For example if you claim that the Universe whose expansion the Big bang caused is not the whole of material existence then you have to prove that there exist some material which aren't part of this Universe that is getting expanded because of the Big Bang.

    //So God is not a being then? Or part of existence? (which means he doesn't exist). //
    Remember your definition of 'exists' doesn't work. In plain English, in the Theist version, God exists, but not part of the Material world. Is immaterial, space-less, timeless and causeless.

    //1)Everything that exists 2) Its absolute and not relative.//
    But science exactly attempts to discuss everything that exists. The various streams of science does exactly do that. What is your complain then?

    //" causality isn't a 'big question' but a day to day observation." It is if it explains everything.//
    'If it explains everything' :-). Unfortunately it is still not a 'big question' but just an observed phenomenon.

    //That kind of statement is exactly what I meant when I said science is not interested in truth //
    And what is this truth? Nothing. Or are you saying that the solutions to these 'big questions' (whatever these are) useless, meaningless and serve no practical purpose? Well, if so then it only may have academic interest but no purposeful insight. If science attempts to alleviate cancer then it is certainly finding the 'truth' behind that solution. To mankind that is of far greater value than any perceived 'truth' that you were alluding to.

    //"1. Nature isn't a thing, since things are finite and bounded." Things don't exist inherently.
    "2. Nature is infinite hence all things that it contains are without boundaries (apparently in 'nature's distorted view') " Nature is just the timeless process of change – and change doesn't begin and end.//
    Have you simply lost it? I said those two points to show you that your definitions lead us to such absurdities!! My point 1 was that you were saying "things are finite and bounded" and point 2 was that elsewhere you also said "all things that it contains are without boundaries".
    1. things are bounded, 2. "all things that it contains are without boundaries". These two statements together are absurd, illogical.

    //Nature is just the timeless process of change – and change doesn't begin and end.//
    Change begins and ends. See the example of flame where you did accept the notion of t1 and t2. You may not say at which point the combustion started and finished, but you can certainly say that at some point in time the combustion hadn't started yet and at some point in time the combustion was already over.

  190. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //Only things can be said to exist or not exist, since nature is not a thing it cannot be said to be either. //
    But you did claim that nature doesn't exist. Now you are saying that it can't said whether it exist or not exist.
    However this recent quote wasn't about nature, it was about the notion of Anutpada, the unproduced whereby Madhyamika school posits that the truth is emptiness itself. This contrast with your original position that emptiness doesn't exist.

    //If the "soul" is not the self that that means their is no afterlife, which obviously theists do not believe so i presume when then speak of "soul" they indeed mean the self.//
    I will quote what Buddha says about spirit, same sources,: I will again quote what Buddha says: When man dies the body is dissolved into its elements, but the spirit is not entombed. It leads a higher mode of life in which all the relative terms of father, son, wife, mother, are at an end, just as a guest who leaves his lodging has done with it, as though it were a thing of the past.

    If I were too Buddha used to double speak too :-). Assuming that he didn't the atman referred in dialogue with Kutadanta can't be the 'spirit' mentioned here. Especially you yourself quote what Buddha means by saying that the self keeps on changing from child to man to old. Theist don't say that the 'soul' changes.

    //That is what I said, but you are remembering you claim the "soul" is not the self? //
    The word used here clarifies exactly that Buddha is indeed saying that once the body dissolves away the soul still remains (and in a higher mode at that) untouched by the family ties, unattached, disassociated.

    //"If Buddha was talking about nature he would simply have said nature, prakriti. " He says "the uncaused"//
    :-). He says 'there is …'. It becomes meaningless if you replace those phrases by 'nature'. Most possibly he is referring to Nirvana .

  191. cchuckc says:

    @Phoenix,
    She can't.

  192. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    You did say that any thing can be divided infinitely. When I confronted you with Quantum limits you started this rhetoric about 'logical' division. Which, by the way also defies logic because of the way quanta are defined. I demonstrated that with examples.

  193. mysticalmind3 says:

    If you read what of wrote you would see I DID NOT CLAIM a thing can be physically divided infinitely, what I did say is if you have 1 thing then automatically you have half of that thing or a quarter or whatever. For instance if you have 1 millimeter then automatically you have say a thousandth of that length, even though its not possible to draw something that small. 

  194. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Your questions stem from ignorance not knowledge" Alright then how do you know  the decay of an atom is "uncaused"?

    "and also there's no cause for the radioactive decay." Which is just an argument from ignorance, we don't know what causes a atom to decay therefore its uncaused. 

    "Acausal is the the change  of an object,matter,etc. without any external force acting on it. " In other words  creation ex nihilo i.e magic.

    "False Dilemma? " No I am asking you to state your position clearly.What are you talking about predictability or something being "uncaused"? As you keep changing what you're saying.

    "I was discussing the comparison of humans to computers and machines,and the fallacies that they accompany." What fallacies? You did not show any.

    "iI'll believe the existence of sentient machines when I see it. " Tell me why you don't think humans operate by cause and effect?

    "can easily be falsified by showing you examples of people who have succeeded in life although their parents were abusive alcoholics,they were born and raised in slums and/or lacked certain abilities,etc." Which does not falsify it, people who succeed in life, despite harsh upbringings are given opportunities by their society and were helped by other people. No of which has anything to do with "free will".  

     

  195. knowTheEnemy says:

    Well… the reason for me asking what what you were studying was NOT to compare your qualifications with mine but simply to see if you were studying religion related subjects or something else. One does not need to have any more than basic education to figure out that the principle of Karma does nothing except waste the time and efforts of people who believe in it.

    ["Nobody can dump his past karmas on other person because he is an initiator and he has to face it's implications."]

    You have conflicting messages in your posts. Sometimes you say "The Gurus can absorb others' karma", and other times you say "he is an initiator and he has to face it's implications.
    When you provide Mumtaz Ali's example, you say he became a Vedanta teacher "due to his past life karmas". But what if he had started visiting some Guru? What if the Guru had absorbed his karma? &nbsp;Then Mumtaz most likely would not have become a Vedanta teacher! Do you see what I am trying to point out? Mumtaz would have lost the chance to gain Vedanta knowledge in that case. He would have been a loser because someone absorbed his Karma!

    ["Destiny is predetermined future which is based on a fixed natural order of cosmos ( The philosophy of cause and effect)"]

    Karma again! Since you believe in a Guru (Sri Sri Ravi Shankar), it would IMO be much wiser for you to forget the Karma nonsense and simply believe that your destiny is predetermined by your Guru. Watch this great you-tube speech (in Hindi) by Vivek Shauq. The speech is 16 minutes long but the Karma garbage is taken care of in the first 12 min 20 secs! Of course Vivek believed in a different Guru and he saw his Guru as God, but IMO, a believer's attitude towards his/her Guru, whoever the Guru is, should be just like Vivek's! Then the believer will not be even slightly curious about his/her karma, let alone hope someone absorbs it!

    Note regarding Vivek Shauq's speech: 12 and a half minutes seems like a lot of time, but Vivek talks smooth and you won't even realize when the speech is all over 🙂

  196. Phoenix says:

    Chuck
    I'd like to see him divide quanta.Apparently all things can be divided infinitely.

  197. Phoenix says:

    What on earth does that mean? Does radioactive decay happen without cause or is it just unpredictable? Whats your position? "
    Of course you don't know.Your questions stem from ignorance not knowledge.I suggest you read a book on the behavior of subatomic particles and how atoms decay.It's not possible to know when an atom will decay and also there's no cause for the radioactive decay.

    Before you were claiming things happen without cause, which means *it just happens* from nowhere. So what exactly do you mean by "uncaused" ? //
    Acausal is the the change  of an object,matter,etc. without any external force acting on it.

    What meaning are you speaking about? The philosophical or the scientific? //
    So far we've discussed math,logic,science and philosophy and now you want me to pick either a definition from science or philosophy.False Dilemma?

    A thing which is the result of causes, can be uncertain human behavior is 1, the weather, the stock market and the lottery are other things which are unpredictable but yet still caused.//
    I was discussing the comparison of humans to computers and machines,and the fallacies that they accompany.Not weather and stock markets.

    Tell me why its impossible we could not build/ invent machines with intelligence (and emotions)? I am not saying it will be done but explain why you thinks its impossible.//
    iI'll believe the existence of sentient machines when I see it.

    Did you choose your genes, your parents, your culture, your environment? No you choose none of it, and since those things are all the things which make you what you are their is no magical extra part of you which can function independently of all your causes.//
    We're discussing intentionality not magic.your belief that humans are purely a product of their genes and environment can easily be falsified by showing you examples of people who have succeeded in life although their parents were abusive alcoholics,they were born and raised in slums and/or lacked certain abilities,etc.

  198. shabeer says:

    @supriya:

    allha ever says sun sets in the muddy water……………………..

    when he talk about the history of dul karnain "When he reached the setting place of the sun, >>>>he found it<<<[or he can feel it] setting in a muddy spring and found a people thereabout. We said: ‘O Dhul-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness"’ (Surah 18:86).

    for more plz click the link :  http://www.answering-christianity.com/mahir/scienhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/sunrise_sun

    here the world agreed 100 of clear scientific fact from quran  http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#li

  199. Supriya says:

    slaveofprophet
    Do you understand the meaning of Science ? It's a big joke that Muhammad spent scientific life in 7 th century.
    I don't need to learn manners from you. You need to use your brain and leave that false religion which concluded that 1+1=3 and sun sets in muddy water.
    Why so called scholar muslims( zakir naik) are not able to prove Dr Sina wrong ?
    Dare to speak truth.

  200. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Rephrase please, your sentence is incomprehensible." Only things can be said to exist or not exist, since nature is not a thing it cannot be said to be either.

    "That sentence was about your assuming that the "soul" to the Theist is the self, which is independent of everything else (i..e exists inherently)." If the "soul" is not the self that that means their is no afterlife, which obviously theists do not believe so i  presume when then speak of "soul" they indeed mean the self.

    "If Buddha was talking about nature he would simply have said nature, prakriti. " He says "the uncaused".

    " Moreover if he is not talking about something immaterial" Nature is immaterial (as it is not bounded by time and space).

    "Identity of the Self assumed to be centered in the body, "  "Where is thy self? asked the Buddha. And when Kutadanta made no reply, he continued: "Thy self to which thou cleavest is a constant change. Years ago thou wast a small babe; then, thou wast a boy; then a youth, and now, thou art a man. Is there any identity of the babe and the man? There is an identity in a certain sense only. Indeed there is more identity between the flames of the first and the third watch, even though the lamp might have been extinguished during the second watch. Now which is thy true self, that of yesterday, that of today, or that of tomorrow, for the preservation of which thou clamorest?" Kutadanta was bewildered. "Lord of the world," he said, I see my error, but I am still confused."

    "This can as well imply that the spirit or soul is never created, it 'always' was and 'always' will be." That is what I said, but you are remembering you claim the "soul" is not the self? 

     

  201. mysticalmind3 says:

     "You were saying things exist only because we perceive them. If this is true then by the same token your illusion of knowledge is also a creation of your mind. " 1) I don't say things are "created" by the mind. 2) I know I am perceiving things right now, get it?

    "Just walk around the street with closed eyes to know whether the fast coming bus toward you exists or not." A "bus" has causes yes, but before it was perceived it was not identifiable as a "bus".

    "The Big Bang doesn't concern itself with a certain proportion of the totality, but the whole of material existence." Give me the proof what existed at big bang was the whole of material existence? The cosmologists don't know that, they just assume that what they observe (or the universe they live in) is the whole of existence, this leads them to make utterly foolish statements like "their was nothing before the big bang".&nbsp;

    "The Creationists attribute the creation to the ultimate uncreated being, named God. Thats not magic. That is what they arrive at by assuming causality for all material beings/things/events." So God is not a being then? Or part of existence? (which means he doesn't exist).

    "What is Ultimate Reality? And how is it Ultimate? " 1)Everything that exists 2) Its absolute and not relative.

    " causality isn't a 'big question' but a day to day observation." It is if it explains everything.

    "It is far less significant than say discovering techniques to alleviate cancer." That kind of statement is exactly what I meant when I said science is not interested in truth but models that work and serve a practical purpose.

    "The point was you asked whether infinite's can have bounds and I showed you an example, not whether they are everything." And I said numbers are not everything. A mathematical infinite is not unbounded by time and space – which is what "infinite" means in the context of which I am speaking.

    "1. Nature isn't a thing, since things are finite and bounded." Things don't exist inherently.
    "2.  Nature is infinite hence all things that it contains are without boundaries (apparently in 'nature's distorted view') " Nature is just the timeless process of change – and change doesn't begin and end.

  202. mysticalmind3 says:

    "car parts aren't car." A car is nothing but the sum of its parts.

    " And no, the whole can be greater than or even other than the sum of its parts." No it can't.

    "Gestalt Psychology for example, Synergy or team work for example," A team is just a collection of individuals.

    " That it is limited in time and space and hence destined to have boundaries." Its limited in the sense of cause and effect.

    "Your earlier assumption that everything is boundless in 'natures' view' was crap. " In "natures view" Everything is indeed boundless, look at a flame where is its boundary? Its not separate from its environment, it can't exist without oxygen for instance or fuel and every moment it burns it is giving off effects – and those effects don't have boundaries. So yes from "natures view" things don't have boundaries.
    "
    I didn't disagree that it has its causes." It was once those "causes" and for that for that reason cannot inherently exist.

    "It doesn't continue." It continues in its effects, say for example a flame scars your hand, the flame will continue – through that scar (which would be 1 of its countless effects).

    "You have already accepted that it is bounded by times t1 and t2." If we say what a "flame" is, and measure the time its burns for then yes.

    "That there are boundaries and so we are able to identify them, not that we somehow carve up these boundaries." We carve up nature and imagine that those pieces we carve up have an inherent existence.

    "So you are saying that before you were born the lady who became your mother didn't exist. Well done." No she existed.

    "No. " The material called "black holes" existed yes.

    "You only need one tight slap on the face and a good one at your posterior to know that both the hand and the leg are separate and very much existing and not just an illusion" The hand doesn't begin, its a concept its like drawing a line between countries, such a line is drawn for our purposes bur as far as the earth is concerned their is no "boundary". If we define "Canada" and draw its boundaries then by definition it cannot be in the united states. Same with the hand and leg. 

     

     

  203. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy
    Don't you know that your present life is based on past life karmas ? Don't you know that you are reborn to fulfill past life wishes( ichha) ?
    Every living being's soul transmigrates ( recycles) after death,carrying seeds of karmic impulses from previous life into another life. The theory of karma includes both action and intent. Not only one is affected by past karmas , one creates new karmas whenever one acts with intent good and bad.
    Lifeforms not only receive and reap the consequence of their past karmas, together they are means to initiate, evaluate, give and deliver consequence of karmas to others. e.g. the relationship of Guru and his Shishya.
    Destiny is predetermined future which is based on a fixed natural order of cosmos ( The philosophy of cause and effect). Mumtaz Ali is destined to become Vedanta Guru due to his past life karmas( action and intent).
    Nobody can dump his past karmas on other person because he is an initiator and he has to face it's implications.
    The motifs in Jain temples often use interconnected knots symbolising karma and link between the lives.
    Your present life is based on past life actions and intents.
    My education qualification : 1] I am Electronics Engineering graduate 2] I am doing post graduation in Business Administration ( MBA)
    May I know your education qualification?

  204. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //It became Hitler//
    It wasn't Hitler.

    //Those are all of the things that made Hitler what he was (i.e his causes). A car is nothing but the sum of its parts – same with Hitler.//
    Causes, yes, but identifiable with Hitler, no. car parts aren't car. And no, the whole can be greater than or even other than the sum of its parts. Gestalt Psychology for example, Synergy or team work for example,

    //Yes a flame is limited in time and space, whats your point? //
    Exactly that. That it is limited in time and space and hence destined to have boundaries. Your earlier assumption that everything is boundless in 'natures' view' was crap.

    //The flame does not exist inherently and is the result of change//
    I didn't disagree that it has its causes.

    //its the result of causes and continues in its effects.//
    It 'results' into effects. It doesn't continue. You have already accepted that it is bounded by times t1 and t2.

    //Nowhere have I said things don't have boundaries, indeed their must be boundaries otherwise we would not be able to identify anything. //
    No you are saying exactly what I said. That there are boundaries and so we are able to identify them, not that we somehow carve up these boundaries. I am assuming that you aren't referring to the quantum world 🙂

    //"Just say whether they existed before being identified or not?" No they didn't exist.//
    So you are saying that before you were born the lady who became your mother didn't exist. Well done.

    //The object didn't exist, since its existence depends on their being a concept of it.//
    No.

    //If you understand nature doesn't have boundaries, then you will understand why things can't have boundaries since nature is just change and a things existence is just an illusion created by the moment.//
    In another post you claimed things indeed have boundaries:-). You only need one tight slap on the face and a good one at your posterior to know that both the hand and the leg are separate and very much existing and not just an illusion:-)

    //Which you keep claiming was "uncaused" which has about as much proof as the claim the christian God caused it i.e zero//
    I didn't say Big bang was uncaused. I said that that it is one of the two options if Big bang Singularity is assumed to be true. 1. it was self-caused or uncaused and 2. It was caused by something timeless, infinite and immaterial.
    1. is, generally speaking, Atheist position and 2. is the Abrahamic and Advaita Vedantic position.
    The third option is theoretic models like Big Crunch-Big Bang sequences, Multiverses etc, which are by definition happening in 'outside' the temporal realm of 'our' universe so Causal chains are still restricted by the Big Bang.
    You have the option to deny Big Bang altogether and propose a new model for Cosmology off course.

  205. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //"And you are on record saying that emptiness doesn't exist." I say it neither exists or not exists//
    Rephrase please, your sentence is incomprehensible.

    //That is what Buddha said in that teaching to the//
    That sentence was about your assuming that the "soul" to the Theist is the self, which is independent of everything else (i..e exists inherently). I gave you two broad opinions none of which say that the soul is independent. This was your opinion, not Buddha's.

    //Buddhas view is that the ego is an illusion.//
    Same as Panini's and Mundakya Upanishad. Buddha may have had a view, it doesn't make it absolutely correct or complete. It is just a philosophy and subject matter to belief (Just as all Theist views are).

    //Buddha is clearly talking about nature, which you would know if you could understand.//
    If Buddha was talking about nature he would simply have said nature, prakriti. Especially if he was talking about nature then the following sentence becomes meaningless: Since, O monks, there is 'nature', therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed. Moreover if he is not talking about something immaterial, then he is definitely talking about something that exists. You however were of the opinion that nature doesn't exist.

    //And what you are saying is nonsense, Buddha makes it clear identity is just an illusion of the moment. //
    Identity of the Self assumed to be centered in the body, assumed to be helped by rituals, ceremonies (that is what Kutadanta was talking about) to acquire heavenly pleasures.

    //" That is what is a particular view of the soul. The soul never is born nor dies." Which means it can never come into existence or out of existence. //
    I will again quote what Buddha says: When man dies the body is dissolved into its elements, but the spirit is not entombed. It leads a higher mode of life in which all the relative terms of father, son, wife, mother, are at an end, just as a guest who leaves his lodging has done with it, as though it were a thing of the past.
    This can as well imply that the spirit or soul is never created, it 'always' was and 'always' will be. Perpetual existence. Most Hindu and Buddhist schools admit the same philosophy.

  206. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //If you associate the word "truth" with something inherently existent (ie, something impossible) then that is your business//
    Balderdash. You were saying things exist only because we perceive them. If this is true then by the same token your illusion of knowledge is also a creation of your mind.

    //Its means it just a perception.//
    But it doesn't mean that the thing doesn't exist.

    //We can say that "red" is just a appearance to our mind.//
    Foolish proposition, the starting premise was "If no one perceived 'red' …". If it is not perceived then its NOT an appearance in our mind. However even if we don't perceive it it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All we can say is that We don't know whether it exists. Just walk around the street with closed eyes to know whether the fast coming bus toward you exists or not.

    //"the universe begin" all they mean is a proportion of the totality begin at the big bang//
    That is your interpretation. The Big Bang doesn't concern itself with a certain proportion of the totality, but the whole of material existence.

    //these people believe in magic (i.e creation ex nihilo).//
    The Creationists attribute the creation to the ultimate uncreated being, named God. Thats not magic. That is what they arrive at by assuming causality for all material beings/things/events.

    //It just pursues models that function its not necessarily interested in "truth"//
    🙂 Thats a defeatist opinion and nothing more. The models it constructs are to reduce some such truth into general formulations.

    //Is not wisdom because it doesn't tell us anything about ultimate reality//
    You have imagined some ultimate reality and then saying that so and so doesn't match my definition and hence isn't the 'Ultimate reality'. What is Ultimate Reality? And how is it Ultimate?

    //It doesn't (and cannot) answer any of the "big questions" such as causality//
    :-). It doesn't have to. causality isn't a 'big question' but a day to day observation. It is far less significant than say discovering techniques to alleviate cancer. As far as your posturing is concerned about answering these, go ahead and answer why things exist, why causality holds, what is truth etc.

    //It denies a thing can exist inherently if that's what you mean.//
    I said exactly what I meant. You have just assumed that a collection of one kind isn't possible because you fear that it will become "the all". I see no problem in it at all.

    //Mathematical infinite's exist, and their bounded for the reason their not "everything".//
    The point was you asked whether infinite's can have bounds and I showed you an example, not whether they are everything.

    //Nature cannot be said to exist for the reason its not finite and bounded.//
    Which just keeps on exposing your double speak. Your version of 'truth':
    1. Nature isn't a thing, since things are finite and bounded.
    2. Nature is infinite hence all things that it contains are without boundaries (apparently in 'nature's distorted view') 🙂

  207. mysticalmind3 says:

    "It simply means its not subjected to causal chains which are traced back to the Big bang." What on earth does that mean? Does radioactive decay happen without cause or is it just unpredictable? Whats your position?

    "Existence from nothing is not my claim" Before you were claiming things happen without cause, which means *it just happens* from nowhere. So what exactly do you mean by "uncaused" ?

    "I've not contradicted myself." Are you claiming things can come from nothing or not?

    "Then you don't know what indeterminancy is.It is both acausal and uncertainty." I do know what it is and it has different meanings in science and philosophy. In science it means we cannot determine (the causes and outcomes) in philosophy it means things are not determined (by causes). What meaning are you speaking about? The philosophical or the scientific? 

    "There can be no 
    uncertainty,intentionality and free will." A thing which is the result of causes, can be uncertain human behavior is 1, the weather, the stock market and the lottery are other things which are unpredictable but yet still caused.

    "Keep in mind that I can quote Atheist philosophers espousing Artificial intelligence in humans and minds as computers." Tell me why its impossible we could not build/ invent machines with intelligence (and emotions)? I am not saying it will be done but explain why you thinks its impossible.

    "These beliefs are derived from classical physics, " Its derived from the fact we are indeed biological  machines that operate by cause and effect.

    "over which you have no control." Did you choose your genes, your parents, your culture, your environment? No you choose none of it, and since those things are all the things which make you what you are their is no magical extra part of you which can function independently of all your causes. 

     

  208. Phoenix says:

    The physicists argue that the energy of our universe was ZERO, they base this on the fact that energy can be both positive and negative, gravitational energy is negative—when summed with the positive energy of the matter in the universe, the two quantities may cancel out. Based on that they then argue that their is no time limit, a quantum vacuum fluctuation of zero total energy could persist, so the longevity of our universe does not rule out a quantum vacuum fluctuation origin. (Note I am just repeating what they say, if you think you have a better explanation for how our universe came about tell them about it.) //

    The problem with this theory is a) cannot be proved and b) improbable.
    Firstly,if the universe was born out of a vacuum,then we should witness other universes also popping into existence from the vacuum continuously,or unless there's a physical law that could restrict other universes from overlapping with ours.So what is that self-regulated law?
    No law,no possibility.

    Secondly,in grade 11 physics we were taught about the Equilibrium of forces,when equal forces in opposite directions acting on an object cancel each other out,thus having no effect on an object.
    So can the negative energy of gravity and the positive energy of matter cancel each other out ,thus having no effect also?
    The answer is no.Gravity is everywhere in the universe at all times,affecting all matter.What is sometimes called zero gravity is misleading,the more accurate term is micro-gravity.Gravity cannot be zero.
    Also,a gravitational fields cannot exist without space-time and mass/energy,.it's logically absurd.No space/time = no field.
    Lastly,Materialists claim the physical Universe and its composites is all there is to existence.So any pre-existence prior to the physical world would contradict that theory.Hence materialism is contradictory,false and cannot satisfy its beliefs with either logic or proof.

  209. Phoenix says:

    Which doesn't mean it *just happens* out of literally nothing at all"
    Acausal does not mean from nothing.It simply means its not subjected to causal chains which are traced back to the Big bang.
    ==
    No things cannot just pop into being out of nowhere, if they did then everything in the whole universe would be entirely unpredictable. For instance Elephants could be popping into existence in the quantum realm, for example. You might throw a six-sided dice and get a seven. That doesn't happen for the reason that things have causes."
    Existence from nothing is not my claim,it's materialists make these ridiculous claims,so there's no need to defend it.
    ==
    No the law of logic cannot be violated (in this case something coming from "nothing".//
    For a statement to be logical,it must structural and contain no internal contradictions.I've not contradicted myself.
    ==
    Which has nothing to do with whether a thing is "uncaused" or not. It just means we cannot predict the future (with 100% accuracy at least) and you seem to be confusing the notion of "unpredictability" with something being "uncaused" the 2 things are entirely different. //
    Then you don't know what indeterminancy is.It is both acausal and uncertainty.There's no confusion.
    Atheists philosophers have posited humans as biological machines and minds as computers,which are algorithmically controlled.There inputs determine their outputs.There can be no
    uncertainty,intentionality and free will.Keep in mind that I can quote Atheist philosophers espousing Artificial intelligence in humans and minds as computers.These beliefs are derived from classical physics, that the Universe is composed of classicaly conceived particles and fields,which determine all positions of particles and states in the universe,as well as human actions,traced back to the Big bang,over which you have no control.

  210. mysticalmind3 says:

    Y"our knowing, your writing etc are also concepts and things and they are to be subjected to same 'logic' that you were postulating for things in general."  If you associate the word "truth" with something inherently existent (ie, something impossible) then that is your business, however, you shouldn't be confusing your use of the word with the way other people use it.

    "Different to them or doesn't exist for them doesn't mean it doesn't exist." Its means it just a perception.

    "If no one perceived 'red' then you can neither say it exist nor that it doesn't exists." We can say that "red" is just a appearance to our mind. 

    "Big Bang" Below you say the way I define universe (i.e the totality of all that is) is not how the cosmologists define it. In that case when then say "the universe begin" all they mean is a proportion of the totality begin at the big bang. In that case I have no interest in Big bang cosmology as it not making claims about ultimate reality and is philosophically meaningless. 

    "Show me all the religious texts which says that there was material 'nothing' from which Universe was created." I didn't say anything about "material nothing" (whatever that is) these people believe in magic (i.e creation ex nihilo).

    " Science pursues truth." It just pursues models that function its not necessarily interested in "truth". 

    "The model to describe the physical world is also wisdom of a kind. " Is not wisdom because it doesn't tell us anything about ultimate reality. It doesn't (and cannot) answer any of the "big questions" such as causality, ethics, existence, identity, truth, purpose and so.

    "2. Implies that you defy the mathematical possibility of a set with cardinality 1." It denies a thing can exist inherently if that's what you mean.

    " 3 Implies that infinite sets like (0,1) doesn't exist." Mathematical infinite's exist, and their bounded for the reason their not "everything".

    " So which reality are you talking about? " Nature is the totality of all that exists.

    "Moreover from these 5 it doesn't follow that nature doesn't exist, unless off course you also have an alternate definition for 'existing'. " Nature cannot be said to exist for the reason its not finite and bounded.

    "Things exist, yes. But according to you Nature doesn't." "Existence" and "non existence" are necessarily finite, so both categories cannot apply to nature.

    "earlier you had said that the concept of nothing is a logical impossibility." The concept of nothing is just that – a concept. The concept of nothing only exists in relation to the concept of something.

     

     

     

  211. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical,
    //Me knowing I am writing this right now has nothing to do with this question about perception, or boundaries and beginnings so I don't know where you are getting this from.//
    Your knowing, your writing etc are also concepts and things and they are to be subjected to same 'logic' that you were postulating for things in general.

    //Why is it worthless? It just something which is true by definition.//
    Yes, it is true by definition, but it takes us nowhere. Thats why it is meaningless.. similar to saying a tree is a tree by definition. Once you have said that a thing exist irrespective of us having a mind, then saying that we perceive it as such because we have a mind is meaningless. The question isn't what we perceive but whether things have boundaries in space and/or time, not how we see as boundaries in our perceptions or whether we at all perceive it or not.

    //And then defines it and gives it a label, like "apple" "blue" "car" and whatever. //
    Its not about giving labels.

    //No the thing is different different to them or maybe does not even exist. //
    Different to them or doesn't exist for them doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    //Second of all, if no one perceived "red" then how could it be said to exist? It couldn't. //
    If no one perceived 'red' then you can neither say it exist nor that it doesn't exists.

    //Where is the proof their was nothing before the big bang? Their isn't any, its just asserted//
    If you believe the Big bang Singularity (and there is a good enough reason to believe so) and in GTR (which also has a solid enough reason going for it) then 'time' doesn't exist at the Singularity. 'Before' in time is meaningless. Plain logic.

    //More statements made with no proof.//
    See above. You may say that Big Bang didn't happen.

    //"You had earlier agreed that Universe is uncaused. If so it has been caused by nothing. Causality breaks at Singularity. " I never said the universe (i.e absolutely everything) popped magically into being, 13 billion years ago.//
    I didn't say you said that. You had agreed that is is uncaused and Singularity implies that time is finite.

    //"Then tell me how is it caused? It is not a 'thing' (an object with an identity), it is a process or phenomenon." If the universe is a process and that process is uncaused//
    Don't join one sentence to another. This is a fallacy. I said that about 'quantum fluctuation' and not Universe. You asked how it is uncaused and I told you that it is not a thing but a process.

    //"It is not a 'thing'. And I didn't say it is nothing." If its not "nothing" then its something.//
    Using the same logic, you said Universe isn't nothing, then it is something :-). By the way I didn't say it is nothing and I didn't say it is not nothing.

    //Yes they believe the universe magically had an absolute beginning out of nothingness. //
    Show me all the religious texts which says that there was material 'nothing' from which Universe was created.

    //Science on the other hand is not interested in truth as such but about models of the physical world that work and serve a practical purpose.//
    That is just an opinion. Science pursues truth. The models it tries to manufacture are to describe the truths about the physical nature.

    //but that is not I mean by philosophy – namely the pursuit of wisdom.//
    Whihc is as vagua as broad it is. The model to describe the physical world is also wisdom of a kind.

    //That which is finite (and by finite I mean that which is bounded, limited and falls short of constituting the totality of all their is//
    :-). In other words you have an alternate definition of both thing and causality. Well, well. What you are saying is:
    1. Nature is totality of all that there is.
    2. A thing is not all that there is.
    3. Things must definitely be bounded.
    4. Therefore nature is not a thing (from 1 and 2).
    5. And from 3 and 4, nature is unbounded.

    2. Implies that you defy the mathematical possibility of a set with cardinality 1. 3 Implies that infinite sets like (0,1) doesn't exist. 4 Implies that the Universe cosmologist talks about isn't the same as the 'nature' you are referring to. So which reality are you talking about? Moreover from these 5 it doesn't follow that nature doesn't exist, unless off course you also have an alternate definition for 'existing'.
    //Nature is not nothing, because things exist so for that reason it cannot be absolutely nothing at all. //
    Things exist, yes. But according to you Nature doesn't.

    //No its not, the concept of nothing is part of the totality, it doesn't exist "outside" nature. //
    earlier you had said that the concept of nothing is a logical impossibility.

  212. mysticalmind3 says:

    "And you are on record saying that emptiness doesn't exist." I say it neither exists or not exists. 

    "So I don't know where you found this 'exists inherently'." That is what Buddha said in that teaching to the  "Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and SELF-EXISTENT entities." 

    " Now Buddha may differ with both of this views and posit another view. " Buddhas view is that the ego is an illusion.

    "The Uncreated or the uncaused. There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated and unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed." Buddha is clearly talking about nature, which you would know if you could understand.

    "That is what I am saying." And what you are saying is nonsense, Buddha makes it clear identity is just an illusion of the moment.

    " That is what is a particular view of the soul. The soul never is born nor dies." Which means it can never come into existence or out of existence.

     

     

  213. mysticalmind3 says:

    "The food wasn't Hitler." It became Hitler.

    "And in fact you can as well say Hitler was born 'because of the Universe'. " Yes if we wanted to.

    "But none of them are 'definitely' Hitler." Those are all of the things that made Hitler what he was (i.e his causes). A car is nothing but the sum of its parts – same with Hitler.

    "there is a definite time t1, before which the flame was non-existing, and a definite time t2, after which it was no more so. Its existence and identity is bounded in time. " Yes a flame is limited in time and space, whats your point? 

    "1. See the example of flame above. " The flame does not exist inherently and is the result of change, it did not have an absolute beginning (or an absolute end for that matter.) Or in other words its the result of causes and continues in its effects.

    "2. If nature doesn't have boundaries it doesn't imply that its elements don't have boundary. " It does since everything is part of nature, it means everything is linked and does not exist separately and independently from other things.
    "3. You are contradicting yourself again, in another post you just said that things have boundary." Nowhere have I said things don't have boundaries, indeed their must be boundaries otherwise we would not be able to identify anything.

    "Just say whether they existed before being identified or not?" No they didn't exist.

    " I didn't say anything about the label. I am asking about the object." The object didn't exist, since its existence depends on their being a concept of it.

     "The circumference is part of the definition of a circle, the outside of the circle is caused to be identified because of the existence of the circle." The circle cannot exist if their was no "outside" its circumference, just like "outside the circle" could not exist if their was no circle. Get it?

    "If you accept nature doesn't have boundaries, then no particular thing can ultimately have boundaries" and you follow it up with "I have never (said) boundaries do not exist". If you understand nature doesn't have boundaries, then you will understand why things can't have boundaries since nature is just change and a things existence is just an illusion created by the moment.

    "Big Bang was an event. " Which you keep claiming was "uncaused" which has about as much proof as the claim the christian God caused it i.e zero.

    "It has limitless real numbers" "Numbers" are not absolutely everything that exists.

     

     

     
     

  214. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //" They concluded the Anutpada. For example the Madhyamika school postulated that the ultimate truth is emptiness itself, the absence of concrete and inherent characteristics." No that is exactly what I concluded.//
    I will put in bold the concept of Anutpada that came out the ultimate truth is emptiness itself. And you are on record saying that emptiness doesn't exist.

    //" If the 'soul' is defined immaterial, non-corporeal, non-bodily component, as is understood by Theists" That is not how theists understand it, the "soul" to them is the self, which is independent of everything else (i..e exists inherently) and survives physical death – which is the exact opposite of what the Buddha taught. //
    There are two major versions and both consider soul as immaterial, non-corporeal. The Abrahamic view and the Vedantic view. And none of them say that they exist inherently or they don't change/learn on the way. Both views posits a God who manages the soul. In Abrahamic theology God 'creates' the soul in a body and after death the soul becomes inert. In most Hindu schools Soul isn't created, but God institutes a strict rule of Causality called Karma which governs the passage of souls across generations. So I don't know where you found this 'exists inherently'. Now Buddha may differ with both of this views and posit another view. That doesn't make the other two views any less logical or founded on reason. As I said one needs to believe the veracity of one of the view and stay happy in it.
    Coming back to the original context that you had quoted Buddha was only talking about the futility of doing Yajna and hom in achieving heaven for 'this' self that the other person was assuming to be residing in his body.

    And while you were saying that everything has a cause Buddha himself postulated The Uncreated or the uncaused. There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated and unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed."

    //" In theory, this is just one way of looking at it." That is not what he says.//
    No no. That is what I am saying.

    //What he means is the spirit is infinite, it is never born and never dies. The spirit is permanent – the body finite.//
    :-). That is what is a particular view of the soul. The soul never is born nor dies.

  215. mysticalmind3 says:

    I used a "7" coming up on a 6 sided dice as an example of things we would expect to see if we lived in a universe where acausality was a reality. You then talk about about a completely irrelevant subject. 

  216. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //" It is a fact that 7 comes after 6 and so logically it is possible to get 7 on throw of the dice" Its not possible to throw a "7" on a six sided dice (with a range of 1-6). //
    What happened to the fact that 7 comes after 6? '7' has been cut out by your definition of a six sided dice number 1 to 6. It is illogical with this definition to talk about the 'fact' of 7. Similarly it is illogical to talk about the partitioning of a point. Also note that we are talking about things, actual physical things. If you can't divide them beyond a well defined and identifiable limit, any hypothetical division is meaningless.

  217. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Then you are contradicting your earlier position that things only exist because of our mind perceiving it in some way. And I was saying exactly the opposite that our mind perceives it in some way because it exist. The same with boundaries and the same with the limit of 1889 for Hitler. " Me knowing I am writing this right now has nothing to do with this question about perception, or boundaries and beginnings so I don't know where you are getting this from.

    "If this is what you were saying then it is a worthless comment, same as saying that we see because we have eyes. " Why is it worthless? It just something which is true by definition.

    " Our mind doesn't define it, it understands or perceives it in a particular manner." And then defines it and gives it a label, like "apple" "blue" "car" and whatever.

    "In fact if it doesn't perceive that object in 'that' particular manner we say that there is a mental/cognitive issue" No the thing is different different to them or maybe does not even exist. 

    " If we don't see 'red' it only means that we are suffering from Daltonism. " First of all how do you know what you call and perceive as "red" is what anyone else perceives as red? You don't. Second of all, if no one perceived "red" then how could it  be said to exist? It couldn't. 

    " I was saying that you were saying that reality is carved out by our mind. " I was saying reality is carved UP by the mind.

    "Big Bang cosmology puts a limit in time till which any Causal chain may remain valid And the answer is Cosmology" Where is the proof their was nothing before the big bang? Their isn't any, its just asserted.

    "Thats a finite amount of time, a limit before which you can't move in time. " More statements made with no proof.

    "You had earlier agreed that Universe is uncaused. If so it has been caused by nothing. Causality breaks at Singularity. " I never said the universe (i.e absolutely everything) popped magically into being, 13 billion years ago. 

    "Then tell me how is it caused? It is not a 'thing' (an object with an identity), it is a process or phenomenon." If the universe is a process and that process is uncaused then how the on earth did it ever begin? This talk of "beginnings" from the cosmologists is just nonsense from that view.

    "It is not a 'thing'. And I didn't say it is nothing." If its not "nothing" then its something.

    "When Theists says that the Universe was created out of nothing, they don't mean that some agent (God) created Universe out of some material identified as 'nothing'." Yes they believe the universe magically had an absolute beginning out of nothingness.

    " As far as demonstration is concerned you first define what is science and we will see then what role 'demonstration' plays." The study the physical world. It studies what exists, but it cannot tell us what exists. Science cannot possibly prove the absence of causes, for the same reason that it can't prove, say, the absence of an invisible bacterium at the bottom of the ocean. So the claim science proves something is uncaused is nonsense.

    "Which then is a tool of science. So what you were claiming 'science is an invention of philosophy' is demonstrated to be wrong. As I said Philosophy is just an abstract concept and science, mathematics, logic are all philosophies."  If you are talking about academic philosophy then yes, but that is not I mean by philosophy – namely the pursuit of wisdom.  Science on the other hand is not interested in truth as such but about models of the physical world that work and serve a practical purpose.

    "So give me your definition of 'thing'. " = That which is finite (and by finite I mean that which is bounded, limited and falls short of constituting the totality of all their is.)

    "My point is that you told us that 'nothing' is a not a thing, and nature also is not a thing. " Nature is not nothing, because things exist so for that reason it cannot be absolutely nothing at all.

    "You also said every concept A is caused by and causes the concept 'Not A'. Clearly the concept of nature (being totality of all things) is opposed to 'nothing'. " No its not, the concept of nothing is part of the totality, it doesn't exist "outside" nature.

    "You also said Universe doesn't exist." No it doesn't exist as such (as only things can be said to exist or not exist) but its not "nothing" either.

     

  218. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //The food that his mother eat for instance. //
    The food wasn't Hitler. And in fact you can as well say Hitler was born 'because of the Universe'.

    //It was definitely "caused" by those pre existing materials. //
    But none of them are 'definitely' Hitler.

    //All the materials that make a flame existed before the flame, likewise when a flame is extinguished it does not become "nothing" but changes form, but what it becomes is not a flame. //
    there is a definite time t1, before which the flame was non-existing, and a definite time t2, after which it was no more so. Its existence and identity is bounded in time.

    //If you accept nature doesn't have boundaries, then no particular thing can ultimately have boundaries because it is not separate from nature. //
    1. See the example of flame above.
    2. If nature doesn't have boundaries it doesn't imply that its elements don't have boundary.
    3. You are contradicting yourself again, in another post you just said that things have boundary.
    4. A thing may not be separate from nature, but it is not nature. There is no requirement for a thing to inherit properties of collection of all things. The set all natural number is infinite, but individual numbers are finite.

    //No they didn't "exist" as such //
    Don't add tags like 'as such'. Just say whether they existed before being identified or not?

    //just that no such label of "black hole" existed//
    Don't posture. I didn't say anything about the label. I am asking about the object.

    //That is basically what I have been saying.//
    No. You first said that the 'circumference' creates the circle, then you said the outside 'creates' the circle. None of which is true. The circumference is part of the definition of a circle, the outside of the circle is caused to be identified because of the existence of the circle.

    //I have never boundaries do not exist, so you are just making this "contradiction" up//
    I quote you back from the same comment: "If you accept nature doesn't have boundaries, then no particular thing can ultimately have boundaries" and you follow it up with "I have never (said) boundaries do not exist".

    //Number "4" depends on the existence of number "3". //
    The 'even-ness' of 4, doesn't depend on the non 'even-ness' of '3'. They are even or not-even depending on the criteria of even-ness, not 'because' of each other.

    //The concept of "A" causing the concept "Not A" (and vice versa) is not an event. //
    Big Bang was an event.

    //which is not truly infinite (in the sense it has no boundaries).//
    It has limitless real numbers. It is impossible to enumerate all these numbers (not-countable). From every logical measure of its elements (0,1) is infinite. But it is bounded.

  219. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //I Know that I am writing this right now, I don't "believe" it. //
    Then you are contradicting your earlier position that things only exist because of our mind perceiving it in some way. And I was saying exactly the opposite that our mind perceives it in some way because it exist. The same with boundaries and the same with the limit of 1889 for Hitler.

    //just that what exists is an appearance to our mind//
    If this is what you were saying then it is a worthless comment, same as saying that we see because we have eyes.

    //our mind is what defines what a "thing" is//
    No. Our mind doesn't define it, it understands or perceives it in a particular manner. In fact if it doesn't perceive that object in 'that' particular manner we say that there is a mental/cognitive issue :-). If we don't see 'red' it only means that we are suffering from Daltonism.

    //I am not saying those things are creating out of nowhere by our mind. //
    I wasn't saying that you were saying that it is created out of nowhere. I was saying that you were saying that reality is carved out by our mind.

    //Nonsense big bang cosmology makes no such claim//
    Your question was : Big Bang cosmology puts a limit in time till which any Causal chain may remain valid." What science says this?
    And the answer is Cosmology:-). If you are not well read on the subject I can't help.

    //It doesn't, in fact the scientists now say our universe was the result of a "quantum fluctuation" which gave birth to the physical properties of our universe.//
    tch tch. I said it limits it 'in time'. Big Bang Singularity is assumed to have happened 13.8 b years back. Thats a finite amount of time, a limit before which you can't move in time. The theory about quantum fluctuation comes just 'after' this Singularity causing the cosmic inflation.

    //Furthermore what scientific experiment demonstrates our universe came from nothing?//
    You had earlier agreed that Universe is uncaused. If so it has been caused by nothing. Causality breaks at Singularity.

    //How is it "uncaused" ? //
    Then tell me how is it caused? It is not a 'thing' (an object with an identity), it is a process or phenomenon.

    //Furthermore a "quantum fluctuation" is not "nothing". //
    It is not a 'thing'. And I didn't say it is nothing. When Theists says that the Universe was created out of nothing, they don't mean that some agent (God) created Universe out of some material identified as 'nothing'.

    //Which you should apply to yourself as no science can demonstrate a thing is "uncaused". //
    :-). You have agreed it is uncaused and that is a conclusion suggested by science. As far as demonstration is concerned you first define what is science and we will see then what role 'demonstration' plays.

    //Which is essentially what I said , namely a thing necessary for the existence of something else.//
    The mug(not apple) isn't a producer of the effect (the apple).

    //Which is not science, but logic/philosophy. //
    Which then is a tool of science. So what you were claiming 'science is an invention of philosophy' is demonstrated to be wrong. As I said Philosophy is just an abstract concept and science, mathematics, logic are all philosophies.

    //If nature is the totality of all things, then it cannot be a thing//
    Why? That is just your assumption. As I said as soon as you are saying that "nature is the totality of all things", you are ascribing it an identity to it. When you are studying physics, for example, you are describing its facets, the laws that are valid in it etc etc. I don't see a reason not to call it a thing unless you have some different definition of 'thing'. Broadly speaking, in philosophy, a 'thing' is something that we can think, describe, formulate against, give a logical coherent definition etc. So give me your definition of 'thing'.
    But that is beside the point. My point is that you told us that 'nothing' is a not a thing, and nature also is not a thing. You also said every concept A is caused by and causes the concept 'Not A'. Clearly the concept of nature (being totality of all things) is opposed to 'nothing'. So I simply used your formulation and came out with the conclusion 'not a thing', nature, causes 'not a thing', nothing:-). I know it is meaningless, but I told you what your propositions are leading us to.

    //Nothing doesn't exist (by definition).//
    You also said Universe doesn't exist.

  220. mysticalmind3 says:

    "As per you, you may not be writing, only your mind perceives that you are writing." I Know that I am writing this right now, I don't "believe" it. 

    "I was referring to your position that the entities are existing as a result of perception of mind. You are now contradicting yourself." I not claiming the mind creates reality (Solipsism) just that what exists is an appearance to our mind, and our mind is what defines what a "thing" is. I am not saying those things are creating out of nowhere by our mind.

    "Cosmology/Physics. " Nonsense big bang cosmology makes no such claim. Furthermore what scientific experiment demonstrates our universe came from nothing? Their is no such experiment, because first of all they would have to demonstrate "nothing" existed (a contradiction in terms) and then that the materials of our universe sprang into being out of this "nothing". Such a thing cannot be done.

    "If we believe Quantum Fluctuation, then it itself is uncaused" How is it "uncaused" ? Furthermore a  "quantum fluctuation" is not "nothing".

    "Don't talk about a subject that you know not much about," Which you should apply to yourself as no science can demonstrate a thing is "uncaused".

    "In plain English, a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect." Which is essentially what I said , namely a thing necessary for the existence of something else. 

    " After all experiments are based on observation and then deriving an inference. That is prove by deduction." Which is not science, but logic/philosophy.

    "First it is about the concept of "nature". Second I never accepted "nature" isn't a thing. Third, logically then "nature" is "nothing", which is also not a thing, according to you, and as per you the exact antithesis of existence ("nature"). Fourth, "nature" creates "nothing" and "nothing" creates "nature" since concept "A" creates concept "not A"." If nature is the totality of all things, then it cannot be a thing. Nature is not "nothing" as the concept of "nothing" can only exist in relation to the concept of "something". Their is nothing "other" than nature.

    " according to you, and as per you the exact antithesis of existence ("nature")." Nothing doesn't exist (by definition).

     "Fourth, "nature" creates "nothing" and "nothing" creates "nature" since concept "A" creates concept "not A"." Nature is not the opposite of "nothing" and nature cannot cause anything or be caused by anything as it is not any particular thing (including "nothing".)

     

     

      

  221. mysticalmind3 says:

    "And mind you tell me what these pre-existing materials were?" The food that his mother eat for instance.

    "His existence may have been caused by something pre-existing." It was definitely "caused"  by those pre existing materials.

    "Which didn't explain it in this light, that it is, so to say, eternal. You may try again." All the materials that make a flame existed before the flame, likewise when a flame is extinguished it does not become "nothing" but changes form, but what it becomes is not a flame.

    "If "nature" doesn't have spatial boundaries, and I am prepared to accept that," If you accept nature doesn't have boundaries, then no particular thing can ultimately have boundaries because it is not separate from nature.

    "it means that they have boundaries and these boundaries aren't merely creation of perceptions of one's mind. " Tell me what you think a boundary is then? 

    "Go back to the example of Black Holes. Do you claim that they didn't exist before being perceived?" No they didn't "exist" as such – since we are the one's who say what exists. (Note I am NOT claiming our mind created black holes out of nothing, just that no such label of "black hole" existed).

    "but yes, existence of a circle 'causes' its outside to be identified. " That is basically what I have been saying.

    "Its not logically possible for you to think  . Good. " I am still waiting for you to explain how a thing can exist inherently.

    "Because you are passing 'thin air'. You claim that 
    1. boundaries are non-existing and created by our own perception, for 'practical purpose'. 
    2. Not that boundaries do not exist in any sense at all. 
    self contradiction. Either boundaries exist or they don't. Stick to one." I have never boundaries do not exist, so you are just making this "contradiction" up. We perceive differences (boundaries) that is how we are able to carve up reality and give identities to those particular carved up pieces of nature. That is how things "exist" things do not exist inherently.

    "Logically also this can't be called 'cause' and 'effect' because of lack of proper identification." Why not? They cause each simple.

    " Mathematically, as an example, even numbers don't depend on existence of odd numbers." Number "4" depends on the existence of number "3".

    "On top of it, if you say that things don't have boundaries then you can't even separately identify "A" and "Not A". " They are bounded by each other, that is how I can identify them.

    "Yes, it doesn't say that a cause can't be an effect. In fact thats how a Causal Chain is formed." Good.

    " But a pair of Events can't be cause and effect of each other." The concept of "A" causing the concept "Not A" (and vice versa) is not an event.

    "Now you are redefining infinite" Here is the definition of "infinite" from a few online dictionaries "limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate:" "Having no boundaries or limits." "having no limits or boundaries in time, space, extent, or magnitude "  So that is exactly what "infinite" is, you are speaking about a mathematical infinite – which is not truly infinite (in the sense it has no boundaries).

     

     

  222. mysticalmind3 says:

    " It is a fact that 7 comes after 6 and so logically it is possible to get 7 on throw of the dice" Its not possible to throw a "7" on a six sided dice (with a range of 1-6).

  223. mysticalmind3 says:

    " They concluded the Anutpada. For example the Madhyamika school postulated that the ultimate truth is emptiness itself, the absence of concrete and inherent characteristics." No that is exactly what I concluded.

    "But you had a problem with nothingness. " Just as all things lack inherent existence – they lack inherent non-existence as well. Reality lacks all forms – even the form of nothingness. 

    " If the 'soul' is defined immaterial, non-corporeal, non-bodily component, as is understood by Theists" That is not how theists understand it, the "soul" to them is the self, which is independent of everything else (i..e exists inherently) and survives physical death – which is the exact opposite of what the Buddha taught.

    "Buddha clearly talked about Vigyana Strotam, the continuity of the stream of consciousness even after the death of the skandhas. " What he means is the effects of a person life continues (or "stream of consciousness) even after their physical death, but the body – and the mind – dies. In fact he taught the body is even more permanent than mind. 

    " In theory, this is just one way of looking at it." That is not what he says.

    "Truly thou art deluded. When man dies the body is dissolved into its elements, but the spirit is not entombed. It leads a higher mode of life in which all the relative terms of father, son, wife, mother, are at an end, just as a guest who leaves his lodging has done with it, as though it were a thing of the past." What he means is the spirit is infinite, it is never born and never dies. The spirit is permanent – the body finite.

    "But you aren't accepting the conclusions from the teachers who draw from the same authority" See my first reply in this comment. 

  224. Phoenix says:

    I'm busy re-reading Quantum Self (last 2 chapters) by Phd physicist Dana Zohar.She's a dualist as well as a proponent of the quantum vacuum.I'll respond as soon as I'm done.

  225. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //All what I said is, if we want to divide a thing up (and by that I do not mean necessarily physically splitting something.) then we can//
    And if by definition it is not divisible, then dividing it is logically incompatible (with the definition). Is there something about that point that you don't understand?

  226. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //You might throw a six-sided dice and get a seven.//
    What is the problem with it? It is a fact that 7 comes after 6 and so logically it is possible to get 7 on throw of the dice 🙂

  227. cchuckc says:

    @mystic,
    //Their is no point in time that those materials did not exist//
    There was a point in time beyond which those pre-existing materials (whatever these were) not identifiable with Hitler. And mind you tell me what these pre-existing materials were?

    //Unless you believe Hitler popped into being out of nothing at all?//
    Then you are saying "those pre-existing materials" popped into being out of nothing:-). Second I didn't say Hitler popped out of nothing, but that the entity identified as Hitler didn't exist beyond a certain time (1889). His existence may have been caused by something pre-existing.

    //I explained that with my example of the flame//
    Which didn't explain it in this light, that it is, so to say, eternal. You may try again.

    //I said "so to speak", nature does not have boundaries, so from "natures view" things don't begin and end. //
    Thats a pretty weak defense. If I am not wearing a shirt it doesn't mean all others are roaming bare-chested. If "nature" doesn't have spatial boundaries, and I am prepared to accept that, it doesn't impose any restrictions on the metrics of things it 'has'.

    //Which does not mean they exist separately and independently from everything else in the universe.//
    Straw man. it means that they have boundaries and these boundaries aren't merely creation of perceptions of one's mind.

    //How can a thing exist independent of being perceived? //
    Go back to the example of Black Holes. Do you claim that they didn't exist before being perceived?

    //That's because "immaterial soul" is a claim about the empirical world //
    So is the claims of 'Metaphysics'.

    //Clearly you don't understand philosophy, truth comes from philosophy and science is an invention of philosophy//
    Doesn't matter whether I understand Philosophy:-). You are trying to grill one branch of studies/knowledge on the lack of empirical evidence and exempting another branch from it. This is called Special Pleading. If Philosophy leads you to make such non-sense claims as splitting the point then I can only say that Science ISN'T an invention of Philosophy (In fact Philosophy is an abstract term, natural Sciences, Logic, Mathematics, Theology are all Philosophies).

    //An "outside" of the circle is required for the existence of the circle.//
    Not required for the definition of the circle. Existence of circle isn't 'caused' by an 'outside' (such a definition will be circular), but yes, existence of a circle 'causes' its outside to be identified.

    //Think" I have and its not logically possible//
    Its not logically possible for you to think :-). Good.

    //Their is no contradiction their, – just you grasping at thin air.//
    Because you are passing 'thin air'. You claim that
    1. boundaries are non-existing and created by our own perception, for 'practical purpose'.
    2. Not that boundaries do not exist in any sense at all.
    self contradiction. Either boundaries exist or they don't. Stick to one.

    //The cause and effect is simultaneous//
    Then they aren't cause and effect. They are simply inter-connected, entangled as I said.

    //"A" is the cause of "not "A", while simultaneous being caused by "not A" this concept is not that hard to understand really//
    In fact simultaneity is a vague concept. Physically, according to STR, simultaneity isn't an absolute property and depends on frame of reference. Logically also this can't be called 'cause' and 'effect' because of lack of proper identification. Mathematically, as an example, even numbers don't depend on existence of odd numbers. On top of it, if you say that things don't have boundaries then you can't even separately identify "A" and "Not A".

    //no law of logic says a cause cannot simultaneously be a effect as well //
    Yes, it doesn't say that a cause can't be an effect. In fact thats how a Causal Chain is formed. But a pair of Events can't be cause and effect of each other. The 'hitting the hammer on the nail head' is the 'cause' for the nail 'being driven in the wood', but the nail being so driven isn't the cause for hitting the hammer on its head. You can identify these two events on a time-line and assign ordered values to them.

    //When I speak of infinite I mean a thing which is truly infinite (has no boundaries anywhere and is limitless) not just a mathematical infinite (which is not truly infinite as it is bounded.)//
    Now you are redefining infinite:-). I just gave you an example of infinitely many points but bounded. After all your argument was that entities don't have boundaries:-)

  228. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //No I *know* it just like I know I am writing this right now.//
    Which according to your own theory is only a perception of your mind. As per you, you may not be writing, only your mind perceives that you are writing. Thats how illogical conclusions can come out of your position.

    //It does not matter that knowledge (like anything else) depends on things for its existence, what matters is the knowledge itself.//
    I was referring to your position that the entities are existing as a result of perception of mind. You are now contradicting yourself.

    //What science says this?//
    Cosmology/Physics.

    //in fact the scientists now say our universe was the result of a "quantum fluctuation" which gave birth to the physical properties of our universe//
    If we believe Quantum Fluctuation, then it itself is uncaused:-). Don't talk about a subject that you know not much about, I could have introduced it long back. Moreover quantum fluctuations don't push back into events prior to the planck epoch which is certainly 'after' the Big Bang.

    //How is the definition of cause as "something necessary for the existence of something else" "redefining cause altogether"? That is exactly what a cause is.//
    Aristotelianism. Any of the four things necessary for the movement or the coming into being of a thing, namely a material (material cause), something to act upon it (efficient cause) a form taken by the movement or development (formal cause) and a goal or purpose (final cause). In plain English, a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect.

    //You just observe two things happening together (the battery in a clock) and the tick of the clock and assume they are causally related based on what you observe.//
    That assumption is called an inference. After all experiments are based on observation and then deriving an inference. That is prove by deduction. It is simple to see that if you take out the cells the clock doesn't tick. That is prove by contradiction. "having charged cells" is a necessary condition for a "ticking clock" (Even if it may not be sufficient).

    // If you remember that nature is not a thing then yes. //
    First it is about the concept of "nature". Second I never accepted "nature" isn't a thing. Third, logically then "nature" is "nothing", which is also not a thing, according to you, and as per you the exact antithesis of existence ("nature"). Fourth, "nature" creates "nothing" and "nothing" creates "nature" since concept "A" creates concept "not A".

  229. mysticalmind3 says:

    "such as the unknown cause for radiactive decay of an element, is but one example." Which doesn't mean it *just happens* out of literally nothing at all. 

    "There cannot be any acausal occurences. " No things cannot just pop into being out of nowhere, if they did then everything in the whole universe would be entirely unpredictable.  For instance Elephants could be popping into existence in the quantum realm, for example. You might throw a six-sided dice and get a seven. That doesn't happen for the reason that things have causes.

    "Philosophical Materialism relies heavily on determinism for its beliefs;that every effect must have a cause and prior states determine precisely the next state." What else could determine the future then if not the present?

    "Atheists claim this law cannot be violated,therefore miracles are impossible." No the law of logic cannot be violated (in this case something coming from "nothing".) 

    "So for the amount of energy to have been borrowed from the vacuum would have been so great that the corresponding time would have been so little,that the universe would've dissappeared instantly and therefore unobservable."  The physicists argue that the energy of our universe was ZERO, they base this on the fact that energy can be both positive and negative,  gravitational energy is negative—when summed with the positive energy of the matter in the universe, the two quantities may cancel out. Based on that they then argue that their is no time limit, a quantum vacuum fluctuation of zero total energy could persist, so the longevity of our universe does not rule out a quantum vacuum fluctuation origin. (Note I am just repeating what they say, if you think you have a better explanation for how our universe came about tell them about it.) 

    "This indeterminancy also refutes Philosphical Materialism." Which has nothing to do with whether a thing is "uncaused" or not. It just means we cannot predict the future (with 100% accuracy at least) and you seem to be confusing the notion of "unpredictability" with something being "uncaused" the 2 things are entirely different.  

     

      

  230. Phoenix says:

    My equations should look more like this;although I can't find the "h bar"
    Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle regarding position and momentum = ΔxΔp≥h/2π
    Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle regarding uncertainty of energy and time = ΔEΔt≥h/2π

  231. Phoenix says:

    And where did those things come from? According to the cosmologists our universe was the result of fluctuations in the quantum vacuum (which is not "nothing")//

    First of all,there's no definitive proof that the Universe emerged from the quantum vacuum but even if it did then that theory would pose a number of problems for materialism in particular.because the subatomic world is rife with indeterminancy,such as the unknown cause for radiactive decay of an element, is but one example.
    Philosophical Materialism relies heavily on determinism for its beliefs;that every effect must have a cause and prior states determine precisely the next state.There cannot be any acausal occurences.
    The other problem for materialsts are the "Law of Conservation of Energy" or the "Principle of Causal Closure".Atheists claim this law cannot be violated,therefore miracles are impossible.
    However,Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle does allow for this violation,albeit only a short period.
    (deltaE x deltaT>=hbar(planks constant/2pi).The greater the energy the shorter the period of time.
    So for the amount of energy to have been borrowed from the vacuum would have been so great that the corresponding time would have been so little,that the universe would've dissappeared instantly and therefore unobservable.
    That reminds me Heisnbergs Uncertainty princple also states that position and momentum can't be measured simultaneuosly. (deltaXdeltap>=hbar).This indeterminancy also refutes Philosphical Materialism.

  232. Nyam. ..I'm so lazy reading long comments…~~

  233. mysticalmind3 says:

    "But this knowledge if subjected to your own principle that it all depends on perception implies that what you know as a fact (that things depends on something that is not itself) is itself only a perception created by your own mind. So you only believe it is so." No I *know* it just like I know I am writing this right now. It does not matter that knowledge (like anything else) depends on things for its existence, what matters is the knowledge itself.

    "Big Bang cosmology puts a limit in time till which any Causal chain may remain valid." What science says this? It doesn't, in fact the scientists now say our universe was the result of a "quantum fluctuation" which gave birth to the physical properties of our universe. 

    "Faced with this you decided to redefine 'Cause' altogether"  How is the definition of cause as "something necessary for the existence of something else"  "redefining cause altogether"?  That is exactly what a cause is.

    " I don't even have to set up an experiment to see that some particular effect is caused by a 'cause'; the tick of a electronic clock because of the charged cell in it, for example. "  You just observe two things happening together (the battery in a clock) and the tick of the clock and assume they are causally related based on what you observe. Their is no experiment that you can do however that demonstrates that the tick of a clock has anything to do with the battery.

    "Which means then there is at least one concept 'A' for which 'Not A' is meaningless." If you remember that nature is not a thing then yes. 

      

  234. mysticalmind3 says:

    "There was a point in time beyond which those pre-existing materials (whatever these were) not identifiable with Hitler and you have accepted that." Their is no point in time that those materials did not exist, their is just change their, not "beginnings" or "ends". Unless you believe Hitler popped into being out of nothing at all? 

    "And if you think that things aren't bounded in time or space, then why are you bounding mind within the brain. It is then pre-existing and will exist after death."  I explained that with my example of the flame. 

    "If Nature is inert it can't have a 'view', if it is not, then since it itself is subjected to change it is a 'thing' (since, per you, call changes are caused)" I said "so to speak", nature does not have boundaries, so from "natures view" things don't begin and end.

    "You have defined different entities because these were differentially identifiable" Which does not mean they exist separately and independently from everything else in the universe.

    "A change in perception doesn't change the thing, but only the perception of the thing." How can a thing exist independent of being perceived? 

    "After all that was the basis of your putting the concept of Immaterial Soul through empirical mechanism." That's because "immaterial soul" is a claim about the empirical world – and its a claim which cannot be proven by any means – scientifically or logically. 

    "So you shouldn't seek any special exemption from empirical/physical evidence for Philosophy either. " Clearly you don't understand philosophy, truth comes from philosophy and science is an invention of philosophy and could not work without philosophy. You cannot do a scientific experiment to show any science is valid and that's why you need philosophy for science to work.

    "No such supposition is required for the definition." An "outside" of the circle is required for the existence of the circle.

    "//How can it have boundaries if it is not bounded by other things? // 
    Think" I have and its not logically possible. 

    "See the self contradiction again: Boundaries are men's invention, but wait, I am not saying they don't exist in some other sense!!! This so typically you." Their is no contradiction their, – just you grasping at thin air.

    "Off course I showed it. If A is created because of 'Not A' and vice versa, then Causality fails because of lack of identification of Cause and Effect." The cause and effect is simultaneous.  "If we can't do this identification (Law of identity) we can't even say that the 'Cause' or the 'Effect' exist. " "A" is the cause of "not "A", while simultaneous being caused by "not A" this concept is not that hard to understand really.    "All you can say is A and Not A are entangled (If at all Not A exist, which is not a logical necessity)." Its a logical necessity that  "not A" exists, so they depend on each other logically.

    "If you aren't able to see the dichotomy hardly can I help." You are claiming my example of "not A" creating "A" (and vice versa) breaks the law of identity, it doesn't, no law of logic says a cause cannot simultaneously be a effect as well ( which is what "A" creating "not A" is). 

    "after all a set of cardinality 1 can always be conjured up. " I am still waiting for you explanation as to how a finite thing can exist inherently.

    "When did I say a thing doesn't have a boundary?" If you say things all things have boundaries then that means all things are finite so explain how a finite (bounded) thing can exist inherently? 

    "[0,1] is bounded but has infinite points." When I speak of infinite I mean a thing which is truly infinite (has no boundaries anywhere and is limitless) not just a mathematical infinite (which is not truly infinite as it is bounded.)  

     

      

     

     

     

  235. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical,
    //"seeing that all objects lack self-substance." Which is exactly what I have been arguing.//
    But you short of saying what they concluded. They concluded the Anutpada. For example the Madhyamika school postulated that the ultimate truth is emptiness itself, the absence of concrete and inherent characteristics. But you had a problem with nothingness.

    //Buddha (note the Buddha and not "Buddhism") did not believe in a "soul", in fact he taught the doctrine of Anatman ( "no self") which is also what he meant when he spoke of rebirth – the rebirth of the false "I". //
    First it means that you 'believe' what Buddha said was absolutely correct and complete. Second Anatman was a concept already espoused by Panini so it predates Buddha. Third your understanding of the underlying philosophy is wrong. Anatman doesn't mean no-soul, but only no-self. It all depends on how one defines the 'soul'. If the 'soul' is defined immaterial, non-corporeal, non-bodily component, as is understood by Theists then Buddha isn't denying its existence. Buddha clearly talked about Vigyana Strotam, the continuity of the stream of consciousness even after the death of the skandhas.

    //Here is a teaching Buddha gave on Identity and Non- identity//
    The link doesn't open. This is from the Gospel of Buddha which you are insisting is the only sayings of Buddha. Third, this teaching of identity and non-identity doesn't say anything about the immaterial soul, in fact by using the example of a child and the same child as grown up he is rejecting the identification of the 'ego' or 'self'. In theory, this is just one way of looking at it. We don't accept it as an injunction on the non-existence of the incorporeal soul. For example I quote from another chapter of the same book: And the World-honored One said: "Truly thou art deluded. When man dies the body is dissolved into its elements, but the spirit is not entombed. It leads a higher mode of life in which all the relative terms of father, son, wife, mother, are at an end, just as a guest who leaves his lodging has done with it, as though it were a thing of the past.

    //I have been arguing these things all along//
    But you aren't accepting the conclusions from the teachers who draw from the same authority:-).

  236. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical,
    //"Yes. " Explain, because their is just a process of change of pre existing materials, so Hitler (or anything else) cannot have a "ultimate beginning".//
    There was a point in time beyond which those pre-existing materials (whatever these were) not identifiable with Hitler and you have accepted that. And if you think that things aren't bounded in time or space, then why are you bounding mind within the brain. It is then pre-existing and will exist after death. And if so why are you crying hoarse about the immortality of the immaterial soul?

    //Natures process of change//
    If Nature is inert it can't have a 'view', if it is not, then since it itself is subjected to change it is a 'thing' (since, per you, call changes are caused) :-).

    //You have different entities, which you have defined – and that's it. Their is no physical separation between the arm and the hand for instance. //
    You have defined different entities because these were differentially identifiable:-). You don't operate the shoulder when your wrist is broken.

    //The differences are just perception, change the perception and the thing changes//
    When a more apt explanation is that the perceptions are just different, which is logical too since these perceptions are from different conscious minds. A change in perception doesn't change the thing, but only the perception of the thing.

    //If you take mind altering drugs then your perception of the physical world could radically change. //
    Missing the woods for the tree. The point was if consciousness is just chemicals then a theory on them, philosophies like determinism for example, should be subjected to empirical testing. After all that was the basis of your putting the concept of Immaterial Soul through empirical mechanism. So you shouldn't seek any special exemption from empirical/physical evidence for Philosophy either.

    //Explain then how a circle could exist without a circumference? It can't.//
    Typical Straw Man. I didn't say a circle exist without a circumference. I said a 'circumference' isn't an alien body that is put up with a circle it is part of the definition of the circle. A circle, by definition, has a circumference.

    //Yes and it will also be bounded by the "outside" of the circle//
    No such supposition is required for the definition.

    //Which did not "rubbish" anything. //
    Because you are dogmatic. You are stuck with an idea and will keep on spewing illogical and self-contradictory statements.

    //How can it have boundaries if it is not bounded by other things? //
    Think.

    //I am the position that boundaries are just labels that humans give to nature which they carve up for their their own purposes. Not that boundaries do not exist in any sense at all. //
    See the self contradiction again: Boundaries are men's invention, but wait, I am not saying they don't exist in some other sense!!! This so typically you.

    //You have not shown any such impossibility, if a thing did not have a boundary it would be "the all" and could not exist as particular finite thing.//
    Off course I showed it. If A is created because of 'Not A' and vice versa, then Causality fails because of lack of identification of Cause and Effect. If we can't do this identification (Law of identity) we can't even say that the 'Cause' or the 'Effect' exist. All you can say is A and Not A are entangled (If at all Not A exist, which is not a logical necessity).
    If you aren't able to see the dichotomy hardly can I help. Second there is no requirement for something not to be the 'all' in the context of its definition, after all a set of cardinality 1 can always be conjured up.

    //Also if a thing had no boundary it would have no beginning and end and would be infinite, which you keep claiming is impossible.//
    When did I say a thing doesn't have a boundary? It was you who said that boundaries are just labels, while I always maintained that things do have boundaries. See the logical pitfall!!

    //So what is it, are things finite (with boundaries) or are they not bounded and infinite? //
    [0,1] is bounded but has infinite points.

  237. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical,
    //I know for a fact a thing depends on something which is not itself.//
    But this knowledge if subjected to your own principle that it all depends on perception implies that what you know as a fact (that things depends on something that is not itself) is itself only a perception created by your own mind. So you only believe it is so.

    //Big bang cosmology does not say anywhere about where the universe it came from nor does it claim it came from nothing.//
    Which is a Straw man. Big Bang cosmology puts a limit in time till which any Causal chain may remain valid. Faced with this you decided to redefine 'Cause' altogether :-). And you made two tangential statements about the Universe. First you said it being uncaused is meaningless and then you said that it is un-caused.

    //"The even-ness" of 16 depends on a mind to define it for instance.//
    Your claim was that even-ness of a number depends on odd-ness of other numbers.

    //Not it just means you cannot test it scientifically.//
    Off course I can. I don't even have to set up an experiment to see that some particular effect is caused by a 'cause'; the tick of a electronic clock because of the charged cell in it, for example.

    //Their is nothing but nature so to speak of "not nature" is nonsensical.//
    Which means then there is at least one concept 'A' for which 'Not A' is meaningless.

    //No we are not, we are saying what nature IS NOT, not what "it is". //
    Off course we are saying something about it. If we say that this apple is not black, we are saying something about the apple. Moreover you are actually saying what it is: "it is the whole of existence".

  238. mysticalmind3 says:

    "You believe you know." I know for a fact a thing depends on something which is not itself.

    "We saw how you struggled with the consequences of Big Bang." Big bang cosmology does not say anywhere about where the universe it came from nor does it claim it came from nothing. So "big bang cosmology" has no philosophical relevance at all. 

    "Unsubstantiated claim. Disprove the example of even-ness of 16." "The even-ness" of 16 depends on a mind to define it for instance.

    "Assuming I can't, it proves that "any particular thing has a cause" has no physical sense." Not it just means you cannot test it scientifically.

     "Assuming I can, it proves that your basis of saying above is wrong." Which you can't.

    "by the way the 'logic' you were putting forth was meaningless." I was just pointing about the reason (or at least 1 of them) why determinism is a philosophy and not a science.

    "Taking 'A' as nature, and 'Not A' as 'Nothing' and your own position that 'A' creates 'Not A' and vice versa, we get that both 'nature' and 'Nothing' aren't a thing and they cause each other." Their is nothing but nature so to speak of "not nature" is nonsensical. 

    "If we are saying " Its not a particular thing" then WE ARE saying something about it!!" No we are not, we are saying what nature IS NOT, not what "it is". 

     

     
      

  239. Wilders4president says:

    Don't feed the muslim troll.

  240. Wilders4president says:

     – Prophet fought thousand of wars against the non-believers and set right example before us. –
    That's why we non-muslims are against islam. Is a religion of war, and you just stated this! We fear and don't want muslims in our lands because you fight us just because we have different beliefs.

    From your side, what is your problem with us infidels? Please don't quote anything from quran mohammed or wathever. I asked from your own opinion, not mohammed's.

  241. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Yes. " Explain, because their is just a process of change of pre existing materials, so Hitler (or anything else) cannot have a "ultimate beginning".

    " What is nature's view?" Natures process of change.

    "I explained. by the way, if you know what your arm is, and that the hand is connected with it, you already have a logical (and physical) separation. Doesn't matter whether you can see it." You have different entities, which you have defined – and that's it. Their is no physical separation between the arm and the hand for instance.

    ""No. They don't. The 'ceasing to exist' may only be a medical condition or a physical pretense, like wearing some sort of glasses. You see differences because there are differences otherwise there wouldn't have been any sense in the Law of identity." The differences are just perception, change the perception and the thing changes – or even ceases to exist. A thing with an identity is just something you conceive of in your mind and label.

    "If they are just chemicals, as you claim, then a theory on them can be subjected to empirical testing." If you take mind altering drugs then your perception of the physical world could radically change.

    " Its circumference is a part of its identity not an alien 'object' on which the circle depends." Explain then how a circle could exist without a circumference?  It can't.

    "The circumference 'is' the boundary." Yes and it will also be bounded by the "outside" of the circle.

    "Which I kept on rubbishing, just like I did with the circle example above." Which did not "rubbish" anything.

    "But that doesn't presupposes other things." How can it have boundaries if it is not bounded by other things?

    " You were off the position that things DONOT have boundaries " I am the position that boundaries are just labels that humans give to nature which they carve up for their their own purposes. Not that boundaries do not exist in any sense at all.

    "2. Isn't established and in fact is wrong. I have already shown the physical impossibility of such a definition, the logical expression is also meaningless" You have not shown any such impossibility, if a thing did not have a boundary it would be "the all" and could not exist as particular finite thing. Also if a thing had no boundary it would have no beginning and end and would be infinite, which you keep claiming is impossible. So what is it, are things finite (with boundaries) or are they not bounded and infinite?

     

     

     

      

  242. Wilders4President says:

    Who cares, as long as he is not muslim? And why you muslims always need to quote from books instead of trying to share a personal opinion about things? 

  243. mysticalmind3 says:

    "seeing that all objects lack self-substance." Which is exactly what I have been arguing.

    "Buddhism, for example, also believes in soul and reincarnation. Isn't it duplicity that for one view you evoke Buddha (Argument from authority) while the same authority also refers to Souls and Anutpada?" Buddha (note the Buddha and not "Buddhism")  did not believe in a "soul", in fact he taught the doctrine of Anatman ( "no self") which is also what he meant when he spoke of rebirth – the rebirth of the false "I". This has nothing to do with the nonsense interpretation of reincarnation/rebirth believed in by modern Hindus and Buddhists. Here is a teaching Buddha gave on Identity and Non- identity http://www.sacredtexts.com/bud/btg/btg54.htm Here is a quote "Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existent entities. Thy heart, O Brahman, is cleaving still to self; thou art anxious about heaven but thou seekest the pleasures of self in heaven, and thus thou canst not see the bliss of truth and the immortality of truth."

    " I find it amusing that now you are arguing from the same authority." I have been arguing these things all along, i.e things lacking inherent existence, identity being an illusion created by the present moment, change being the only constant and so on, only just did I mention Buddha.

  244. mysticalmind3 says:

    "If whole numbers are complete (ie. not lacking),and one can perform calculations using whole numbers alone then they exist and function independently from fractions." All what I said is, if we want to divide a thing up (and by that I do not mean necessarily physically  splitting something.) then we can. If you have "1" then automatically you have"0.5" (for example) it does not matter that you define of "1" as a whole number or you have physically "1" thing which cannot be physically split.  If you their is something about that point that you or Chuck don't understand, then their is no point arguing about it.

    "Prior to the big bang,there was no mass/energy and space time.Neither did the laws which govern the universe exist." And where did those things come from? According to the cosmologists our universe was the result  of fluctuations in the quantum vacuum (which is not "nothing"). 

  245. Phoenix says:

    I was not talking about the definition if you bothered to read what I said."
    In math and logic,definitions are not seperable.Understanding them is an integral part of those disciplines.If you wish to change the rules then justify your actions with either proof or universal opinion on your side.So far,you have neither.
    If whole numbers are complete (ie. not lacking),and one can perform calculations using whole numbers alone then they exist and function independently from fractions.
    There,a simple deduction.Check the terms for any correlation and check if the conclusion follow necessarily from the premises.
    ==
    Sages such as the Buddha and Lao Tzu defined the universe as everything that exists or ultimate reality not just the physical phenomena of the space-time bubble in which we live (which is how the cosmologists define the word universe).//
    I'm only interested in your definition of the word Universe,which is tautologically equivalent to the physical world.
    ==

    Nature is eternal and nothing has a beginning and end (which is what myself and Chuck have been arguing it). Nor does any science say nature had a "beginning" or an "end".// Leading cosmologists agree that the universe was created at the big bang nearly 14billion years ago.Prior to the big bang,there was no mass/energy and space time.Neither did the laws which govern the universe exist.If you wish to smuggle in some other hypothesis then do so empirically.

  246. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical
    //Sages such as the Buddha and Lao Tzu defined the universe as everything that exists or ultimate reality not just the physical phenomena of the space-time bubble in which we live//
    Which is OK. This is the view of Pratītyasamutpāda. This view is also incorporated in Ajativada of Advaita Vedanta and Nagarjuna's Madhyamika and both have come to the conclusion of Anutpada, seeing that all objects lack self-substance. They must had their reasons, those should be studied and the reasons should be understood. If you believe in their view then also it is fine. And you should be equally accommodating to another view. The other view also have reasons going for it and some people would find it more satisfying a theory. Buddhism, for example, also believes in soul and reincarnation. Isn't it duplicity that for one view you evoke Buddha (Argument from authority) while the same authority also refers to Souls and Anutpada? A similar notion also comes out of Gaudapad's Karika (Advaita Vedanta) – From the ultimate truth of Paramartha comes the phenomenal world, Maya.

    I also found that just a few posts back you were saying that Buddha and other sages may never have existed and may never have taught what is ascribed to them. I find it amusing that now you are arguing from the same authority.

  247. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //I don't define them like that, I am just stating the truth that a whole number is made of part numbers.//
    Which doesn't disprove what I said, that for the sets of whole numbers any traversal will only be jumps. It is meaningless to that you will have to pass through some fractions, because in that context fractions don't exist. I also referred you to Xeno's paradox, which is, a paradox. Your division ad infinitum is just that, a paradox.

    //I have already said if it thing can't be cut into pieces that has no bearing on the fact you logically have half that thing.//
    I have already said if it thing can't be cut into pieces, by definition, then you would never logically have half of that thing.

    //If you a thing can't get smaller then that's an empirical claim, not something that's true *by definition*. //
    Thats true by definition. The whole of Geometry is based on these simple notions of points and lines. Now don't tell me that basis is illogical.

    //and that means he had an ultimate beginning//
    Yes.

    //even though from natures view //
    :-). What is nature's view?

    //The question is not of exactitude but where your hand begins and ends, for I see no beginning to my hand, its fully connected to my arm (and so on). //
    I explained. by the way, if you know what your arm is, and that the hand is connected with it, you already have a logical (and physical) separation. Doesn't matter whether you can see it.

    //it is just us that carves reality up//
    Thats a claim. Whats' the proof? If we carve the reality about an entity (say the hand) up as you say, then all you need is a tight slap on your cheek to know that it is real enough.

    //No it does not, since the apples are not part of the bucket.//
    Wrong. I never assumed apples are 'part of' the bucket. They are in it, so the bucket 'has' the apples, much the same way as the Universe 'has' all the various entities that exist.

    //So if you have a different perception, a things boundaries change or even ceases to exist, so the "differences" are dependent on perception.//
    No. They don't. The 'ceasing to exist' may only be a medical condition or a physical pretense, like wearing some sort of glasses. You see differences because there are differences otherwise there wouldn't have been any sense in the Law of identity.

    //Our consciousness is just chemicals and that certainly is not "magic".//
    If they are just chemicals, as you claim, then a theory on them can be subjected to empirical testing.

    //The example of the circumference does nothing to answer it. A circle existence is still dependent on its circumference//
    Meaningless. A circle, by definition, has a circumference. Its circumference is a part of its identity not an alien 'object' on which the circle depends.

    //Or in other words if the circumference had no boundary a circle could possible exist. //
    circumference had no boundary :-). Non-sense. The circumference 'is' the boundary.

    //I have substantiated it many times (such as above with the circle example)//
    Which I kept on rubbishing, just like I did with the circle example above.

    //Which means they exist only in relation to things which they are not//
    No. It means that they can be given an identity. No assumption of other things are needed.

    //It means that it has boundaries and particular characteristics which make it identifiable as a distinct thing //
    Yes. But that doesn't presupposes other things.

    //which means their are "other" things besides it (otherwise you would not be able to recognize it as a distinct thing).//
    other things may or may not be there. If you can identify something based on its own characteristics you don't have to think of 'other things'. Go back to the example of 16 and its even-ness.

    //It has been established that 1)A thing necessarily has boundaries, 2)A boundary could not exist if their was nothing "other" than that thing. 3) Therefore a thing can only exist in relation to what it is not.//
    1. is established by me, not you. You were off the position that things DONOT have boundaries :-).
    2. Isn't established and in fact is wrong. I have already shown the physical impossibility of such a definition, the logical expression is also meaningless.
    3. Doesn't follow since 1 is not your position and 2 isn't a fact.

  248. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //No I know that all things have causes//
    You believe you know. We saw how you struggled with the consequences of Big Bang. You made two tangential statements about the Universe.

    //because all things depend on something other than themselves.//
    Unsubstantiated claim. Disprove the example of even-ness of 16.

    //So causality is just a purely logical about reality//
    A = A is a tautology.

    //You cannot set up a scientific experiment that can prove any particular thing has a cause//
    Assuming I can't, it proves that "any particular thing has a cause" has no physical sense. So you are wrong. Assuming I can, it proves that your basis of saying above is wrong.

    //Causality/determinism as I said before is a philosophy not a science, philosophies can only be proven (or disproven) logically //
    Special Pleading. A Theist will say that spiritual things can only be understood by a particular reasoning:-). by the way the 'logic' you were putting forth was meaningless.

    //No science says the universe is uncaused, you are talking bulls***.//
    I have already given you the 2 logical conclusions one of which you first said was meaningless and then accepted.

    //No I am talking about the "real" nature //
    If you are talking about real nature then natural sciences are the best candidate to describe it empirically.

    //Causality is a tool, which helps us identity things and make sense of the world we live in.//
    Rhetoric. Things are identified by what they are, that posits no assumption on all the things that they aren't. It is simply impossible to describe an apple as not a mug, not a bucket, not a carpet.. this list can't be enumerated. And will be circular, since as soon as you define an apple as not a mug, it begs the question what is a mug, another possibly infinite definition would follow including a mug is not an apple :-).

    //I have not seen you rubbish anything.//
    That is because you are dogmatic. You don't see reason or logic.

    //Its necessary for an athlete to have a brain without it they could not have become an athlete, just like if they not follow a certain diet //
    Many long distance runners from Africa come from under-fed countries. Moreover I have already given you the logical and mathematical position on what qualifies as a necessary condition and what is called a sufficient condition.

    //is 1 that is made purely for practical purposes…Such a thing is done for purely practical purposes.//
    Then your theory are at least impractical and from the discourse done so far, illogical too. The logical structure is just that: 'logical'.

    //why Usain Bolt is the fastest man on the planet you probably would not say "brain" or "oxygen" but upbringing, education, training and so on//
    What one might choose to say depends on the question asked. If I ask the question would Usain Bolt become the fastest person on earth if he didn't have a brain or if he wasn't born, then the answer will be No.

    //Which has nothing do with the definition of universe as "the totality of all that exists" //
    Which completes the definition of Universe by principles governing it (understood so far). Otherwise you are talking about 'imaginary' universe(s) or a mathematical universe. In a Mathematical Universe items of only one kind may exist (Depending on definition), that is have cardinality of 1. And an 'imaginary' universe is, well, 'imaginary'. You are free to imagine anything about it, including illogical stuffs.

    //What is not clear about the definition "the totality of all that exists"? It is very clear.//
    Straw man. I didn't say anything about the definition but the comment was directed at your insistence that A causes Not A and vice versa. I quote back:
    "Taking 'A' as nature, and 'Not A' as 'Nothing' and your own position that 'A' creates 'Not A' and vice versa, we get that both 'nature' and 'Nothing' aren't a thing and they cause each other.

    //I am not lying, I was not talking about universe there//
    I said you were talking about 'Nothing' there. Because it was in response to your saying that "the exact opposite of existence" that is what you have made up".

    //which means we cannot say anything about it, not hard to understand. //
    :-). If we are saying " Its not a particular thing" then WE ARE saying something about it!! That isn't hard to understand either.

  249. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Which part of that definition has you confused? " I was not talking about the definition if you bothered to read what I said.

    "Nature refers to the phenomena of the physical world or synonymous with the Universe." Sages such as the Buddha and Lao Tzu defined the universe as everything that exists or ultimate reality not just the physical phenomena of the space-time bubble in which we live (which is how the cosmologists define the word universe).

    "Is nature eternal or does it have a beginning and ending?" Nature is eternal and nothing has a beginning and end (which is what myself and Chuck have been arguing it). Nor does any science say nature had a "beginning" or an "end".

  250. Phoenix says:

    A "whole number" is made of fractions/parts so clearly it "requires" those parts."

    A whole number is by definition, an integer which is NOT a fraction.It is complete or whole , ie. not lacking.
    Which part of that definition has you confused?

    ==
    What you do not seem to be understanding is that nature IS NOT A THING it is the TOTALITY OF ALL THINGS. Nature includes existent things , so it not correct to say it is absolutely nothing, – but it is not a something either. To quote Lao Tzu "Nature is unborn, and therefore ever-living" //

    You've conflated many concepts here.Nature refers to the phenomena of the physical world or synonymous with the Universe.But then you quote Lao Tzu, whose theory contradicts modern cosmology,that nature or the physical world began at the Big Bang and will seize to exist at the Final crunch.
    You seem confused,so which is it? Is nature eternal or does it have a beginning and ending?

  251. mysticalmind3 says:

    @Chuck part 2
    On causality

    "It is merely your believe that everything has a cause." No I know that all things have causes, because all things depend on something other than themselves. So causality is just a purely logical about reality, just like A=A or 1+1=2.

    "As far as causality in nature is concerned physical science is the study of nature, so scientific method may be applied and the veracity of the principle checked." You cannot set up a scientific experiment that can prove any particular thing has a cause, let alone that everything in existence has a cause, it is simple beyond the realm of science to be able to do this. Causality/determinism as I said before is a philosophy not a science, philosophies can only be proven (or disproven) logically not empirically. So it is not special pleading.

    " It fails at Big Bang singularity due to lack of time. " No science says the universe is uncaused, you are talking bulls***. 

    "OTOH if you are talking about some 'imaginary' nature, then it is merely acting on a belief or dogma." No I am talking about the "real" nature (i.e the totality of all that exists), not an "imaginary nature".

    "It makes no sense if you define Causality the way you defined and insist that A 'causes' Not A and vice versa." Causality is a tool, which helps us identity things and make sense of the world we live in. 

    "That 'purely logical' view has been rubbished. " I have not seen you rubbish anything.

    On necessary and sufficient conditions 

    "  Take the first one, having a brain is a necessary condition to be an athlete, but is it sufficient (even 'ultimately' whatever you meant by that)?" Its necessary for an athlete to have a brain without it they could not have become an athlete, just like if they not follow a certain diet and exercise regime they could not have become an athlete. Such a distinction between "necessary conditions"  and "sufficient conditions", is 1 that is made purely for practical purposes, for instance if asked to list the reasons as to why Usain Bolt is the fastest man on the planet you probably would not say "brain" or "oxygen" but upbringing, education, training and so on. Such a thing is done for purely practical purposes. 

    On universe/nature

    "And it continues and says: According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of three principles: spacetime, forms of energy, including momentum and matter, and the physical laws that relate them." Which has nothing do with the definition of universe as "the totality of all that exists"

    " From this it clear you clear you don't have a coherent logical formulation and talking in the air. " What is not clear about the definition "the totality of all that exists"? It is very clear.

    "And now lying. I quote you: It is the complete antithesis of “something” in every respect" I am not lying, I was not talking about universe there, so it you who is the liar and no where have I said the universe is literally nothing at all.  

    "If this question is nonsensical then it means: we can't say what is Reality. But if so it is then your definition" Yes if you understand the definition, you will know its not a particular thing, which means we cannot say anything about it, not hard to understand.

  252. mysticalmind3 says:

    @Chuck Part 1
    On wholes and parts – "It is pseudo-maths to define whole numbers as such." I don't define them like that, I am just stating the truth that a whole number is made of part numbers.

    "Which has nothing to do with the fact that if you have only 'wholes' you never have a part of that whole." I have already said if it thing can't be cut into pieces that has no bearing on the fact you logically have half that thing.

    " A point can't be divided by definition." What do you mean *by definition*? If you a thing can't get smaller then that's an empirical claim, not something that's true *by definition*.

    "If it isn't going through my brain it is simply because your refutations are illogical." Since no of us getting anywhere with the discussion about "parts and wholes" I think we should leave it there (on that topic), agreed?

    On beginnings
    " If these aren't recognizable as 'Hitler' by the Law of identity these aren't Hitler. " Great you have a conception in your head as to what "Hitler" is and that means he had an ultimate beginning, even though from natures view (so to speak) no such beginning exists. 

    "Exactitude doesn't matter, but I can certainly say that my hands don't reach my legs or knees or anywhere beyond the respective shoulders. I can say that the shoulder and the finger tips are the limits for my hand." The question is not of exactitude but where your hand begins and ends, for I see no beginning to my hand, its fully connected to my arm (and so on). All a thing is a conception in our mind of a particular part of reality (such as our hand), things however don't have beginnings or ends however, it is just us that carves reality up and labels for our own purposes. If you think this is not the case then that means you think things can exist inherently which I will get to now.

     On Inherent existence –
    "The bucket here is an universal, it contains everything that exists (in this case the apples)."
    No it does not, since the apples are not part of the bucket.

    "That may be an issue of perception, mental imbalance or dyslexia for example. It doesn't imply the differences aren't there."  So if you have a different perception, a things boundaries change or even ceases to exist, so the "differences" are dependent on perception.

    "If this causes aren't empirical or even evidential then they are magical the same way as the 'Immaterial Soul' is deemed by you, since these perceptions are of physical things." Our consciousness is just chemicals and that certainly is not "magic". 

    "I underline the word 'bounded' here:-). Long back I had used the example of circle to say that it doesn't matter whether you take the 'inside' of the circle or the 'outside' of the circle, the circumference does divide the region distinctly. " I see you conveniently forgot to answer how a apple that exists will not be bounded by other things (that is not itself) in its environment. The example of the circumference does nothing to answer it. A circle existence is still dependent on its circumference, and their being an "outside" it. Or in other words if the circumference had no boundary a circle could possible exist.

    //A boundary can only exist if their is something other to be bounded by// 
    "Which is illogical. This is a claim you haven't substantiated yet. " I have substantiated it many times (such as above with the circle example) you just keep repeating your nonsense to justify your blind faith in inherent existence.

    " Using your (1) they necessarily have boundaries :-)" Which means they exist only in relation to things which they are not. Which I have been saying from the start and only now you seem to have agreed to it. 

    "1. makes no assumption of other entities." It means that it has boundaries and particular characteristics which make it identifiable as a distinct thing which means their are "other" things besides it (otherwise you would not be able to recognize it as a distinct thing). 

    "An identity is only dependent on what we know about the entity, not on what we know about ALL THE OTHER ENTITIES that this entity isn't (It is logically not required and physically not possible, and even if such an enumeration is possible it won't reveal anything about the entity in question)." It has been established that 1)A thing necessarily has boundaries, 2)A boundary could not exist if their was nothing "other" than that thing. 3) Therefore a thing can only exist in relation to what it is not.

       

  253. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical
    //So its "pseudo maths" that a whole number is made up of parts of that number? //
    It is pseudo-maths to define whole numbers as such. I am not denying the existence of fractions or their being added on to get a whole number, but thats not part of the group of whole numbers. Simply speaking they don't exist in the paradigm of whole numbers. A traversal on the Whole numbers is simply a jump from one number to the next.

    //Which has nothing to do with the fact that if you have a whole you automatically have a part of that whole. //
    Which has nothing to do with the fact that if you have only 'wholes' you never have a part of that whole.

    //A photon exists, therefore half that photon exists.//
    That is your dogma and nothing more. A point can't be divided by definition.

    //I have already refuted it, I have to repeat myself because you cannot seem to get what I am saying through your brain. //
    If it isn't going through my brain it is simply because your refutations are illogical.

    //Hitler existed as all the things that made him what he was, it is true that those things were not recognizable as "Hitler", but that is how he "existed" before 1889.//
    If these aren't recognizable as 'Hitler' by the Law of identity these aren't Hitler.

    //So tell me where the hand ends and the rest of the body begins?//
    Exactitude doesn't matter, but I can certainly say that my hands don't reach my legs or knees or anywhere beyond the respective shoulders. I can say that the shoulder and the finger tips are the limits for my hand. But lest you forget, I asked you the question and you are yet to answer in Yes/No.

    //Yes that is the definition I agree with//
    And it continues and says: According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of three principles: spacetime, forms of energy, including momentum and matter, and the physical laws that relate them.

    //From this it clear you clear you don't have a clue what nature is//
    From this it clear you clear you don't have a coherent logical formulation and talking in the air.

    //the exact opposite of existence" that is what you have made up, I said no such thing.//
    And now lying. I quote you: It is the complete antithesis of “something” in every respect

    //Since its has been defined this question "how can we say what is reality?" is nonsensical. //
    If this question is nonsensical then it means: we can't say what is Reality. But if so it is then your definition "Reality is everything that exists/the totality of all things" which actually is saying 'what Reality is', is non-sensical:-)

  254. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical
    //"immaterial soul" is a claim about the empirical world//
    So is the notion "everything has a cause".

    //cannot be tested scientifically as science cannot prove that any particular thing has a cause let alone that everything that exists has a cause//
    Special Pleading again. It is merely your believe that everything has a cause. As far as causality in nature is concerned physical science is the study of nature, so scientific method may be applied and the veracity of the principle checked. It fails at Big Bang singularity due to lack of time. OTOH if you are talking about some 'imaginary' nature, then it is merely acting on a belief or dogma.

    //I have done and it says essentially what I wrote.//
    No sir. No book of logic says that 'necessary conditions' and 'sufficient conditions' are same. On occassions they may be same (The same condition may be both necessary and sufficient). In your example you are taking two separate conditions. Take the first one, having a brain is a necessary condition to be an athlete, but is it sufficient (even 'ultimately' whatever you meant by that)? I know of people with brains who aren't athlete, academic circle is in fact full of such people:-). It is necessary to be a mammal to be a human being but not sufficient to be a mammal to be a human being. The second condition isn't even sufficient. You can eat the right sort of food but you needn't become an athlete, in fact you may become an athlete even without eating the right kind of food (Most upcoming African long distance runners will say the same).

    //explain what the ultimate difference is between a "necessary condition" and a "sufficient condition". //
    In logic and mathematics: If 'A' is necessary condition for 'B' then A <= B (B implies A, If B then A) and If 'A' is a sufficient condition for 'B' then A => B (A implies B, If A then B).

    //Incorrect "the bucket is not reality itself, it would be "everything that is not the apple" not "everything that exists". //
    Incorrect. Look back at your example: "conceive in your mind of an apple in a bucket ". The bucket here is an universal, it contains everything that exists (in this case the apples).
    And as I said, a set of cardinality 1 is both logically and mathematically possible.

    //If that's the case then why bother continue to debate with you, since you prefer to talk in a different language?//
    Don't bother then :-).

    //Causality is a tool we use to make sense of the world around us – nothing more.//
    It makes no sense if you define Causality the way you defined and insist that A 'causes' Not A and vice versa.

    //No i am not talking about a "spiritual dimension" to causality but a purely logical view of it//
    That 'purely logical' view has been rubbished.

    //The whole point is they are just a perception, if you had a different perception then you would perceive where a thing begins and ends very differently or maybe not even perceive a thing at all.//
    That may be an issue of perception, mental imbalance or dyslexia for example. It doesn't imply the differences aren't there.

    //If our perceptions have causes then they are not magical. //
    If this causes aren't empirical or even evidential then they are magical the same way as the 'Immaterial Soul' is deemed by you, since these perceptions are of physical things.

    //No it won't it will be bounded by everything else that exists in its environment. //
    I underline the word 'bounded' here:-). Long back I had used the example of circle to say that it doesn't matter whether you take the 'inside' of the circle or the 'outside' of the circle, the circumference does divide the region distinctly.

    //A boundary can only exist if their is something other to be bounded by//
    Which is illogical. This is a claim you haven't substantiated yet.

    //1. An entity needs boundary's to exist //
    1. Entities exist thats the first law of logic, those that exist have identities. Using your (1) they necessarily have boundaries 🙂
    //2. An identity is dependent on being recognized as separate from some other thing with its own particular characteristics.//
    2. 1. makes no assumption of other entities. As I said sets of cardinality 1 is possible. An identity is only dependent on what we know about the entity, not on what we know about ALL THE OTHER ENTITIES that this entity isn't (It is logically not required and physically not possible, and even if such an enumeration is possible it won't reveal anything about the entity in question).

  255. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Now you are introducing pseudo-mathematics too." So its "pseudo maths" that a whole number is made up of parts of that number?

    " I said, the definition of Whole numbers doesn't require the concept of fractions. And I am correct." Which has nothing to do with the fact that if you have a whole you automatically have a part of that whole.

    "You can't logically reach which doesn't exist by definition." A photon exists, therefore half that photon exists. 

    "Already explained." All you said is you can not physically smaller than a photon, which I have already said has nothing to do with anything I have said.  "Try to counter point 1 and 2. Mere rhetoric and repeats doesn't prove anything. Try to counter point 1 and 2. Mere rhetoric and repeats doesn't prove anything." I have already refuted it, I have to repeat myself because you cannot seem to get what I am saying through your brain.

    "Or tell me how Hitler existed before 1889." Hitler existed as all the things that made him what he was, it is true that those things were not recognizable as "Hitler", but that is how he "existed" before 1889. 

    "Yes" So tell me where the hand ends and the rest of the body begins?

    " The wiki link below presents it succinctly:" Yes that is the definition I agree with "More customarily, the Universe is defined as everything that exists, (has existed, and will exist)".

    "Taking 'A' as nature, and 'Not A' as 'Nothing' and your own position that 'A' creates 'Not A' and vice versa, we get that both 'nature' and 'Nothing' aren't a thing and they cause each other. How can this be meaningful?" From this it clear you clear you don't have a clue what nature is, nature is everything their is no "not nature" (by definition), nor is nature "nothing" or "the exact opposite of existence" that is what you have made up, I said no such thing. Only things can exist (or "not exist"), so the labels "existing" or "non existing" do not apply to nature. 

    "My question was if however 'Reality' is non existing we can't say anything about it, this includes the question "how can we say what is reality?" Reality is everything that exists/the totality of all things, it is not "non existence". Since its has been defined this question  "how can we say what is reality?" is nonsensical.

     

  256. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical
    //A "whole number" is made of fractions/parts so clearly it "requires" those parts. //
    Now you are introducing pseudo-mathematics too. I said, the definition of Whole numbers doesn't require the concept of fractions. And I am correct. As an example, when a child is taught simple addition and subtraction using digits on her hands, she isn't 'required to be' bothered about any fractions.

    //No it doesn't since my "point" did not have anything to do with whether a thing can physically be split in half. //
    You can't logically reach which doesn't exist by definition. As I said it is similar to splitting the geometrical point. Logically wrong.

    //Actually it is you who straw manning here, it doesn't matter if it is the smallest possible cake in the universe, what matters is you still have two halves of that cake//
    Already explained. Try to counter point 1 and 2. Mere rhetoric and repeats doesn't prove anything.

    //Since Hitler did not pop into being out of nowhere, but is the result of a countless causes you cannot find that limit anywhere//
    1889 is the limit in time. Or tell me how Hitler existed before 1889.

    //Is their a point in your body which is not part of your hand? //
    Yes. Now you answer my question.

    //Which means you have a very different definition of "universe" than I do, which means you are effectively speaking in a different language again. //
    I am using the exact understanding of Universe that started expanding from the Big Bang. This was the starting point of reference for the discussion on Causality, lest you forget. Now if YOU switch to another thing then its your problem. The wiki link below presents it succinctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Definition_

    //What you do not seem to be understanding is that nature IS NOT A THING it is the TOTALITY OF ALL THINGS.//
    And what you don't seem to understand that I am correlating your 'nature isn't a thing' to another of your own position 'nothing isn't a thing' and also that 'nothing is the exact opposite of existence'. Taking 'A' as nature, and 'Not A' as 'Nothing' and your own position that 'A' creates 'Not A' and vice versa, we get that both 'nature' and 'Nothing' aren't a thing and they cause each other. How can this be meaningful?

    //If you understand what I said you will understand why we cannot say anything about *it*.//
    My question was if however 'Reality' is non existing we can't say anything about it, this includes the question "how can we say what is reality?"

  257. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Its not a logical truth" It is, if you have a 1 thing then you have half that thing (regardless of whether it can be physically split or get smaller).

    "The definition of whole numbers don't 'require' any fractions or part." A "whole number" is made of fractions/parts so clearly it "requires" those parts.

    "Which disproves your point that a fundamental particle can be halved ad infinitum." No it doesn't since my "point" did not have anything to do with whether a thing can physically be split in half.

    "Straw Man. The correct wordings should be "imagine a whole cake that is known to be the smallest cake". Any thought of partitioning to half a cake would imply: 1. It isn't the smallest possible cake, OR 2. The partition isn't a cake. 
    Now 1 is false because of the definition and 2 takes the position out of context. Therefore the thought of partitioning is illogical." Actually it is you who straw manning here, it doesn't matter if it is the smallest possible cake in the universe, what matters is you still have two halves of that cake.

    "1889 in case of Hitler is one such limit." Since Hitler did not pop into being out of nowhere, but is the result of a countless causes you cannot find that limit anywhere, or if you can (which you can't) then you could just as set the limit at 1789 or at any point in time you want.

    " Is there a point on the wall that isn't part of the clock?" Is their a point in your body which is not part of your hand?

    "In fact the Universe has spatial and temporal metrics. So its existence can't be questioned." Which means you have a very different definition of "universe" than I do, which means you are effectively speaking in a different language again. 

    "You said Universe can't exist, and you also said that 'Nothing' can't exist and you said A creates Not A. So Universe 'creates' Nothing although both of them don't exist. The only way this may happen is if they are one and same (Although in that case 'creates' becomes meaningless but then a lot of what you are alluding to are just that, meaningless)."  What you do not seem to be understanding is that nature IS NOT A THING it is the TOTALITY OF ALL THINGS. Nature includes existent things , so it not correct to say it is absolutely nothing, – but it is not a something either. To quote Lao Tzu  "Nature is unborn, and therefore ever-living"

    "Fallacious. You just said something about it "it is not a particular thing"  If you understand what I said you will understand why we cannot say anything about *it*.

      

     

  258. mysticalmind3 says:

    "By the same token you shouldn't look for empirical evidence of Immaterial Soul in neuro-science." "immaterial soul" is a claim about the empirical world, the claim however that "everything has a cause" while if true would apply to the empirical world, cannot be tested scientifically as science cannot prove that any particular thing has a cause let alone that everything that exists has a cause.

    "Please read any decent article on mathematical/propositional logic on necessary conditions and sufficient conditions." I have done and it says essentially what I wrote. For instance for a person to become say an athlete it is a "necessary condition" that the person has a brain in their skull, but it is a "sufficient condition" that the person, eats the right foods and trains to the degree required to be an athlete. If their is something wrong in this example let me know. And if not then explain what the ultimate difference is between a "necessary condition" and a  "sufficient condition".

    "To use your own words, the bucket here is Reality (A Universal) itself. So in this particular 'Reality' only apples might exist and identifiable. A set of cardinality 1 is both logically and mathematically possible. The identification of apples don't require existence of 'Not apples'." Incorrect "the bucket is not reality itself, it would be "everything that is not the apple" not "everything that exists".

    "Which I rejected, remember?" If that's the case then why bother continue to debate with you, since you prefer to talk in a different language? 

    "And now logically using your own statement which implies that Causality doesn't exist" Causality is a tool we use to make sense of the world around us – nothing more.

    "If you are talking about some 'spiritual nature' then I see no reason to not accept the Law Of Karma which also posits a spiritual dimension to Causality." No i am not talking about a "spiritual dimension" to causality but a purely logical view of it, as opposed to just a scientific/empirical view of it.

    "The question was how can we perceive differences if there aren't differences" The whole point is they are just a perception, if you had a different perception then you would perceive where a thing begins and ends very differently or maybe not even perceive a thing at all.

    "If they don't exist but are perceived then they are popping magically or their causes are magical." If our perceptions have causes then they are not magical.

    "An apple will be bounded by itself (Its skin if you insist)." No it won't it will be bounded by everything else that exists in its environment.

    "Your original position was that entities exist but their boundaries DONOT exist, If I assume that position, then you shouldn't even raise the issue that "how a thing without a beginning or end or boundaries can exist?"." I have never said entities exist ( and by that I mean exist inherently which is what is needed if a boundary was ultimately real).   "So entities have boundaries, individual apples will have. A Cosmos with only apples is therefore possible and individual apples can be identified."   A boundary can only exist if their is something other to be bounded by. So what you wrote about about an apple (or any other thing) existing inherently can just be dismissed out of hand.    "Very simply saying: 1. Entities exist, 2. Existing entities have identities, 3. Apples exist. From 1, 2 and 3 Apples exist and have identities. This makes absolutely no assumption on 1. boundaries (though they have, even if they may not have), 2. Existence of other entities." 1. An entity needs boundary's to exist 2. An identity is dependent on being recognized as separate from some other thing with its own particular characteristics.

    "A can exist. There is no reason to ascribe a relationship to other things. I proved that with the example of even numbers and how '16' is a member of that set." So if I draw an "A" on a piece of paper, its existence won't depend on say 1)The piece of paper 2)The pen 3) The ink in the pen and 4) me (just to name a few)? Of course it will – just like everything else in the universe.

      

     

     

  259. Demsci says:

    //"Do you know your crime & Punishment for this. I think No. As per holy Quran"//

    SlaveOfProphet, a few points; You know that there are Muslims and infidels. The infidels believe in no religion or in another religion. Now, if a person commits him/ herself to a religion and it's holy texts, then of course that person must play by the rules of religion/ holy texts.

    But WHY should a non-believer or a believer in a different religion have to play by the rules of a religion he or she may know nothing about or may want to have nothing to do with???

    You KNOW that Sakat is NOT a Muslim, but a Buddhist. Sakat does not believe in your holy book. And he has no obligation to follow it's rules. So WHY do you tell him about the punishment for ridiculing your Prophet? Just so he is informed about the rules for MUSLIMS, which should not effect him?

    How would you like it, when he told you what you did wrong according to the rules of Buddhism? Would you respect that? Should you?

    You are both Indians, and in a country it is important that all citizens follow the laws of the country, and are in solidarity with compatriots. Because the laws and the police and the healthcare is there to protect all citizens, including all their children, when they are sick, and the children of all citizens go to schools.

    All this is payed for by taxed compatriots, so if you feel you have rights in your country, don't forget that you have duty of loyalty and solidarity to your compatriots.

    But what do you do? You have the highest loyalty for your fellow-Muslims, in different countries, as you must, per your Quran. More loyalty for them than loyalty to compatriots.

    Even if the Muslims in other countries sometimes are hostile to your country, and even though it is your compatriots that take care of you and your loved ones for their safety and health and education, and the foreign Muslims do not pay one cent for that.

    Sakat and you are both only under the laws of your country, you are not both under the laws of your or his religion! And he accepts it, but I think you don't. Under the laws of India Sakat has freedom of speech and in a VERBAL way, on the internet, he can insult whom he wants!!! You speak like an Islam-supremacist!

  260. slaveofprophet says:

    @Sakat
    Do you know your crime & Punishment for this. I think No. As per holy Quran
    (The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.)

  261. slaveofprophet says:

    @Sakat
    Do you have dare to abuse our prophet (PBUH) among country of believers (Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Pakistan)? If you have I will praise of your courage.

  262. Not his sunnah, maybe ur sunnah bald head? its okay, u may disturb, if you can 

  263. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //I don't expect empirical evidence for determinism because determinism is a philosophy not a science. //
    By the same token you shouldn't look for empirical evidence of Immaterial Soul in neuro-science.

    //Okay explain how everything ultimately is not a "necessary condition? Under this scheme a "necessary condition" of say Hitlers behavior would be say his genetics while his psychology would be a "sufficient condition", ultimately however his genetics were just as necessary as his psychology. So such a distinction is made purely for practical purposes. //
    Rhetoric. Please read any decent article on mathematical/propositional logic on necessary conditions and sufficient conditions.

    //The thing you forgot to mention is that a thing does not just depend on its own internal characteristics/parts but also an external reality as well. //
    I asked for the error in the example.

    //That was the whole point of the example, since the external world cannot be taken away it means things have causes and cannot just pop into existence without cause. //
    To use your own words, the bucket here is Reality (A Universal) itself. So in this particular 'Reality' only apples might exist and identifiable. A set of cardinality 1 is both logically and mathematically possible. The identification of apples don't require existence of 'Not apples'.

    //That is my definition of cause remember? A thing which is necessary for the existence of something else.//
    Which I rejected, remember?

    //That's because you have a scientific/materialistic understanding of causality and don't grasp its "spiritual nature" (for lack of a better term).//
    Unfortunately we were talking about Causality per se. And now logically using your own statement which implies that Causality doesn't exist (In the 'Spiritual Sense' if you insist). Simply speaking if the Cause causes the Effect AND the Effect causes the Cause then there is no way you can establish Causal relationship. They are just entangled (And we can't even say whether this entanglement is Deterministic or not).
    If you are talking about some 'spiritual nature' then I see no reason to not accept the Law Of Karma which also posits a spiritual dimension to Causality. A Theist can as well argue that you don't grasp the idea of Immaterial Soul:-).

    //Because they appear in our consciousness.//
    The question was how can we perceive differences if there aren't differences:-).

    //No, consciousness has causes and our PERCEPTION of boundaries has causes, but that doesn't change the fact that those boundaries do not ultimately exist.//
    If they don't exist but are perceived then they are popping magically or their causes are magical.

    //First of all such an apple could not possible have boundaries, or a beginning or end (since their would be nothing it could be bounded by).//
    A claim you had made long back with no logical proof to back up. An apple will be bounded by itself (Its skin if you insist).

    //So if "their is no reason to think that" explain how a thing without a beginning or end or boundaries can exist? //
    You are tying yourself up in another logical conundrum as was expected. Your original position was that entities exist but their boundaries DONOT exist, If I assume that position, then you shouldn't even raise the issue that "how a thing without a beginning or end or boundaries can exist?". Second, I don't accept your position (that boundaries don't exist). So entities have boundaries, individual apples will have. A Cosmos with only apples is therefore possible and individual apples can be identified. Very simply saying: 1. Entities exist, 2. Existing entities have identities, 3. Apples exist. From 1, 2 and 3 Apples exist and have identities. This makes absolutely no assumption on 1. boundaries (though they have, even if they may not have), 2. Existence of other entities.

    //Black holes like any other thing you can name do not possess inherent existence. //
    Really foolish, Your response was "They exist if we label them" And I showed you that Black Hole weren't labelled until recently but they had been existing before that too (The question of 'inherent existence' wasn't being referred here).

    //"A" CAN ONLY EXIST in relation to other things and that's the point. //
    A can exist. There is no reason to ascribe a relationship to other things. I proved that with the example of even numbers and how '16' is a member of that set.

  264. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical
    //Its simple a logical truth if you have 1 thing then automatically you have half that thing//
    Its not a logical truth:-). I gave you the example of a point in Geometry. Half of it doesn't exist. If Half of it doesn't exist there is no question of 'traversal' of any kind to half of the photon. So the concept of half a photon and traversing is illogical.

    //Same as with the photon, if you have a whole number than automatically you have parts/fractions of that number. //
    The definition of whole numbers don't 'require' any fractions or part. When you traverse the 'natural' number line you would simply jump from 1 to 2 to 3 and so forth.

    //It has physical significance since it it didn't have that half it could not exist.//
    If it is not splittable it can't be split. Such a (il)logical splitting has no physical significance.

    //Which has no relevance to my point//
    Which disproves your point that a fundamental particle can be halved ad infinitum.

    //imagine a whole cake that has no division between the two halves//
    Straw Man. The correct wordings should be "imagine a whole cake that is known to be the smallest cake". Any thought of partitioning to half a cake would imply: 1. It isn't the smallest possible cake, OR 2. The partition isn't a cake.
    Now 1 is false because of the definition and 2 takes the position out of context. Therefore the thought of partitioning is illogical.

    //Even though you cannot find those limits? Great. //
    Off course you can find those limits. 1889 in case of Hitler is one such limit. That is the reason why I didn't give a straight forward 'yes' or 'no' to my follow-up question: Is there a point on the wall that isn't part of the clock?

    //Q1 Universe is defined as "everything that exists" it does not "contain" anything//
    🙂 Everything that exist, exist. In fact the Universe has spatial and temporal metrics. So its existence can't be questioned. So the foundation of the logic that you are following is WRONG.

    //I did not say the universe is "nothing",//
    You said Universe can't exist, and you also said that 'Nothing' can't exist and you said A creates Not A. So Universe 'creates' Nothing although both of them don't exist. The only way this may happen is if they are one and same (Although in that case 'creates' becomes meaningless but then a lot of what you are alluding to are just that, meaningless).

    //Q3 Reality is not a particular thing, so logically you cannot say anything about "it". //
    Fallacious. You just said something about it "it is not a particular thing" :-). My question was though different. We identify objects/propositions/entities and can say something about it (Law of identity), even uniquely. If however 'Reality' is non existing we can't say anything about it, this includes the question "how can we say what is reality?"

  265. mysticalmind3 says:

    @Chuck part 2 
    "If photon is defined as having no halves then you automatically don't have a half-photon." Its simple a logical truth if you have 1 thing then automatically you have half that thing. Its a fact that you cannot physical split a photon not that it has no halves *by definition* that is something you just made up.

    "Whole numbers aren't defined to be made of any parts. Definition of whole numbers don't assume existence of fractions and other kinds of numbers. Very simply they are the nominal numbers used for counting (and ordering). The analogy is well-defined." Same as with the photon, if you have a whole number than automatically you have parts/fractions of that number.

    " Your claim no 1 was A thing can be divided infinitely, even if you want to posit a logical half of an object, it has no physical significance and hence division into infinite parts can't be." It has physical significance since it it didn't have that half it could not exist."   "The fundamental particles exist as a whole, not as conglomeration of some parts since otherwise those parts would be more fundamental than the particle which is considered fundamental:-)" Which has no relevance to my point, imagine a whole cake  that has no division between the two halves. The two halves of the cake are still real, even though they may never be cut apart, or may never be able to be cut apart. You cannot observe the two half cakes, as they are not separated, and we don't know whether the two halves can be separated – yet the two half cakes exist!

    " I have maintained it from the very beginning that the exactitude isn't in question at all, but that there certainly are limits beyond which the entity doesn't exist." Even though you cannot find those limits?  Great.

    "Is there a point on the wall that isn't part of the clock?" Only if we recognize a boundary between "wall" and "clock". 

    " Well done:-). Let me lay down 4 statements you have made on this topic: 
    1. The Universe doesn't exist. 
    2. The Universe is nothing. 
    3. The Universe contains everything. 
    4. The Universe is Reality. 
    From 1,2 and 3 we get: Nothing doesn't exist but contains everything. Question: how can 'A' contain 'B' when 'A' doesn't exist? 
    From 2 and 4 we get Nothing is Reality. Question: How do you define 'Reality' then? 
    From 1 and 4 we get, Reality doesn't exist. Question: If Reality doesn't exist, how can we say what is reality?" Q1 Universe is defined as "everything that exists" it does not "contain" anything, since it is simply the totality of all that exists.
    Q2 I did not say the universe is "nothing", I said it cannot exist exist because their is nothing other than the universe, "reality" is EXISTENCE itself but existence itself does not exist (for the reason I just gave).
    Q3 Reality is not a particular thing, so logically you cannot say anything about "it".

    "If you stay with that position then based on your 'logic' you should have no objection to mind spilling outside the bounds of death and life." When a flame is extinguished their is indeed a ceaseless chain of cause and effect (i.e nothing begins or ends) what the flame becomes however is no longer recognizable as a flame – exactly the same thing happens with our consciousness.   

  266. mysticalmind3 says:

    @Chuck Part 1 "If you have a non-scientific definition of it then don't expect empirical evidence for it" I don't expect empirical evidence for determinism because determinism is a philosophy not a science.

    //Their is ultimately no difference between a "necessary condition" and a "sufficient condition".// 
    "Tch tch. That much for logic then. " Okay explain how everything ultimately is not a "necessary condition?  Under this scheme a "necessary condition" of say Hitlers behavior would be say his genetics while his psychology would be a "sufficient condition", ultimately however his genetics were just as necessary as his psychology. So such a distinction is made purely for practical purposes.

    "You haven't shown the error in my example so I assume that the logic there is well founded." The thing you forgot to mention is that a thing does not just depend on its own internal characteristics/parts but also an external reality as well.

    "Do you have a physical, in fact even a logical way of taking away the void that you say exist when the bucket is taken away. If yes show me how, if No, your example is falsified." That was the whole point of the example, since the external world cannot be taken away it means things have causes and cannot just pop into existence without cause.

    "Moreover dependency in identification, even if required, doesn't mean 'caused by' or 'created by' non-apples. " That is my definition of cause remember? A thing which is necessary for the existence of something else. 

    "In fact, as I have already stated elsewhere, if we assume it to be true, then the vice versa is also true and then there is no separate identification of cause and effect and in that very sense Causality doesn't exist at all!!" That's because you have a scientific/materialistic understanding of causality and don't grasp its "spiritual nature" (for lack of a better term).

    "How can we perceive differneces if these aren't there?" Because they appear in our consciousness. "Or are you now saying, to use your phrase, that perception is 'magically popping'?" No, consciousness has causes and our PERCEPTION of boundaries has causes, but that doesn't change the fact that those boundaries do not ultimately exist.  

    //I just said an apple could not exist if their was no "not apple".// 
    There is no reason to think that. " Okay then explain how an apple could logically exist if their was nothing but an apple in the whole of existence? First of all such an apple could not possible have boundaries, or a beginning or end (since their would be nothing it could be bounded by). So if "their is no reason to think that" explain how a thing without a beginning or end or boundaries can exist?

    "Black holes existed, even though they were identifed and 'labeled' only recently." Black holes like any other thing you can name do not possess inherent existence.

    "//where they exist completely independently and separately of everything else in nature. // 
    Well they don't have to, that doesn't imply a Causal relationship." It just since it means they cannot just pop into being out of nowhere or somehow exist completely independently of the rest nature.

    "//Because in that case the concept of "A" would just be synonymous with "the all" // 
    Why? Identification in relation to others don't mean that they are caused by the other." "A" CAN ONLY EXIST in relation to other things and that's the point.

      

  267. Sakat says:

    Now you really accept that ,Mohammed was bald head ha ha ha !!!! . OK hence forth i do not disturb you both disciples of the Prophet.

  268. Sakat says:

    Thanks Dem ,I leave them both to Enlighten us here about
    TRUE ISLAM !!! (The final conclusion of their debate)

  269. Phoenix says:

    Because A could not exist if their was nothing but A, so logically it existence depends on "not A". Its not hard to understand. "
    okay,I'll keep that one in mind.Moving on hopefully.

    ==
    If it is sloppy then tell me, how could "A" possible exist if their was nothing but  "A"?  //
    It's sloppy because your format is not consistent with known syllogisms.
    Here's 2 hypothetical syllogisms,which is considered the most simplest.
    Modus Ponens
    P1: If [A] then [B]
    set/subset
    p2: A 
    affirms the antecedent
    C:B
    confirms the consequent

    Modus Tollens 
    If A then B
    ~A (the tilde is the symbol for negation ~ A=Not A)
    ~B
    ==
    College text books? Okay LOL."
    Yeah,you can't just make up your own rules.Who knew?
    ==
    Incorrect, if "material" is synonymous with "everything that exists" then their is nothing logically that could cause it (since their is nothing other than "existence".)//

    Your fallacy starts with begging the question.You can't assume as your premise the falsity of non-materialism when that is the issue at stake.You have defined "A" as material and "Not A" as not-material for the purpose of this conversation.Then you claim Not A caused A but then you turn around and claim that  "A" which is synonymous with material existence could not be caused by "Not A" because it does not exist.

    So far you have violated every principle of logic with no remorse and you just keep charging ahead.Try formulating your arguments using the two hypothetical syllogisms above.And try to avoid fallacies.

  270. Demsci says:

    //" I start the debate if anybody wants to refute me post his/her views with Qruanic evidence."//

    I find it interesting if you debate with Narcole.

    But Mysticalmind3 wrote that debating people like you, believing for 100 % in "fairytales", who are, according to him/ her &nbsp;completely brainwashed, is a complete waste of time.

    And I point out again to you that this is an anti-Islam-website, we want to be free from the Islamic threat and pernicious influences. and HERE your Quran is NOT a valid, let alone divine, source. So your QURANIC evidence is not valid for US.

    However Ali Sina many many times showed the faults and weaknesses and contradictions of the Quran.

  271. Demsci says:

    Hi Sakat, being your friend and ally and appreciative of your humor as always, I nevertheless want to, how to say it, point a few things out.

    Narcole responded very humoristic herself with that you of course were not a baby.
    and: Look, Sakat, all over the place the counterjihadists Chuck, Mysticalmind3, Phoenix and me are arguing amongst themselves! And in my view it is logical, worthwhile, interesting to also see MUSLIMS argue amongst themselves here!

    I say; let it continue and do not discourage it. 

  272. cap to cover hair loss?

  273. cchuckc says:

    //If I clearly define what I am talking about then obviously it counts.//
    The Causality understood in natural sciences is defined in a particular way. If you have a non-scientific definition of it then don't expect empirical evidence for it:-). In other words you want to introduce more pseudo-science.

    //Their is ultimately no difference between a "necessary condition" and a "sufficient condition".//
    Tch tch. That much for logic then.

    //now take away the bucket so you are just left with an apple in a void. Now take away the void and do you think the apple can still exist? Logically it cannot. So the existence of a apple is indeed dependent on their being "not an apple".//
    Ha ha!! You haven't shown the error in my example so I assume that the logic there is well founded. But let me drill a hole through your example, you said "Now take away the void", is it doable? Do you have a physical, in fact even a logical way of taking away the void that you say exist when the bucket is taken away. If yes show me how, if No, your example is falsified. The identity of the apple in no way makes any assumption on the identities of various other non-apple (There may be some non-apples). Moreover dependency in identification, even if required, doesn't mean 'caused by' or 'created by' non-apples.

    In fact, as I have already stated elsewhere, if we assume it to be true, then the vice versa is also true and then there is no separate identification of cause and effect and in that very sense Causality doesn't exist at all!!

    //Really?//
    Yes. Because you did say A is finite with boundary, and then made the tangential claim (see below) that things don't have boundaries:-)

    //Their is no such thing as an "ultimate boundary", boundaries are just differences we perceive and then label them, that all it is.//
    How can we perceive differneces if these aren't there? Or are you now saying, to use your phrase, that perception is 'magically popping'? And if differneces are indeed there then there is a separation between two objects and hence they have boundaries.

    //I know what A is therefore what you wrote is meaningless.//
    In fact if you already know what A is, you don't have to posit any assumptions on 'Not A's.

    //Is that my definition of apple? No its not//
    I quote you:
    my statement: "Mysticalmind: Anything that can't be called 'not an apple' is an apple.
    This is ridiculous!!"
    Your response: What's ridiculous about it?
    Now if that isn't your definition of an apple, then it obviously implies that apples creates/causes Non-apples is superflous. Existence of apples only imply that there are other objects that aren't apple.

    //I just said an apple could not exist if their was no "not apple".//
    There is no reason to think that.

    //They exist if we label them//
    They exist even if we don't label them. Black holes existed, even though they were identifed and 'labeled' only recently.

    //where they exist completely independently and separately of everything else in nature. //
    Well they don't have to, that doesn't imply a Causal relationship.

    //Because in that case the concept of "A" would just be synonymous with "the all" //
    Why? Identification in relation to others don't mean that they are caused by the other.

  274. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //You are doing the same thing, since your logic is assuming it is correct, which means according to your reasoning your logic is not correct//
    Which logic of mine? And what does it assume?

    //If you a photon then automatically you have half of it. //
    If photon is defined as having no halves then you automatically don't have a half-photon. This reminds me of the Xeno's paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno%27s_paradox#Dic

    //Whole numbers" could not exist, if they were not made of parts so this analogy is wrong.//
    Whole numbers aren't defined to be made of any parts. Definition of whole numbers don't assume existence of fractions and other kinds of numbers. Very simply they are the nominal numbers used for counting (and ordering). The analogy is well-defined.

    //Straw manning again?//
    What is the Straw Man here? I am not replacing your proposition by my 'new' proposition and then nailing this new proposition!! I am nailing your own proposition of splitting the, defined to be un-split-able, and comparing it with reasons that have gone in proposing immaterial first cause, soul or even reincarnation. I am not sure that you have read all the various scholarships taken up by Aquinas, Ghazali, Sankar, Nagarjuna or Confucius.

    //I said If you have a photon then automatically have half of it, regardless of the fact that it cannot be split *by definition*//
    Which definition of photon says that there is half a photon? In Euclidean Geometry this tantamount to splitting the 'point'.

    //Logically if you a object (any at all) then logically you already have half that object//
    Your claim no 1 was A thing can be divided infinitely, even if you want to posit a logical half of an object, it has no physical significance and hence division into infinite parts can't be. The fundamental particles exist as a whole, not as conglomeration of some parts since otherwise those parts would be more fundamental than the particle which is considered fundamental:-)

    //If the start and end is purely arbitrary then ultimately it never starts or ends.//
    I didn't say purely arbitrary, I said it may be arbitrary, but any convention, say a co-ordinate system will yield spatial values. Simple.

    //Where does the clock definitively begin and end? It doesn't matter how closely you observe it, you still cannot find where it boundaries are and when it begins and ends. //
    That is the question you want to invent and put into discussion. A Straw man. I have maintained it from the very beginning that the exactitude isn't in question at all, but that there certainly are limits beyond which the entity doesn't exist. If you deny this that the 'magical' description I gave is what you are logically lead into. In fact it kills Determinism in the classical physical world:-).

    //The question is are those boundaries of the clock that we see real? //
    Is there a point on the wall that isn't part of the clock?

    //Yes the universe doesn't exist (since things can only exist in relation to other things,) and since their is nothing "other" than the universe it therefore does not exist.//
    Well done:-). Let me lay down 4 statements you have made on this topic:
    1. The Universe doesn't exist.
    2. The Universe is nothing.
    3. The Universe contains everything.
    4. The Universe is Reality.
    From 1,2 and 3 we get: Nothing doesn't exist but contains everything. Question: how can 'A' contain 'B' when 'A' doesn't exist?
    From 2 and 4 we get Nothing is Reality. Question: How do you define 'Reality' then?
    From 1 and 4 we get, Reality doesn't exist. Question: If Reality doesn't exist, how can we say what is reality?

  275. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //I have certainly seen the skin of an apple but I never seen a boundary of that apple skin. //
    If you stay with that position then based on your 'logic' you should have no objection to mind spilling outside the bounds of death and life. In fact your initial position was just the opposite:-)

    Speaking logically though, I was never saying that the exact identification of a boundary is necessary, it is sufficient to have a limit beyond which the entity has no existence. The skin of the apple is exactly such a limit. In fact without such a boundary you can NEVER say that one object is 'inside' another object.

    //All the materials that make that make what we call Hitler was around before his birth,//
    None of which are identified as Hitler.

    //furthermore the entity we call Hitler is constantly changing moment to moment//
    :-), but it is still identified as Hitler. This has no bearing on whether a certain limit beyond which this identification is invalid/non-existing.

    //It proves his physical birth is just one of countless things that made him what he was. //
    Hah!! How does: "The child that was born in 1889 if it lived a very different life would not have become Hitler", proves "his physical birth is just one of countless things that made him what he was.". What he was, what he became has nothing to do with the fact that a particular child was born in 1889 and was named Hitler and identified as such throughout his life.

    //Why put the limit at 1889? //
    Because he was born in 1889. At most you can push it to 1888, when his mother conceived.

    //All that exists at conception is a fertilized egg, not a human being. //
    I have good understanding of what conception is. Thanks. The context is that it sets a limit in time beyond which the entity didn't exist.

    //"conception" is just 1 of many conditions that were responsible for Hitlers existence.//
    It is a 'necessary' condition.

    //if I say "Paris is the capital of France" therefore Paris (by definition) is in France.//
    Rhetoric. Your claim was Paris is capital of France. When asked for a proof you said that France's capital is Paris therefore Paris is capital of France. That's pseudo-logical. The second claim is rephrased first claim.

  276. mysticalmind3 says:

    " Second, you are able to draw boundaries around it because it has boundaries, you can't deny the empirical evidence of actually seeing the skin of the apple." I have certainly seen the skin of an apple but I never seen a boundary of that apple skin.

    "The category error was in equating 'Everything that existed long before he was born' with the actual entity named and known as Hitler." All the materials that make that make what we call Hitler was around before his birth, furthermore the entity we call Hitler is constantly changing moment to moment, he doesn't exist as a discrete object that is absolutely real.

    "Which doesn't prove anything." It proves his physical birth is just one of countless things that made him what he was. 

    " What he became, or could potentially have become can be conjectured but the limit of 1889 remains intact," Why put the limit at 1889? 

  277. mysticalmind3 says:

     "Conception sets a limit to the time in the past of which you can't define the existence of that material entity." All that exists at conception is a fertilized egg, not a human being. Those materials were around long before conception, "conception" is just 1 of many conditions that were responsible for Hitlers existence.

    "I have already described that you can't make one claim as a justification for another claim which basically mean the same thing." Why not? if I say "Paris is the capital of France" therefore Paris (by definition) is in France.  The claim is true, their is no "pseudo logic" there.

    " It is begging the question also called assuming the conclusion in a logcial discourse." You are doing the same thing, since your logic is assuming it is correct, which means according to your reasoning your logic is not correct (which refutes itself).

    "Half photons don't exist so it is not logical to assume what doesn't exist." If you a photon then automatically you have half of it.

    " Consider whole numbers, in this paradigm 1.5 doesn't exist (it is not a whole number)," "Whole numbers" could not exist, if they were not made of parts so this analogy is wrong.

    "So much so, that I have you say contradictory statements about nature of stuffs which you yourself defined. And thats why I said that you are Dogmatic." Give me an example then, the rational person who believes in immaterial souls, afterlife and reincarnation? 

    " I agree that there is no empirical evidence, but there certainly are threads of reason far better than splitting something that can't be splitted by definition." Straw manning again? If you bothered to read what I said, you will  find I said If you have a photon then automatically have half of it, regardless of  the fact that it cannot be split *by definition* (as you put it). And no their is no logical proof for souls, afterlife and reincarnation either.

    "That 'If' is a big 'If'. If you don't have an object 'at all' (for example half a photon) then the next half isn't possible." If you a Photon then you already have, half a photon, quarter of a photon etc.

    "So (1) remains unproven for physical objects and we are talking about physical objects, you aren't going to get any physical object 'smaller' than the fundamental particles." My claim is not you can get objects physical smaller than fundamental particles, but logically if you a object (any at all) then logically you already have half that object (or whatever) regardless of whether it is physically possible to split it into parts or not.

    "(What you consider start and end may be arbitrary but any convention followed will give you the two spatial values)" If the start and end is purely arbitrary then ultimately it never starts or ends.

    " So you are saying that if you see a clock fixed on a wall ACTUALLY it is everywhere on the wall? Isn't it then starange that your mind decides to imagine it fixed on a certain region of the wall? And quite magically every other person (and other animals too) also seem to identify only that certain region!! As if all minds that had been, that are, and that will be (limited off course by the time since when, and till, the clock is there on the wall), are entangled with each other in conspiring to identify only a certain region of the wall as occupied by the clock!!!! Facetious (and I am being polite). " The question is are those boundaries of the clock that we see real? Where does the clock definitively begin and end? It doesn't matter how closely you observe it, you still cannot find where it boundaries are and when it begins and ends.

    "So now you are saying that the Universe is 'Nothing'. I remember you once defined 'Nothing' as having no characteristics. Anything else?" Yes the universe doesn't exist (since things can only exist in relation to other things,) and since their is nothing "other" than the universe it therefore does not exist.    

     

     

  278. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Unfortunately how you define a "cause" doesn't count for much." If I clearly define what I am talking about then obviously it counts.

    "Secondly even if I honor your definition 'Not A' isn't a necessary condition for 'A' but just a sufficient condition. " Their is ultimately no difference between a "necessary condition" and a "sufficient condition". 

    "Consider a set of various objects (mugs, buckets, apples etc.). If we take out all the 'mugs' we can still say what are apples, absence of mugs doesn't impact its identification. Now take out all the buckets, You can still make out what are apples. Logically this also holds for infinite number of objects in the set, you can think about removing all objects until you are only left with apples. Presence or absence of other elements neither help nor deter in identifying apples with in the set. The Law of Identity ensures that we can identify apples by its own well defined attributes, it posits no dependence on existence of non-apples." I will take your example of an apple, first of all an apple cannot exist if it had no attributes (which you have agreed to). But that is not the only thing it depends on, conceive in your mind of an apple in a bucket (to use your example again), now take away the bucket so you are just left with an apple in a void. Now take away the void and do you think the apple can still exist? Logically it cannot. So the existence of a apple is indeed dependent on their being "not an apple".

    "First you did say that "A" is a finite thing with boundaries in trying to prove how it depends on 'Not A'. That proof obviously failed." Really?

    " Now you are trying to invent extra qualifiers to suggest something like "ultimate boundaries". Pray, what is an ultimate boundary and how is it different from a boundary?" Their is no such thing as an "ultimate boundary", boundaries are just differences we perceive and then label them, that all it is. 

    "When you say 'Not A' you have assumed that you already know what 'A' is. Therefore the definition is circular and superfluous. And if you have never heard of 'A' you can't say A = A defines A. A = A is a tautology which means even without identifying or defining A, A = A remains valid and doesn't add to the knowledge one might want to have of 'A'." I know what A is therefore what you wrote is meaningless. 

    "Yes it is pure non sense to define apple as something that it is that are not non-apple" Is that my definition of apple? No its not, I just said an apple could not exist if their was no "not apple".

    "Inherently or not, they exist and can be identified as such (First law of classical logic)." They exist if we label them, thing do not have an *ultimate existence* where they exist completely independently and separately of everything else in nature.

    "Why couldn't it exist?" Because in that case the concept of "A" would just be synonymous with "the all" and could not exist as a particular thing.

     

  279. mysticalmind3 says:

    "If A implies A then how can it also imply its own negation?" Because A could not exist if their was nothing but A, so logically it existence depends on "not A". Its not hard to understand.

    "Wait a minute,I think I detect what appears to be an attempt at modus ponens or tollens..who knows?really sloppy but here goes:" If it is sloppy then tell me, how could "A" possible exist if their was nothing but  "A"?  

    "Although the above proposition is not recognizable in any logic as taught in college text books" College text books? Okay LOL.

    "If there was not but "Material" it could not exist,therefore it was caused by Non-Material." Incorrect, if "material" is synonymous with "everything that exists" then their is nothing logically that could cause it (since their is nothing other than "existence".)

  280. Sakat says:

    @narcole
    Not necessary ,it won't make much difference ,since i am not the wearer of scull cap!!!! ha ha ha.

  281. cchuckc says:

    @Phoenix,
    //If there was not but "Material" it could not exist,therefore it was caused by Non-Material. //
    Good one xD . Modus Tollens is a valid form of inference. He also seems to be confused between a 'necessary condition' and a 'sufficient condition'.

  282. Of course not a baby, look at your hair 🙂

  283. Sakat says:

    I am not a Muslim baby ha ha ha!!!!:p

  284. Phoenix says:

    He's using Atheist logic instead of standard western logic.The 2 are mutually exclusive.
    He defines A = A (tautology) but then he proposes another definition of A = Not A.
    If A implies A then how can it also imply its own negation? Perhaps Mystic could be more clear by constructing his argument in a modus tollens format.
    Wait a minute,I think I detect what appears to be an attempt at modus ponens or tollens..who knows?,it's really sloppy but here goes:
    " If their was not but "A" it could not exist, therefore it caused by "not A"//

    Although the above proposition is not recognizable in any logic as taught in college text books,I think I know what he's trying to do but unfortunately for him it still undermines his position.
    Using his own logic: If there was not but "Material" it could not exist,therefore it was caused by Non-Material.

  285. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical
    //An apple won't exist if someone doesn't draw boundaries around it and give it a label.//
    The apple will still exist whether or not you are able to see it. Second, you are able to draw boundaries around it because it has boundaries, you can't deny the empirical evidence of actually seeing the skin of the apple.

    //"But the thing that ended up being called 'Hitler' only began in 1889. Everything that went on to make Hitler weren't Hitler. You are making a category error."
    How so? //
    The category error was in equating 'Everything that existed long before he was born' with the actual entity named and known as Hitler.

    //The child that was born in 1889 if it lived a very different life would not have become Hitler.//
    Which doesn't prove anything. First, whether or not he would have become something other than what he became, whether he would have been better or worse or even whether he would have been named Hitler, doesn't in anyway impact the limit of 1889. What he became, or could potentially have become can be conjectured but the limit of 1889 remains intact,

  286. cchuckc says:

    //No you cannot, conception results in a genetic code inside a cell, a set of instructions, nothing more – which is no more "life" than a blueprint for a house is the actual house. //
    You missed the point. Conception sets a limit to the time in the past of which you can't define the existence of that material entity. As I said the exactitude doesn't matter all that matters here is the time beyond which you can't say anything about the entity.

    //What conclusion? The fact that we define what a thing is and where it begins and ends? //
    I have already described that you can't make one claim as a justification for another claim which basically mean the same thing. It is begging the question also called assuming the conclusion in a logcial discourse. it generally takes the form A is true since B is true which B is another rephrased version of A.

    //Did you read what I said? It does not matter that it cannot be physically split into parts, the logical fact is if you have 1 photon you automatically have 2 half photons.//
    I did, but possibly you didn't read what I said about photons. Half photons don't exist so it is not logical to assume what doesn't exist. Consider whole numbers, in this paradigm 1.5 doesn't exist (it is not a whole number), so to say that there is a 1.5 between 1 and 2 is illogical in that context. It is not just the physical absence of 1.5 in the whole number set but the logical jumps of '1' (the identity) allowed in traversal from one to another that prohibits any assumption of half a jump within that traversal.

    //regardless of whether you can split the cake in half or not//
    :-). If you can't split, you can't split.

    //My *Assumptions* are true//
    They are bull crap, to use your own phrase. They are illogical to say the least. So much so, that I have you say contradictory statements about nature of stuffs which you yourself defined. And thats why I said that you are Dogmatic.

    //Their is no logic or empirical evidence to back any of that nonsense up. //
    That is your unread opinion. I agree that there is no empirical evidence, but there certainly are threads of reason far better than splitting something that can't be splitted by definition.

    //If you have any object at all you automatically have 1 half of that object//
    That 'If' is a big 'If'. If you don't have an object 'at all' (for example half a photon) then the next half isn't possible. And that is certainly true for the very fundamental particles like photon. So (1) remains unproven for physical objects and we are talking about physical objects, you aren't going to get any physical object 'smaller' than the fundamental particles.

    //2) We define what a thing is, we draw its boundaries, that means it ultimately has no beginning or end. //
    If we can draw its boundaries it certainly means that we know what regions it starts from and at what region it ends. (What you consider start and end may be arbitrary but any convention followed will give you the two spatial values)

    //Boundaries drawn by whom? Your mind that is what, nature does not draw those boundaries. //
    :-). So you are saying that if you see a clock fixed on a wall ACTUALLY it is everywhere on the wall? Isn't it then starange that your mind decides to imagine it fixed on a certain region of the wall? And quite magically every other person (and other animals too) also seem to identify only that certain region!! As if all minds that had been, that are, and that will be (limited off course by the time since when, and till, the clock is there on the wall), are entangled with each other in conspiring to identify only a certain region of the wall as occupied by the clock!!!! Facetious (and I am being polite).

    //I would say the universe is uncaused, yes but it is not material (or *immaterial* for that matter) (since it is not any particular thing it lacks any characteristics). //
    So now you are saying that the Universe is 'Nothing'. I remember you once defined 'Nothing' as having no characteristics. Anything else?

    //That which is less than the totality of all things. //
    Circular definition. How do you define all things when you are yet to define what a thing is?

    //In other words you cannot do it.//
    No, if you follow the whole point: It means that the question was Red Herring, meant nothing, logically incoherent.

  287. cchuckc says:

    //How would the concept of "even numbers" be meaningful without the concept of "odd numbers"? It wouldn't. //
    By the definition I have already given. You better show me how the concept of 'odd numbers' is apriori in defining 'even numbers'.

    //It does, otherwise we would just say ALL numbers when divided by 2 don't leave a remainder. //
    No it doesn't assume the existence of odd numbers. Division of a number by another can leave some remainder or none. It is not necessary that it leaves a remainder. Only the fact that no remainder is left completes the definition of even-ness. All other quantities and qualities bear no significance.

    //Furthermore if "odd numbers" didn't exist you could not have" even numbers", you cannot go from 2 to 4, you first have to go to number 3. //
    I now seriously doubt if you have ever picked up a good book of logic. Reasons below:
    1. I didn't say odd numbers don't exist only that their existence (or non existence) doesn't impact the concept of even-ness which can be identified by their own unique properties.
    2. Don't try to confuse points. I am not talking about traversal from 2 to 4, but the identification of 2, 4, 6 etc on the basis of certain common feature. You can see '16', apply the said operation and say that it is even WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT 14 (which is even by itself) and 15 (which isn't). In fact you don't consider any number other than 16 in determinig whether 16 is even or not. Here Not A is not only meaningless it is physically untenable. You don't start dividing all natural numbers, barring 16, by 2 to determin whether 16 is even or not. It is not possible, it is not practical and even if you are able to do it, it still won't tell you whether 16 is even. In fact it is illogical.

    //They depend logically on each other. //
    No. See prove above with example. They only mutually imply the existence of each other. As I said before possible Implication doesn't mean dependence. That is pseudo-logical.

    //If by "nothing" you mean the concept of nothing//
    I have used your own definition of nothing. Not the concept of nothing, but how you defined 'nothing' in one of your older post.

    //What existed in 1889 was just a child – not the Hitler that we know. //
    It was the still the entity that we know as Hitler that existed. The 'absoluteness' of that entity doesn't depend on what you consider the Hitler-ness of Hitler. But whichever event you define as the identifier of Hitleritude, it certainly refers to the same person who was child born in 1889.

    //"So are you now defining Universe as not 'Reality'?" No//
    you said: therefore the universe (if defined as reality) cannot be uncaused.
    you said: Existence is causeless.
    you said: Universe is Existence and not a 'thing'.
    Reducing to propositional logic. A, if identified as X, is not uncaused. B is uncaused. A is B. This implies that A can't be identified with 'X' which in this case is Reality. Otherwise using propositional logic explain how the three statements above make any sense.

  288. cchuckc says:

    @Phoenix,
    Not just Aristotelian. He is deviating from every logic.

  289. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical,
    //No its not, I define a "cause" as something which is necessary for the existence of something else. //
    Unfortunately how you define a "cause" doesn't count for much. Here is a dictionary meaning for the word: a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect. Your definition is ambiguous. Secondly even if I honor your definition 'Not A' isn't a necessary condition for 'A' but just a sufficient condition.

    //No they don't do that nor did I claim that//
    Which makes it clear that your definition is simply superfluous.

    //however it is true that a thing's existence depends on that "which it is not".//
    A claim which remains to be substantiated. Consider a set of various objects (mugs, buckets, apples etc.). If we take out all the 'mugs' we can still say what are apples, absence of mugs doesn't impact its identification. Now take out all the buckets, You can still make out what are apples. Logically this also holds for infinite number of objects in the set, you can think about removing all objects until you are only left with apples. Presence or absence of other elements neither help nor deter in identifying apples with in the set. The Law of Identity ensures that we can identify apples by its own well defined attributes, it posits no dependence on existence of non-apples.

    //I said a thing does not have "ultimate boundaries"//
    :-). The problem with being wrong is that you end up making stupid statements. First you did say that "A" is a finite thing with boundaries in trying to prove how it depends on 'Not A'. That proof obviously failed. Now you are trying to invent extra qualifiers to suggest something like "ultimate boundaries". Pray, what is an ultimate boundary and how is it different from a boundary?

    //I assume what? I have defined the concept "Not A" and A=A is you have never heard of it before it. //
    :-). When you say 'Not A' you have assumed that you already know what 'A' is. Therefore the definition is circular and superfluous. And if you have never heard of 'A' you can't say A = A defines A. A = A is a tautology which means even without identifying or defining A, A = A remains valid and doesn't add to the knowledge one might want to have of 'A'.

    //An apple is defined we all know what it is, it is not undefined so this is pure nonsense//
    Yes it is pure non sense to define apple as something that it is that are not non-apple:-). The idiocy is apparent. If you already know what is an apple, you would define it in terms of what you know of it, not in terms of what you know of all that it is not (In fact that set would be logically infinite and you would never have a complete well defined identification).

    //Not inherently they don't//
    Inherently or not, they exist and can be identified as such (First law of classical logic).

    //Which means its correct and not just "implied".//
    It is correct that the Red colour doesn't correspond to any other band of wavelength, but that knowledge doesn't 'cause' or 'define' Red. It is an implication of the definition of Red as belonging to a particular wavelength. Absence or presence of other wavelengths don't define Redness.

    //If their was not but "A" it could not exist, therefore it caused by "not A". //
    Why couldn't it exist? This is pure nonsense.

  290. mysticalmind3 says:

    "It is a different thing altogether to say A is caused by 'Not A'." No its not, I define a "cause" as something which is necessary for the existence of something else.

    " In fact nobody would define a thing, anything, in relation to what it is not." No they don't do that nor did I claim that, however it is true that a thing's existence depends on that "which it is not".

    "Secondly, just a moment back you were saying that things don't have boundaries!!" I said a thing does not have "ultimate boundaries", we make and perceive boundaries, that is how things exist. 

    "You already assume that 'Not A' exists even before you defined 'A'. " I assume what? I have defined the concept  "Not A" and A=A is you have never heard of it before it.

    "Anything 'that is not an apple' requires apriori knowledge of what is an 'apple', so you are assuming what you are yet to define." An apple is defined we all know what it is, it is not undefined so this is pure nonsense.

    "Even that is illogical. Things exist. " Not inherently they don't.

    "(Even though that is implied and is correct). " Which means its correct and not just "implied".

    "That is why I said Concept A may imply concept 'Not A' but isn't caused by 'Not A'. " If their was not but "A" it could not exist, therefore it caused by "not A".

     "Odd Numbers are not required to define Even numbers. Simple." How would the concept of "even numbers" be meaningful without the concept of "odd numbers"? It wouldn't.

    "It doesn't assume the existence of other numbers which would leave behind a reminder, even though it indicates that such a definition of other numbers are also possible." It does, otherwise we would just say ALL numbers when divided by 2 don't leave a remainder.  Furthermore if "odd numbers" didn't exist you could not have" even numbers", you cannot go from 2 to 4, you first have to go to number 3.

    "They don't depend on each other in the sense that one is 'Cause' and the other 'Effect'." They depend logically on each other.

    "I used your definitions: 1. Universe is everything (the proposal 'A'), 2. Nothing is the reverse of 'everything' (Hence 'Not A'), 3. 'A' causes 'Not A'. Using 1,2 and 3 as per you The Universe causes/creates Nothing." If by "nothing" you mean the concept of nothing then yes you are correct, as the concept of nothing can only exist in relation to the concept of something.

     

       

     

  291. mysticalmind3 says:

    "None of the ones that you quoted would deny that the Hitler being referred to did have a ultimate beginning in 1889." What "ultimate beginning"? What existed in 1889 was just a child – not the Hitler that we know. It would be just as reasonable to say Hitler begin when his father beat him and his mother smothered him (as that would have been important factors in the development of his personality). Or when he became leader of the Nazi party, or when he became chancellor, or when he started the war.

    "So are you now defining Universe as not 'Reality'?" No.

      

  292. mysticalmind3 says:

    " We can, with certainty, say that the life of a child didn't begun before conception. We have thus set the limits in time from where you may start." No you cannot, conception results in a genetic code inside a cell, a set of instructions, nothing more – which is no more "life" than a blueprint for a house is the actual house. 

    "You have simply assumed the conclusion as I have shown there." What conclusion? The fact that we define what a thing is and where it begins and ends?

     "A photon is a 'thing' that can't be split in any further parts, BY DEFINITION!! " Did you read what I said? It does not matter that it cannot be physically split into parts, the logical fact is if you have 1 photon you automatically have 2 half photons. Just like if you have a whole cake you are automatically have 2 half cakes (regardless of whether you can split the cake in half or not).

    "And if your 'evidence' is based on such assumptions" My *Assumptions* are true, the bull crap of soul, afterlife and reincarnation isn't.

    "At least there is huge amount of theological philosophy to back it up." Their is no logic or empirical evidence to back any of that nonsense up.

    "Second, just as before, you are assuming that a thing can be divided infinitely and a thing has no beginnings or ends." I have given the reasons why so i will repeat in simple form 1) A thing can be divided infinitely, and a thing cannot logically exist without its parts. If you have any object at all you automatically have 1 half of that object (again regardless of whether it can be split or not).  2) We define what a thing is, we draw its boundaries, that means it ultimately has no beginning or end.

     "You would be immediately aware of the fact that the clock as boundaries even though you may not be able to EXACTLY point out the boundaries." Boundaries drawn by whom? Your mind that is what, nature does not draw those boundaries.

    "Third the claim wasn't about Nature being spatially infinite or not, but whether it is limited in time or not. As per Big Bang, it is." Nature is not limited by anything.

    "2. The Universe is uncaused,a position which you seemed to have subscribed to now (To a Creationist this would be like popping magically – Every material seems to have cause, but the Universe, which is very much material, doesn't have one!!)." I would say the universe is uncaused, yes but it is not material (or *immaterial* for that matter) (since it is not any particular thing it lacks any characteristics).

    "So you are saying that the Universe isn't a thing. In that case you have to define 'thing'. " That which is less than the totality of all things.

    "If I give such a definition, then you would say it is not independent of your definition and if I don't you would say I can't." In other words you cannot do it.

    "By the way an apple will still grow on a tree, ripe and fall from it whether you know off an apple or not." An apple won't exist if someone doesn't draw boundaries around it and give it a label.

    "But the thing that ended up being called 'Hitler' only began in 1889. Everything that went on to make Hitler weren't Hitler. You are making a category error." How so? The child that was born in 1889 if it lived a very different life would not have become Hitler. 

      

  293. Sakat says:

    @narcole
    Wasting Oxygen ha ha ha!!!!

  294. And you have established characteristic of clown?

  295. Sakat says:

    @Slaveprohet and Narcole .
    You both have established the foremost characteristic of Islam that of "Infighting " within ,congratulations ha ha ha!!!!.(The confused congregation of 1.5 b ha ha ha)

  296. Do you know translation is non quran?

  297. slaveofprophet says:

    @Narocle
    __________after he died, new 72 sects come. do you do sunnah, and in jamaah_______
    Bring evidence from Quran. I do not accept/do Non-Quranic things.

  298. Before prophet shallahu 3alaihi wa sallam died, there was only one sect and no arguments, its called ahlus sunnah waljamaah.  after he died, new 72 sects come. do you do sunnah, and in jamaah? Do you hold quran like he did? Did he peek translation? 

  299. slaveofprophet says:

    @Narcole 
    ______Which Quran_______
     I have already answered this  long before. I paste it here & I like to let you know  that book revealed to prophet Muhammad is known Quran and there are not many Quran.  
     Quran only single divine book which was revealed from my lord Allah to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) through angel Gabriel. Quran every world from almighty Allah. According to holy Quran Allah revealed the Quran in Arabian language because prophet Mohammad (PBUH)was an Arab also if Allah would have chose some other non- Arabic language Arab people would not believe in prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Quran. In the divine verses of Holy Quran 26: 198 & 199 this secret was disclosed.  
    Walaw nazzalnahu AAala baAAdi al-aAAjameena&
    Faqaraahu AAalayhim ma kanoo bihi mu/mineena

  300. slaveofprophet says:

    @narcole
    ______prophet sallallahu 3alaihi wa sallam said from 73 sects, 72 will go to hell cos dhalli_____
    Bring evidence from Quran to prove this?
    __________why not tell your sect_______
    Can you tell me the sect of prophet (PBUH)?

  301. // Every single act of any sect of Islam if have Quranic back up I support this.//
    Lets see…prophet sallallahu 3alaihi wa sallam said from 73 sects, 72 will go to hell cos dhallin. do you mean you support any dhal sect?

  302. why not tell your sect? and why not answer, which is Quran? when you read arabic Quran, do you understand the meanings without peeking translation?

  303. slaveofprophet says:

    @narcole
    Bring your evidence from  Holy Quran to back up your views.  I am a devout believer in Quran, Prophet Muhammad & Allah. Prophet life every  single act was a divine act for me. Prophet every world was word of Allah for me. What you want to say by bringing Wahabi or Safali here? Do you hate to Wahabism? Every single act of any sect of Islam if have Quranic back up I support this.

  304. If you have attended madrasa you would be aware of your sect. Are you wahabi or salafi?

  305. slaveofprophet says:

    @Supriya
    Firstly, I like to clarify you that our prophet Muhammad was most scientific person of world. Learn some manners. Insulting to prophet is heinous crime in eyes of Allah. If prophet had spread all over the world anything it was Islam.  Although Khadija was 45 years old and prophet was 25 years old at time of marriage  but she was not mother of him. Same Aisha was not real daughter of prophet but daughter of prophet' friend. Prophet married with Aisha when Aisha was 6 or 7 years old and prophet was 55 years old but even in old age prophet had strength of 30 man.

  306. slaveofprophet says:

    @Narcole
    If you would have attended Madarsha you would be aware Islam is only true religion of Allah. And every Muslim must fight for the true religion /truth. Prophet (PBUH)  surrendered all his life in the service of Allah to set before us right example. He fought thousands of war against non-believers in Allah. In war for Allah/Islam thousands of non-believers get killed and prophet became victorious in end. Same in end Islam will be only religion in world but we must work hard for this. 

  307. cchuckc says:

    //If we say he begin at birth, it would be for purely practical purposes, others could just as well say Hitler begin when he became the leader of the Nazi party, or when he started the war or whatever, as you can see there is no ultimate beginning to Hitler.//
    None of the ones that you quoted would deny that the Hitler being referred to did have a ultimate beginning in 1889. The other uses are categorical or metaphorical or adjectives.

    //So is many other things. //
    But time will be. So there are undeniable temporal associations no matter what other things you want to associate.

    //I will explain what I mean, existence cannot begin or end because it is not itself a particular thing, therefore it is causeless.//
    I quoted exactly what you said: therefore the universe (if defined as reality) cannot be uncaused. So are you now defining Universe as not 'Reality'?

  308. cchuckc says:

    //Boundaries are created by the mind, but as far as nature is concerned they do not exist//
    You realize that it is just a claim. I rubbish the example below.

    //Take life as an example, what moment does it begin, at birth? At conception? Their is no ultimate point where life begin, any point we say was the "beginning" is purely arbitrary. All things are like that. //
    It is not arbitrary. We can, with certainty, say that the life of a child didn't begun before conception. We have thus set the limits in time from where you may start. Big Bang sets the limit on all similar time-lines.

    //I have proven it, if you think otherwise then give me a reason.//
    You have simply assumed the conclusion as I have shown there. You made a claim to prove another claim, and then based on the second claim went ahead and said 'So….'. Since claim 2 is another version of claim 1 itself, the premise (claim 2) assumes the conclusion (claim 1). This is called Begging the question.

    //Incorrect if you have say a photon then you are automatically looking at 2 half photons//
    Don't try a rephrased version of Xeno's paradox with me. Your claim was: Another thing is that we can divide any particular thing an infinite amount of times. And now you say "it does not matter if they are not split or even if they cannot be split in half, logically you still have 2 half's of a photon.". If a photon can't be split there is no logic is assuming that it can be split into halves. A photon is a 'thing' that can't be split in any further parts, BY DEFINITION!!
    And if your 'evidence' is based on such assumptions then off course a Theist is on far greater grounds in believing Soul, after life and reincarnation. At least there is huge amount of theological philosophy to back it up.

    //Actually they do, if nothing ultimately begins or ends, or a thing can be divided into a infinite amount of parts then it is indeed infinite, which refutes your claim nature cannot be infinite. //
    As before, you half quote. I told you even if there is a web, its individual strands will be Causal Chains which won't have enough time to go back wards since limited by the Big Bang in time.
    Second, just as before, you are assuming that a thing can be divided infinitely and a thing has no beginnings or ends. Both are claims that you haven't yet been able to substantiate. When you look at a wall with a clock on it, you know which is the clock and which is the wall. You would be immediately aware of the fact that the clock as boundaries even though you may not be able to EXACTLY point out the boundaries. The lack of exactitude doesn't preclude the circumference of the clock (assuming it to be circular). Third the claim wasn't about Nature being spatially infinite or not, but whether it is limited in time or not. As per Big Bang, it is.

    //How is it a straw man?//
    It is a Straw Man since the argument was about Causality and you are trying to argue about infiniteness of nature. You are obfuscating the fact that if Big Bang is true then this 'infiniteness' of nature excludes infiniteness of time lines of any particular Causal Chain.

    //So even if that is true, it does not mean everything is without cause or that it popped magically into being out of nothing.//
    I didn't say every single thing is without cause. Only that Causality breaks at Big Bang and then it results in one of the two logical conclusions. 1. Immaterial First Cause (you may want to call it popping magically, but from a Theist point of view it is not, since it is done by a being by certain mechanism), 2. The Universe is uncaused,a position which you seemed to have subscribed to now (To a Creationist this would be like popping magically – Every material seems to have cause, but the Universe, which is very much material, doesn't have one!!).

    //Yes my claim is everyTHING has a cause, the universe however is not a "thing" but the totality of all things. //
    So you are saying that the Universe isn't a thing. In that case you have to define 'thing'.

    //Give me something whose existence is not dependent on our definitions and the boundaries that we make? You cannot do it.//
    This is circular and semantic fallacy. And ILLOGICAL. If I give such a definition, then you would say it is not independent of your definition and if I don't you would say I can't. End of the day it proves nothing. By the way an apple will still grow on a tree, ripe and fall from it whether you know off an apple or not. A circle will be bounded by its circumference whether or not you recognize it or whether or not you define to see its 'inside' as the circle or its 'outside'.

    //Everything that would come to be what we call "Hitler" was around a long time before his birth. //
    But the thing that ended up being called 'Hitler' only began in 1889. Everything that went on to make Hitler weren't Hitler. You are making a category error.

  309. cchuckc says:

    //Without the concept of "A" the concept of "Not A" could not exist. //
    First of all, this is a Straw Man, since it has nothing to do with Causality. It is a different thing if you want to define A in relation to 'Not A'. It is a different thing altogether to say A is caused by 'Not A'. And since the vice versa is also true it is circular to define it that way. In fact nobody would define a thing, anything, in relation to what it is not. For example, you wouldn't define 'Universe' as that that is not 'nothing'.

    //"A" is a finite thing with boundaries, if it had no boundaries it would not exist. //
    Non sequitur to start with. Secondly, just a moment back you were saying that things don't have boundaries!! You are defying yourself since you said (I know wrongly): The boundaries we put around things are not ultimately real.:-)

    //(or that is to say if their was no "not A" their could be no "A").//
    Wrong. Some thing is, since it is, not since that that it is not, is. That definition is circular. You already assume that 'Not A' exists even before you defined 'A'. What makes it even more illogical is that the opposite is also true.

    By the way, none of this has anything to do with Causality.

    //What's ridiculous about it? An "apple" is a particular thing, and anything that is not an apple is not an apple.//
    Anything 'that is not an apple' requires apriori knowledge of what is an 'apple', so you are assuming what you are yet to define. Thats why it is illogical.

    //Remember a thing only exists in relation to what it is not//
    Even that is illogical. Things exist. 'Red' is 'Red' because it corresponds to a particular wavelength of light, not 'because' it does not correspond to numerous other wavelengths of light (Even though that is implied and is correct). That is why I said Concept A may imply concept 'Not A' but isn't caused by 'Not A'.

    //The concept of "even numbers" would not exist without the concept of "odd numbers". //
    It would by its classical definition I had given in my last comment. Odd Numbers are not required to define Even numbers. Simple. Take that from a practicing Mathematician. When I tell I about Even numbers I have to assume only 3 things, 1. There is a value 2, 2. There is a concept of dividing by any number (and hence by 2), 3. Some divisions don't leave a remainder. Even numbers are those which when divided by 2 don't leave a remainder. It doesn't assume the existence of other numbers which would leave behind a reminder, even though it indicates that such a definition of other numbers are also possible.

    //Without even numbers their could be no odd numbers. //
    They only mutually imply the existence of each other. They don't 'Cause' each other.

    //The concepts depend logically on each other, nothing pseudo logical about it. //
    They don't depend on each other in the sense that one is 'Cause' and the other 'Effect'. Possible Implication doesn't mean dependence. That is pseudo-logical.

    //How did you come to that conclusion? //
    I used your definitions: 1. Universe is everything (the proposal 'A'), 2. Nothing is the reverse of 'everything' (Hence 'Not A'), 3. 'A' causes 'Not A'. Using 1,2 and 3 as per you The Universe causes/creates Nothing.

  310. mysticalmind3 says:

    " It's nice to know that, since you do respond to Chuck, Phoenix and Me, you put us 3 in a different category than the "100 % believer" and you do not find a discussion with us a complete waste of time. " Yes their is some reason their if say these people are 50% logical then religious fanatic like SOP would be around 0.5% logical (i.e virtually none).

    "Still, believing in the possibility of something without proof being true is good enough for me when I read books, articles, watch the news, and listen to others. I then believe something more than 0 % and less than 100 %. As I always stay open for corrections of what I believe." Yes that seems reasonable.

  311. mysticalmind3 says:

    " Think of Aldous Huxley's challenge mankind to prove that there was NOT a kettle floating behind the Moon." Such a thing only exists in human imagination – just like the Judeo/christian/Islamic God.

    "No, I found out that on same issues, same vexed questions, there were alternative and better explanations, theories, which had more proof, evidence and logic too, and so I changed my beliefs from the lesser to the higher theories IMO. I chose between 2 theories." In what way are religious beliefs like scientific theories? Their not.

  312. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Concept A implies concept 'Not A', it doesn't depend on it." Without the concept of "A" the concept of "Not A" could not exist. "A" is a finite thing with boundaries, if it had no boundaries it would not exist. (or that is to say if their was no "not A" their could be no "A").

    "Mysticalmind: Anything that can't be called 'not an apple' is an apple. 
    This is ridiculous!!" What's ridiculous about it? An "apple" is a particular thing, and anything that is not an apple is not an apple. Remember a thing only exists in relation to what it is not, so the existence of an apple (like everything else) is dependent on their being things that are "not an apple". 

    " it doesn't depend on existence of the concept of odd numbers. " The concept of "even numbers" would not exist without the concept of "odd numbers".

    " Though existence of even-ness of a number does indicate odd-ness of some other numbers but this is not a dependence or Causal relationship." Without even numbers their could be no odd numbers.

    "Moreover even if we assume a logical dependence since the vice versa is also true you can't even tell which is Cause and which is Effect, even if you want to superimpose two altogehter different concepts. This is not just pseudo-science but pseudo-logic too. " The concepts depend logically on each other, nothing pseudo logical about it.

    "And if we assume your proposal then The Universe causes/creates Nothing." How did you come to that conclusion?

  313. Demsci says:

    //"I assume that it is for that reason you do not believe in the claims made by the prophet of Islam?"//

    Oh no, not at all! In my way of thinking I would have given Islam the benefit of the doubt, had I been raised in it, just as for a very long time I did give Christianity, in which I was raised, that.

    And that is because I did not want to try to prove a negative. Think of Aldous Huxley's challenge mankind to prove that there was NOT a kettle floating behind the Moon.

    No, I found out that on same issues, same vexed questions, there were alternative and better explanations, theories, which had more proof, evidence and logic too, and so I changed my beliefs from the lesser to the higher theories IMO. I chose between 2 theories.

  314. cchuckc says:

    //Since the existence of A depends on "not A" its fair to say it causes it. //
    Not fair at all. Its logically wrong. Concept A implies concept 'Not A', it doesn't depend on it. This is circular reasoning as shown below:
    Q: What is an apple?
    Mysticalmind: Anything that can't be called 'not an apple' is an apple.
    This is ridiculous!!

    'Not A' isn't a requirement for 'A' but a fall out of recognizing some 'a's which form the class 'A'.

    //That is why I said it happens outside of time.//
    It doesn't 'happen' if it is not an event. The point is we were taking about material events on which Causation might apply and Causation requires identifying 'Cause' separate from the 'Effect'.

    //No it doesn't the existence of "A" is logically dependent on their being "not A". //
    In a set of even number you would never find a 'not even' i.e 'odd' element. Even-ness of the natural number depends on a certain property (divisibility by 2 with no remainder), it doesn't depend on existence of the concept of odd numbers. There is no logical dependence here. Though existence of even-ness of a number does indicate odd-ness of some other numbers but this is not a dependence or Causal relationship. 3 isn't caused to be odd because 16 happens to be an even number!!

    Moreover even if we assume a logical dependence since the vice versa is also true you can't even tell which is Cause and which is Effect, even if you want to superimpose two altogehter different concepts. This is not just pseudo-science but pseudo-logic too.

    And if we assume your proposal then The Universe causes/creates Nothing. Something you were dead against with just a few posts ago 🙂

  315. Demsci says:

    //"Such a discussion between 2 different people who have have very different methods (IE reason as opposed to blind faith) of coming to a conclusion would be meaningless and a complete waste of time. "//

    I learn from this, very interesting. I suppose you are right. OK. It's nice to know that, since you do respond to Chuck, Phoenix and Me, you put us 3 in a different category than the "100 % believer" and you do not find a discussion with us a complete waste of time.

    //" Believing in the POSSIBILITY of something, is not necessarily dogma but believing 100% (or close to it) in something without proof or evidence is dogma."//
    Hey, thanks for that distinction. Yes, that clears things up. The Israeli's and all responsible defenders of states and from natural disasters and attacks have to consider POSSIBILITIES. But this is indeed very different from believing in something for 100 %.

    Still, believing in the possibility of something without proof being true is good enough for me when I read books, articles, watch the news, and listen to others. I then believe something more than 0 % and less than 100 %. As I always stay open for corrections of what I believe.

  316. mysticalmind3 says:

    @Demsci "But could you do us a favor and respond to this particular post of his? I think it would be very interesting to see you 2 "opposites" exchange a few posts. And maybe it would make him realise how different these non-believing infidels really are." Absolutely no point engaging with this person since their worldview is based in pure fantasy, while I base my views in reality. Such a discussion between 2 different people who have have very different methods (IE reason as opposed to blind faith) of coming to a conclusion would be meaningless and a complete waste of time.

    "The admiral in charge there had been very confident in Russian power over the "yellow race" Japanese. He was later executed for dereliction of duty. Yet in advance his refusal to believe in a Japanese naval attack had seemed reasonable. History is full of such examples, precisely because enemies aim for surprise attacks." Believing in the POSSIBILITY of something, is not necessarily dogma but believing 100% (or close to it) in something without proof or evidence is dogma. For example before I throw a dice I can say the probability it will roll on a 6 is one in six, but if you believe that the probability is 100% or at least considerable higher than 1 in six without reason or evidence then that would be dogma.       

     

  317. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Non-acceptance, rejection of everything if appropriate evidence is lacking??? " Yes that we be the reasonable response,.I assume that it is for that reason you do not believe in the claims made by the prophet of Islam?

    "But you never ever seem to do a "leap of faith", or to give stories the benefit of the doubt." Why should a rational person give miraculous stories the "benefit of the doubt"?

     

  318. mysticalmind3 says:

    ."A doesn't create 'not A' and it doesn't cause not A." Since the existence of A depends on "not  A" its fair to say it causes it.

    "Secondly there is no material 'creation' or 'causation' here." That is why I said it happens outside of time.

     "Third if vice versa is true, you can't even say which is the cause and which the effect which renders Causality meaningless." No it doesn't the existence of "A" is logically dependent on their being "not A".

     

  319. mysticalmind3 says:

    "That is a claim. You have to prove it if you want to build something on it." Boundaries are created by the mind, but as far as nature is concerned they do not exist. Take life as an example, what moment does it begin, at birth? At conception? Their is no ultimate point where life begin, any point we say was the "beginning" is purely arbitrary. All things are like that.

    "Are you trying mysticism by any chance?" If you want to call it that yes.

    " When you start with 'So' and follow with a conclusion after a premise which is as yet unproven, you are creating a fallacy called Begging the Question." I have proven it, if you think otherwise then give me a reason.

    "Apparently not. Quantum Theory will see to that." Incorrect  if you have say a photon then you are automatically looking at 2 half photons, it does not matter if they are not split or even if they cannot be split in half, logically you still have 2 half's of a photon.  Just like if you are have a whole cake you are automatically have 2 half a cakes.

    "Anyway none of these two arguments defy what I said that, even if you think, for some unknown reason, nature to have these webs of causalities, you still have a net." Actually they do, if nothing ultimately begins or ends, or a thing can be divided into a infinite amount of parts then it is indeed infinite, which refutes your claim nature cannot be infinite.

    "The question is also not about spatial boundaries which is a Straw Man you are trying to build for last few replies but about temporal boundary for individual Causal chains." How is it a straw man? My argument is nothing has any ultimate boundary, if so nature must be infinite.  This is against your "infinite regress" logic, which does not seem to take into account that the boundaries we draw are illusionary. 

    "This means that Causal chains in this Universe go no beyond the Big Bang, at least for material causes." So even if that is true, it does not mean everything is without cause or that it popped magically into being out of nothing.

    "!In any case if you agree that Universe is uncaused, then the Causal chain is still broken which takes us back to your claim that 'everything has a cause'. " Yes my claim is everyTHING has a cause, the universe however is not a "thing" but the totality of all things.

    "Everything in the universe can be given a particular age, which means that it did start existing from a specific point in time." You mean if we define when it begins? Great. Give me something whose existence is not dependent on our definitions and the boundaries that we make? You cannot do it. "For example we can say Hitler was born in 1889, he did had a beginning of his life, even though his date of conception is unknown, we can put a year when he simply wasn't there." Everything that would come to be what we call "Hitler" was around a long time before his birth. It just us that later gave those materials the label "Hitler".

    "His birth may be dependent on other 'things' like his parents marrying etc, but his 'beginning' can't be denied." If we say he begin at birth, it would be for purely practical purposes, others could just as well say Hitler begin when he became the leader of the Nazi party, or when he started the war or whatever, as you can see there is no ultimate beginning to Hitler. 

     "'Time' will be associated with each of the events that you may blame for Hitler's suicide, including his birth." So is many other things.

    "First you said: "therefore the universe (if defined as reality) cannot be uncaused" and now you are saying "I explained why it must be uncaused."  . I say, fix your mind." I will explain what I mean, existence cannot begin or end because it is not itself a particular thing, therefore it is causeless. "Existence" however is necessary for the existence of all things. Therefore all THINGS are caused (because they depend on existence) but existence itself is not caused.

    "The Theistic definition needn't match up with your definition." It doesn't matter from what view you have, if you have a definition of existence and something does not fit that definition that definition, then by definition it doesn't exist. 

     

     

     

  320. Phoenix says:

    You are deviating from Aristotelian logic.A does not create not A.
    A and !A are subcategories but you have failed to name the superset.For eg. B = A & !A.
    The superset B has 2 subsets…that which contains A and that which contains Not A.There;s no other definition possible under the rules of logic.

  321. phoenix says:

    No,that's not what I said…it's what you wish I said.

    I said,that to insist non-material must become material in order to be believed is absurd and a category mistake fallacy.This eliminates any investigation and knowledge beyond the material.

  322. well you only have opinions, right.

  323. Who said i didnt attend madrasa? If u have attended madrasa, you must have mastered fus7a arabic 🙂

  324. slaveofprophet says:

    @Demsci
    Ask to these people to bring Quranic evidence to prove their claims if they fail they are impostor. I start the debate if anybody wants to refute me post his/her views with Qruanic evidence.  My Claims 1) Islam is only true & Most peaceful religion of the world. 2) Only Muslims who  are consistent in their prayers will be in eternal heaven rest will in eternal hellfire. 3)  Infidels / Idolaters/non-believers are worst people in the eyes of Allah. 

  325. Demsci says:

    Hello SoP, MM3 is the poster that Chuck is debating with the last week or so; MysticalMind3, (s)he is all over the place in this article's thread.

    You deserve much praise that you are ready and willing to debate. And also for your honesty and openness I think. But I warn you, if you debate with MM3 (s)he will certainly reject your evidence from Quran and Hadith as "inadmissable", "circular".

  326. Demsci says:

    //"You cant force all people to be same like you in good and wrong. Belief is what to believe. "//

    I agree, in a democratic, way, leaving people free

    but I hope you do not mean in your post that sort of "all theories" are more or less the same and that it does not matter which theory you pick. Because for finding the highest truth one can find, some theories are much better than others, and yes, that depends on presence or absence of good evidence.

    Because of that I am glad that people like MysticalMind3 with such sharp critical minds, exist. But (s)he goes too far IMO.

  327. Demsci says:

    By the way, MysticalMind3. SlaveOfProphet has posted that he and Muslims believe in their prophet for 100 %. I made him aware of your stance. But could you do us a favor and respond to this particular post of his? I think it would be very interesting to see you 2 "opposites" exchange a few posts. And maybe it would make him realise how different these non-believing infidels really are.  Just a request.

  328. Demsci says:

    //"Evidence (empirical evidence) is that which is falsifiable and demonstrable. "//

    But there exist voracious readers, like me. And if we for everything we read about that is new to us, would pause and check if something has sufficient evidence, or else reject, ignore it, then perhaps we should decide to read less and be less informed in width in order to be more sure about what we do believe (or reject).

    Because if I take you literally, Mystical, then most of what I read in my life now, I should reject, due to insufficient evidence. And information casually picked up, in books, the media and conversations, then is practically useless, because of rejection of all that isn't proved. Completely impractical, untenable and unacceptable to me.

    (Maybe in your mind you see this situation as more complex and see it more subtle, but I reacted to what you WROTE).

  329. slaveofprophet says:

    @Narcole
    I think you don’t have much knowledge about world only true & most peaceful religion Islam. If you would have attended any Madarsha you would not be ignorant. Quran only single divine book which was revealed from my lord Allah to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) through angel Gabriel. Quran every world from almighty Allah. According to holy Quran Allah revealed the Quran in Arabian language because prophet Mohammad (PBUH)was an Arab also if Allah would have chose some other non- Arabic language Arab people would not believe in prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Quran. In the divine verses of Holy Quran 26: 198 & 199 this secret was disclosed. 
    Walaw nazzalnahu AAala baAAdi al-aAAjameena&nbsp;
    Faqaraahu AAalayhim ma kanoo bihi mu/mineena

  330. hm? My question was which is quran? Then we may check.

  331. slaveofprophet says:

    @Narcole
    is not it reasonable all infidels will be in eternal helfire? Almighty Allah will punish them severally. Why do not you accept this fact? Why are you doubting in Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) words?

  332. Listen, when mm3 or someone tells u good reasonable points, accept it, and when they tell you silly points just point out the silliness and if no change, ignore. You cant force all people to be same like you in good and wrong. Belief is what to believe.  If theres one belief, any belief, include atheism, could make all humans on earth to believe in just that one belief, then it would have done. But, see once again, its a belief. Of course the real truth is only in one belief, in the End, you'll know, we all will know, that the one belief is the truth, when the one belief reveals the truth itself, which none could deny, nor argue. But thats the interesting part, since its a belief, how lucky those who believed and how regretful those who disbelieved.

  333. slaveofprophet says:

    @Demsci
    I do not know  who / what is MM. But I am ready to debate if anybody challenge to my belief.  Bring your evidence from Quran and hadith to refute me. 

  334. Demsci says:

    I mean, MM3 is in agreement with us in between against SOP. But SOP, and Narcole, could well be sympathizing with us, on our side, when we are in discussion with MM3.

  335. Demsci says:

    //"We have 100% belief in our prophet words."//

    SlaveOfProphet (SoP), please read what MysticalMind3 is discussing here. (s)he is against all blind and unreasonable belief, against all belief without (sufficient) evidence.

    Look, MysticalMind3 (MM3) even doubts Ali Sina, Chuck, Phoenix, me ("WE") when we say: "Science don't know about "theory-story-belief A", there is lack of evidence for this Theory-Story-Belief A , but also lack of evidence against it, and so we give ourselves permission to believe it. But MM3 will have none of it. (s)he calls us "gullible fools" &nbsp;sometimes because of it.

    But what will MM3 think of SOP???!!! And vice versa? It seems MM3 and SOP are extreme opposites/ poles. And "WE" are in between. MM3 and SOP should ponder this.

  336. Demsci says:

    //"Accepting anything without appropriate evidence is unreasonable."//

    MM, here is another crux; every time something is told to you, and you don't accept it, then at the same time often you still believe something else about the same situation or issue, perhaps unaware, and you pass an opportunity to "upgrade" your knowledge, your "highest truth".

    I. Person/ Group A tells Person/ Group/ Mankind B something. and there is a constant huge stream of information flowing out there.
    II. What is the response of listeners-readers? Non-acceptance, rejection of everything if appropriate evidence is lacking???

    And remember, almost EVERYBODY nowadays is pressured to speak CONCISE, SUCCINCT, due to shortage of time, attention-span and threat of overload of information. Or do you suggest severe limitation of reading, inserting time to ponder the evidence, open all the links articles give? I mean, WHEN do you give yourself permission to believe anything?

    But …. believers in Islam have told us "infidels" that is imperative that a person takes a "leap of faith" because according to them, then all "falls into place", "the truth" will be shown by God, because God demands faith and only responds to faith (presumably God does not bother with persons who don't have faith).

    Now in such a situation I too have your attitude. Because for such a huge decision there is so much at stake and persons should not invest their whole lives in religion on such a flimsy foundation, on such a preposterous demand.

    But you never ever seem to do a "leap of faith", or to give stories the benefit of the doubt.&nbsp;

  337. Demsci says:

    //"You are telling we their was no warning signs Hitler was grandiose, psychopathic and psychotic with an unhealthy obsession with the Jews (to put it very mildly)? Their was more than *warning signs*. Also Israel has been at war with Palestinians for decades wars with them are not exactly unexpected. "//

    OK, good, logical answer, mysticalmind,

    but here is the thing in my examples; failure to anticipate threats, to judge developing dangerous situations, often unexpected, developing fast, can result in catastrophic loss of life and goods and liberty.

    Such failure by responsible authorities would be rightly called neglicence, dereliction of duty. agreed? Example; in 1905 the Japanese inflicted a heavy defeat on the Russians, by destroying their Pacific fleet at Port Arthur. The admiral in charge there had been very confident in Russian power over the "yellow race" Japanese. He was later executed for dereliction of duty. Yet in advance his refusal to believe in a Japanese naval attack had seemed reasonable. History is full of such examples, precisely because enemies aim for surprise attacks.

    And in cases of only slight, faint and inconclusive evidence of a possible threat, responsible authorities better err on NAIVE BELIEF than err on "rejection", insistence on definitive proof, inaction without "sufficient proof".

    It is the same thing with Islam. Muslims and Political Correct people keep insisting on declaring them innocent until proven guilty. While on proving them guilty they always reject as much evidence as they can and always ask for more evidence and really "paralysis through unending analysis" (perpetual analysis and always postponing meaningful reaction).

    BUT…. To Western Democratic Nations the interpretation of Islam by many Muslims represents a DANGER, a Threat. And lack of response by politician constitutes dereliction of duty IMO.

  338. cchuckc says:

    //That's exactly the what "A" and "Not A" is – a relationship between two things. //
    Those aren't 'events' :-). I think you are confused between terminology, You said concept A, if I remember correctly.

    //Yes their is, a thing (such as "A") exists only in relation to what it is not, so "A" creates "Not A". (and indeed vice versa).//
    The implication isn't causal even in the logical sense since vice-versa is true. A doesn't create 'not A' and it doesn't cause not A. It only means that if you define what 'A' is properly and succinctly, you can see and tell whether an object is A or not an A. Secondly there is no material 'creation' or 'causation' here. Third if vice versa is true, you can't even say which is the cause and which the effect which renders Causality meaningless.

  339. cchuckc says:

    @mystical
    //1) The boundaries we put around things are not ultimately real. //
    That is a claim. You have to prove it if you want to build something on it.

    //So infact what we call a finite thing is in fact infinite//
    Are you trying mysticism by any chance? When you start with 'So' and follow with a conclusion after a premise which is as yet unproven, you are creating a fallacy called Begging the Question.

    //Another thing is that we can divide any particular thing an infinite amount of times. //
    Apparently not. Quantum Theory will see to that.
    Anyway none of these two arguments defy what I said that, even if you think, for some unknown reason, nature to have these webs of causalities, you still have a net. The individual strands of this net will still be Causal chains. The question is also not about spatial boundaries which is a Straw Man you are trying to build for last few replies but about temporal boundary for individual Causal chains.

    //If there was no "before" the big bang, then by definition the universe has always existed. //
    The point is Time hasn't 'always' existed :-). This means that Causal chains in this Universe go no beyond the Big Bang, at least for material causes.

    //since their is nothing other than existence, their is no possible way existence could be caused. //
    I will remind you of your dichotomy. Here is your quote (in bold): 2. Causality breaks at Big Bang. Universe is uncaused. 2) Not logically possible.
    In any case if you agree that Universe is uncaused, then the Causal chain is still broken which takes us back to your claim that 'everything has a cause'.

    //The scientists are not observing "nothing".//
    Meaningless. The point is the scientists are inferring from what their equations are telling them based on what they are observing. And current observation indicate, with a great degree of certainty that the Universe might have 0 energy.

    //Actually I gave the reason, WE SAY when something begins, we draw the boundaries around things, these boundaries however are not ultimately real.//
    First you didn't say this until now. Second to prove proposition A (Something can't begin to exist), you are bringing in a new, more complex and unproven proposition B (Boundaries are not 'ultimately real). In fact now you have to prove two things: 1. Proposition B is true and 2. The veracity of B implies A.

    //Or to sum it, the reason a thing cannot begin is because it lacks inherent existence.//
    Wait. You defined 'inherent existence' as 'Something whose existence is not dependent on other things'. So to rephrase what you are saying in layman's terms: the reason a thing cannot begin is because it is dependent on other things. This is pathetically ridiculous. Everything in the universe can be given a particular age, which means that it did start existing from a specific point in time. It may be dependent on another thing (Causally). For example we can say Hitler was born in 1889, he did had a beginning of his life, even though his date of conception is unknown, we can put a year when he simply wasn't there. His birth may be dependent on other 'things' like his parents marrying etc, but his 'beginning' can't be denied.

    //All I see is a necessary relation between events//
    In you example you answer yourself. Causal chains, like Hitler's birth and death's relationship require a temporal arrangement between these two dates. It doesn't matter how many 'dependencies' you draw up, there will be always a chronology. However if time ceases to exist at a point in past then the chain is broken. That is what Big Bang implies.

    //"Time" is just 1 of countless necessary things for Hitlers suicide//
    :-). 'Time' will be associated with each of the events that you may blame for Hitler's suicide, including his birth.

    First you said: "therefore the universe (if defined as reality) cannot be uncaused" and now you are saying "I explained why it must be uncaused." :-). I say, fix your mind.

    //Their is nothing "beyond" existence – by definition – so that is pure nonsense. //
    The Theistic definition needn't match up with your definition. I have already explained this while discussing the difference between Immanence and Transcendence.

    //If the big bang model does not say anything about the origin of the universe (i.e it came from nothing) then obviously it doesn't say anything about causality either.//
    That is foolish. Causality requires time. The Big Bang model limits that. Simple.

  340. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Would you, Mysticalmind3, not have rejected faint, unsubstantiated warning signs of: The holocaust, the yom kippour war, the intifada, to name what did happen to the Israeli's, very unexpected? YOU PROBABLY WOULD. These events were not likely, but THEY HAPPENED." What do you mean then was no warning signs? You are telling we their was no warning signs Hitler was grandiose, psychopathic and psychotic with an unhealthy obsession with the Jews (to put it very mildly)? Their was more than *warning signs*. Also Israel has been at war with Palestinians for decades wars with them are not exactly unexpected.

    "But you must also know that by far the most Israeli's are NOT MEMBERS OF A DOOMSDAY CULT. How do you explain their combination of extreme caution AND their optimistic outlook?" Because their state has been at war with Palestinians for decades that's why.  

  341. mysticalmind3 says:

    By what you say their is no way of detecting these "non-material" entities – by definition- , therefore its impossible for their to be empirical evidence for them .

    Here is a question though how can the non-material interact with the material?  

  342. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Now I thought I saw above a distinction between "blind (stubborn, UNreasonable) beliefs and "reasonable" beliefs, pass." Belief is accepting something without proof, things based on reason and logical proofs are known to be true, we don't "believe" in such things.

    "And don't forget; the opinion on what constitutes evidence and what not seems also not to be resolved entirely here." Evidence (empirical evidence) is that which is falsifiable and demonstrable. 

    " A belief without evidence may well still be reasonable without sufficient evidence for it, when also without a superior competing explanation about the same issue being known to mankind." Accepting anything without appropriate evidence is unreasonable.

    "But the belief in life (of the soul) after death one cannot so easily judge blind and unreasonable." If you know anything about it, it is and you don't get your information from people like the author of this article. Reason tells us that the mind is a product and function of the body therefore the afterlife belief is hogwash.

      

  343. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Even if you think it off as a web, it can't be infinite." Why nature cannot be infinite? As I said before 1) The boundaries we put around things are not ultimately real. So infact what we call a finite thing is in fact infinite, let alone nature itself – the totality of all things. Another thing is that we can divide any particular thing an infinite amount of times.

    "You forget it was about Causal chains to exist indefinitely in the past in time. Since Big Bang sets a limit to this past in time, 'always' is meaningless with regards to this Causal Chains. It is though valid, and it still is valid, that the Universe was 'everywhere'. " If there was no "before" the big bang, then by definition the universe has always existed.

    " So now you are agreeing to one of the logical conclusion. And this still means that the Causality is broken at this point. " My definition of universe is synonymous with existence, since their is nothing other than existence, their is no possible way existence could be caused.

    "Which is again a bit unscientific since you are jumbling up a Philosophical position with a scientific position." So then does any science say the universe came from "nothing"? No it doesn't

     "Current observations with 0.5% margin of error says that the Universe is 'cosmologically' speaking flat. This corresponds very well to a Zero energy universe." The scientists are not observing "nothing".

    "First there is no logical reason why something can't begin to exist, you are merely repeating" Actually I gave the reason, WE SAY when something begins, we draw the boundaries around things, these boundaries however are not ultimately real. Therefore nothing ultimately begins or ends, therefore this talk about the universe beginning is pure nonsense. Or to sum it, the reason a thing cannot begin is because it lacks inherent existence. 

    " Second I wasn't referring to the existence of Universe but the existence of time for the Causal Chains to have any physical meaning." What do you mean by "physical meaning"? All I see is a necessary relation between events, for example the suicide of Hitler in 1945 was dependent on his birth in 1889. If he was never born, he could never have committed suicide . "Time" is just 1 of countless necessary things for Hitlers suicide, if their no was existence at all for example then it could likewise have never happened. 

    "Fourth If Existence has no beginning it is necessarily uncaused" Yes and I explained why it must be uncaused. "(A cause will immediately imply something beyond Existence which is the same as the Abrahamic solution of 'God'). " Their is nothing "beyond" existence – by definition – so that is pure nonsense. 

    " I was discussing the impact of the idea of Big Bang on Causality not on the origin of Universe." If the big bang model does not say anything about the origin of the universe (i.e it came from nothing) then obviously it doesn't say anything about causality either. Sounds like you are jumbling up a Philosophical position with a scientific position.

    "Causality refers to relation between two events." That's exactly the what "A" and "Not A" is – a relationship between two things.

    "Secondly even in logic, Concept 'A' doesn't 'create' concept 'Not A', it can imply concept 'Not A' AND THE OPPOSITE IS ALSO TRUE: Concept 'Not A' implies 'A'. There is no cause and effect relationship even logically." Yes their is, a thing (such as "A") exists only in relation to what it is not, so "A" creates "Not A".  (and indeed vice versa). 

     

  344. knowTheEnemy says:

    The example provided by you is an example of destiny, but how is it an example of Karma?? And even if it is, would he still have become a Vedanta teacher if he had dumped his Karma on to some Guru?? (if the answer is 'no', then it is a good thing he didn't dump his Karma 🙂 )

    May I ask what it is that you studying in school/ College?

  345. Supriya says:

    Namaste Dr. Sina
    I know you don't believe in Karma. I explain you an example of Prarabdha ( Providence or Destiny) Karma.
    Do you believe that a Muslim can be a Vedanta and Yog Guru ?
    Previous life Karmas can lead a Muslim to become a Vedanta teacher.
    Mumtaz Ali, otherwise known as M is greatly respected Vedanta teacher and spiritual mentor to thousands across the world.
    M's spiritual journey is thrilling and began in mysterious way at the age of nine, when a strange approached him in his house in Trivendram , Kerala and told himself as his Guru. Wearing a white loin cloth and long haired fair skinned visitor told him that he would not meet him again for many years. He offered blessings by placing his right hand on M's head and left the house.M's parents were surprised. They did not believe their eyes.
    M used to ask many questions of his existance, aim of life. He was told to read Quran. M didn't find answers of his queries in Islamic texts. At the age of 20( second year of Graduation) left house without informing parents. He traveled to Himalayas. He reached a place called Vyasa Guha in Badrinath. A strong force rooted him at a spot. The force refused him to go further. He found a sadhu ( saint) at that spot whom he had met at the age of nine. M spent many years with Sadhu named Mahavatar babaji. He learned many spiritual philosophies alongwith two other Hindu disciples.
    Sadhu instructed him to teach Vedanta and left his body( passed away) in 1985.M established Satsang Foundation and Trust in Banglore. He is an author of two books: 1] Jewel in the Lotus(Sterling) 2] Wisdom of Rishis.
    He is destined to become a Vedanta Guru though born to a muslim family.

  346. slaveofprophet says:

    @Demsci
    We not need opinion of non-believers about our prophet (PBUH. We have 100% belief in our prophet words.

  347. Phoenix says:

    And don't forget; the opinion on what constitutes evidence and what not seems also not to be resolved entirely here."

    That's the crux of the matter.All evidence according to Philosophical Materialism must be physical evidence (ie. empirical,experimental,replicable,falsifiable and throw in peer review for good measure).No amount of evidence which is mathematical,syllogistic or otherwise that Theists present will suffice .And the Materialist is relentless on this demand,which the Atheist cannot satisfy himself and when pushed will ask to be excluded from his own demand.A classic case of Special Pleading.

    it goes a little bit like this:
    A dualist or survivalist,etc. (theist) will state his or reasons in a logical format (as Chuck has done above) for the existence of a non-material intelligent agent exerting causal influence on to the material.
    The materialist/atheist will reject this because a non-material existence has never been quantified with physical instrumentation.Unless a piece of the soul is broken down and undergoes rigorous laboratory experiments and pass those tests,only then can it be believed to exist.In other words,an atheists will only believe in the existence of non-material if it becomes material for scrutiny.
    So the Dualist objects and says that is a Category Error which is designed to defeat the purpose or nature of the soul ie. non-material.Therefore it is an irrational demand.But the Atheist remains defiant and does not relent on his or her irrational demand.
    The Dualist then provides an alternative method of detecting non-material entities such as the evidence for reincarnation,NDEs,telepathy,psychic phenomena,etc. which was investigated by physicists,neuroscientists,psychologists,doctors,engineers,etc. and published in respectable journals.
    But even after all that,the irrational Atheist still rejects the evidence on the phenemena in question,as it is unable to be measured directly.

  348. cchuckc says:

    @Mystical,
    //I am not bothered what the nature of it is.//
    But you were, supposedly, vouching for Metaphysics to answer such questions. Now you are not even bothered to know what 'its' nature possibly can be!!

    //I do not think of causality as being a "chain" but as a web – natures web of infinite causes. //
    Even if you think it off as a web, it can't be infinite. A Web is composed of individual strands. So even the web is reducible to Causal chains. Which, if Big Bang holds, imply the same as before.

    //I can just as well argue that if big bang singularity is true, then its still fair to say the universe always existed. //
    You forget it was about Causal chains to exist indefinitely in the past in time. Since Big Bang sets a limit to this past in time, 'always' is meaningless with regards to this Causal Chains. It is though valid, and it still is valid, that the Universe was 'everywhere'.

    //If you want to change the rules then I will just cut your God out and say existence/reality is causeless (which it is). //
    What rules? I am stating the two logical conclusions from the two premises I had stated. If this is your position then you are proving yourself wrong. That the Universe is causeless is one of the conclusion I had already stated, which you had said was meaningless :-). So now you are agreeing to one of the logical conclusion. And this still means that the Causality is broken at this point.

    //Nothing can only produce nothing, (from nothing nothing comes)//
    Which is again a bit unscientific since you are jumbling up a Philosophical position with a scientific position. Current observations with 0.5% margin of error says that the Universe is 'cosmologically' speaking flat. This corresponds very well to a Zero energy universe.

    //the universe on the on hand is existence, its what is real, existence cannot begin and it cannot end, therefore the universe (if defined as reality) cannot be uncaused.//
    In fact it means just the opposite. First there is no logical reason why something can't begin to exist, you are merely repeating (You are assuming the conclusion which is a logical fallacy). Second I wasn't referring to the existence of Universe but the existence of time for the Causal Chains to have any physical meaning. Third faced with the consequences of Big Bang you had already said that Causeless Universe is OK with you. Fourth If Existence has no beginning it is necessarily uncaused (A cause will immediately imply something beyond Existence which is the same as the Abrahamic solution of 'God').
    So in this one statement you made both logical and scientific errors.

    //In other words no where does big bang theory say the universe came from "nothing", and they simply don't know what caused the expansion. //
    You gave me a quote to suggest something apparently from some good article. A quick search revealed that the link I had given has exactly the words you had quoted. So I quoted some more words from the same article to show you what it hints about the 'time' factor. You are just Straw manning about the origin of Universe. I was discussing the impact of the idea of Big Bang on Causality not on the origin of Universe.

    //No it doesn't for example the concept "A" creates the concept "not A" this is a logical dependence and does not happen "in time"//
    This is propositional logic not a physical event sequence. This is utter rubbish. Causality refers to relation between two events. Secondly even in logic, Concept 'A' doesn't 'create' concept 'Not A', it can imply concept 'Not A' AND THE OPPOSITE IS ALSO TRUE: Concept 'Not A' implies 'A'. There is no cause and effect relationship even logically.

    //In that case I have no argument with them. //
    So thats the point. None of the religions ascribe finiteness to the God whether Pantheism or otherwise.

  349. Supriya says:

    Demsci
    I agree with you. Sultans invaded India before Mughals in 7 th century.
    The civilisations you talked about were established and flourished in KaliYug [ within 5000years].
    Swastika denotes the whole cycle of 4 yugas( ages): 1] Satya / Krita yuga 2] Treta yuga 3] Dwapar yuga 4] Kali yuga. Vedic civilisation was a greatly advanced and most ancient culture that was a global society.
    You may refer to the book ' Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existance' by Stephen Knapp http://www.stephen-knapp.com
    I may help you if you want to know more about Indian philosophy of spirituality. Refer to http://www.artofliving.org

  350. Demsci says:

    //"According to this reasoning then we should all join our nearest dooms day cult since we cannot be absolutely certain its not made up bulls***.  "//

    That makes me think you, Mysticalmind3, are a rather young person, thinking in black and white/ black or white. But Noooooo! in my example the Israeli's were nowhere near like that. If anything they were into SURVIVAL. Perhaps "dualistic"; on the one hand cautious to the point of paranoia and believing in all sorts of threats. And due to very real totally or almost catastrophic events.

    Would you, Mysticalmind3, not have rejected faint, unsubstantiated warning signs of: The holocaust, the yom kippour war, the intifada, to name what did happen to the Israeli's, very unexpected? YOU PROBABLY WOULD. These events were not likely, but THEY HAPPENED.

    But you must also know that by far the most Israeli's are NOT MEMBERS OF A DOOMSDAY CULT. How do you explain their combination of extreme caution AND their optimistic outlook?

  351. Demsci says:

    @slaveofprophet.

    Whether there is afterlife or not, and I hope there is, You SlaveOfProphet will have NO advantage over infidels, by virtue of being Muslim and following the rules of Islam.

    You think the choice is choosing for heaven or hell by way of choosing for Islam or not?
    But the chance that Mohammed and the Quran told the truth about the afterlife is less than 0.01 percent. and so you gamble on very bad odds.

    My belief does not offer "salvation" and "rescue from damnation", no, while yours is, but your very manmade religion can deliver no more than mine.

  352. slaveofprophet says:

    @Narocole
    Which Quran mentions infidels will be in eternal heaven?

  353. Demsci says:

    //"In that case we should not believe in anything. 
    Now I see you softening your stand from 'proof' to 'reasonableness'  . "//

    Thank you Chuck, for clarifying so much. Now I thought I saw above a distinction between "blind (stubborn, UNreasonable) beliefs and "reasonable" beliefs, pass.

    Mysticalmind first wanted to rigorously limit and diminish the validity of  "beliefs" if "beliefs" were to be called  reasonable and not blind. (s)he simply wanted NOT TO BELIEVE ANYTHING without evidence, on pain of the belief being declared "blind, unreasonable".

    And don't forget; the opinion on what constitutes evidence and what not seems also not to be resolved entirely here.

    The position of you, Phoenix, me would much more be like: A belief without evidence may well still be reasonable without sufficient evidence for it, when also without a superior competing explanation about the same issue being known to mankind.

    Example; I think that believing in the theory of Creation of the world and mankind about 6000 years ago, is utterly blind and unreasonable. What with mankind knowing the much better Evolution-theory. But the belief in life (of the soul) after death one cannot so easily judge blind and unreasonable.

  354. Demsci says:

    Of course Babar, the first Mughal, invaded India only early 16th century, I like to add.

  355. Demsci says:

    Supriya, about Islamic intrusion in India.

    That started long before the Mughals (descendants of the Mongols), IMO. There is ambiguity about the start of it, but by the years 1000-1100 there certainly had been many Muslim raids and conquests into India. And long before the Mughals there had been the big Sultanate of Delhi among other Islamic states. The rulers of those states, it is reported, were often even worse and more violent than the Mughals later turned out to be. They so endeavoured to convert hindu's into Muslims, or kill or enslave and rape them, with much coercion and Jizya-tactics.

    The result in a way is the current Islamic orientation of Afghanistan and Pakistan AND BANGLA DESH (the sultanate of Delhi stretched far to the bay of Bengal) and of perhaps 200 million Indians today. Hugely regrettable in hindsight IMO.

  356. slaveofprophet says:

    @narcole
    "'demsci pointed that u agree with infidels"'……………..

    I believe all the infidels will be in eternal hellfire. I have enough evidence (Holy Quran verses) to back up my belief.

  357. Demsci says:

    Thank you Supriya. That is interesting. I like to get to know more about this history of India and the role of it's women.

    Per my information a few extra things:

    I thought 1  of the first civilizations started in Egypt, which took off # 3200 BC (5200 years ago) as Narmer then united Egypt and hieroglyph writing started in earnest.

    In Iraq the world's fist city, Uruk, of the Sumerians, started # 3500 BC, initiating all sorts of things, chief among them cuneiform-writing, kings, priests, soldiers, armies, craftsmen, the wheel and much more.

    Of course civilization spread. It is estimated that # 2700 BC the civilization of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro near the Indus-river started to flourish. So that would be 4700 years of civilization, as per my knowledge.

    I indeed wondered long since what the role of women was in ancient, beginning civilizations. Sadly it looks like it that from the start men underestimated and subjugated women. In so-called "patriarchal societies". Pretty much everywhere. In varying degrees of course.

    Only now, in the 20th and 21st century it seems men let women take their rightful equal place in society. Though much less so still in Islamic societies.

    If spirituality in general and of course history is something some serious girls study and ponder and like to talk about, I am glad with that, it gives me a common interest with them.
    Of course, my own 4 sisters were also of a very serious (Christian) sort in their youth. But later they got more diversely interested and I may well have surpassed them in spiritual interest. 

  358. *sniffs* i sense something here…smells like jealousy ._.

  359. Supriya says:

    Narcole
    I want to tabyyun( investigate) the daily life routine of idiotic Muhammad. Didn't he fitnah(lure) towards his daughter-in-law? dont you know that he had sex with deadbody of his own aunt?didn't he allow muslims to have sex with their daughters and also mother? Shame on Islam and Muhammad( fitnah be upon him). I think ,the cause of his death was AIDS. Not monkeys but Muhammad has spread HIV+virus all over the world . All muslims including you are suffering from that dangerous virus.

  360. Supriya says:

    Narcole is in love with slaveofprophet.Therefore she has arrived in India for her wedding. Don't worry Narcole , I will reach the venue( cemetery) of your wedding. I will gift you the book of Dr. Sina 'Understanding Muhammad'. Enjoy your life with slaveofprophet. My best wishes for you.

  361. Dont worry there some jews helped and asking to stop banning. they knew me muslima 🙂

  362. mysticalmind3 says:

    "You can't tell what the nature of that is. That is all that matters." I am not bothered what the nature of it is.

    "Remember that we are talking about Causal Chain of events here." I do not think of causality as being a "chain" but as a web – natures web of infinite causes.

    "If you want to exempt your opinions from scientific method isn't it unfair that you would grill a certain theory (the different reasonings behind which you haven't read thoroughly) of consciousness on alleged material evidences from Neuroscience." Metaphysical claims, as I said before are not scientific claims and are beyond the realm of science. Claims about (or most of them at least) consciousness are scientific claims therefore they need empirical evidence to back them. 

    "If the Big Bang Singularity is true then 'always' is a meaningless in the context of any Causal chain that ends up in an event that occurred only a finite time in the past." I can just  as well argue that if big bang  singularity is true, then its still fair to say the universe always existed. 

    "The God is assumed time-less and space-less, immaterial. The Law of Causality doesn't apply on it. That is the logical proposition of all philosophers, including Aquinas to break the inherent infinite regress otherwise." If you want to change the rules then I will just cut your God out and say existence/reality is causeless (which it is).

    "Show me the logical impossibility of an uncaused universe." Nothing can only produce nothing, (from nothing nothing comes), the universe on the on hand is existence, its what is real, existence cannot begin and it cannot end, therefore the universe (if defined as reality) cannot be uncaused.

     "In the same article page 4 says: If you go back far enough, the universe would collapse into an area with infinite density, containing all the matter, energy, space and time of the universe. 
    Same article page 5 reads : we can't make any guesses about the instant the universe came into being. Instead, we can look at the period immediately following the creation of the universe." In other words no where does big bang theory say the universe came from "nothing", and they simply don't know what caused the expansion. 

    "For Causality to hold time has to exist." No it doesn't for example the concept "A" creates the concept "not A" this is a logical dependence and does not happen "in time"

    "None of these philosophies say that the God is a finite being." In that case I have no argument with them.

      

     

     

  363. No, im here cos curious about mr jonathan harel. I wanted to know his love story and why hes silent.

  364. Excuse me, am i in india? 

  365. cchuckc says:

    @Supriya,
    @Narcole has this habit of throwing Arabic words especially tabayyun, fitnah, aqal etc. Tabayyun means scrutiny or investigation something Narcole avoids at all cost. Fitnah roughly means feelings of temptations, lure or even disorder. Words can have many meanings and throwing an Arabic here and there is Narcole's way of throwing you off the topic a scheme that fails time and again.

  366. Supriya says:

    Demsci
    I would like to inform you : Girls are not merely interested but play important role in spiritual and political fields in India since 6000years.
    Indian women in spiritual field: Women in ancient India enjoyed equal status and rights with men in all aspects of life. Many rishis such as Patanjali and Katyayana suggested that women were educated in Vedik period. Rigvedic verses suggest that women married at a mature level and were free to select their own husbands. Rigved and Upanishada mention several women seers and sages, notably Gargi and Maitreyi.
    With invasion of Islam ( Babar and Mughal empires) the status of women began to decline.

    In political field: Women have held high offices in India that of President, Prime Minister, Speaker of Lok sabha and Rajya sbha( Lower and upper houses of Indian Parliament), Chief ministers of many states in India, President of many political parties, Vijaya laxmi pandit became first women president of United Nations General Assembly etc.
    Don't misunderstand . I explained for your information.

  367. Supriya says:

    narcole
    I have done virtuous acts( Punya karma) in my previous births therefore I am born in holiest religion of India. You must have done sinful acts( Pap karma) in your previous births therefore you are born in Islam which is pure imagination of idiotic Muhammad. I am not interested in inauspicious Arabic . Define those two words in English. Don't avoid the discussion.

  368. Demsci says:

    Are two beautiful girls fighting verbally with each other here? As a man I honestly report I find it very interesting. Especially that the girls are so much interested in spiritual and political matters. Which they have in common with me.

    Of course I am wholly on the side of Supriya.

  369. Demsci says:

    Interesting, how can that be? If you really are as you present yourself here, you may become rather unique and isolated, N. Neither wanted by Muslims nor democratic counterjihadists. You're so in between. And notice it was NOT the infidels, but the MUSLIMS that really banned you (in a heartbeat it seems).

    By now it seems to me that you too have no use whatsoever for a renewed caliphate and power to the Muslims. You are much better off with our democratic system, faulty as it is. IMO.

  370. Demsci says:

    //"demsci pointed that u agree with infidels. "//
    Well, in the sense that SlaveOfProphet (SOP) upholds the validity of translation of the Quran-Hadiths-Sira whereas you and other Muslims blame bad translations on misunderstanding of Quran-Hadiths-Sira by us counterjihadists.

    And indeed to my surprise at time SOP concludes the same meaning from certain texts, as we do, and as radical Muslims do, as we pointed out countless times and ongoing.

    But while SOP + radical Muslims are in favor of the same conclusion we draw about the meaning of Quran-Hadith-Sira-verses they of course are IN FAVOR OF THEM, while the counterjihadists are very much AGAINST THEM.

    But at least SOP and radical Muslims like Anjem Choudhary honestly provide clarity about their anti-Democratic, anti-Western, anti-equal rights, anti-freedom of speech opinions.

    But when an Islam-apologist like you, Narcole, tries to deny or obfuscate those "anti-"meanings of verses of Quran-Had-Sira, then IT BECOMES YOU who ostensibly agrees with us counterjihadists on our democratic, western, equal rights, freedom of speech values. and then SOP is opposed to them.

    SOP is surprisingly open and honest, but you, Narcole? you seem either to do "taqqiya", or spamming, or 

    You are some kind of mixed product of both Islamic and Western Democratic influence, promoting (often contradicting) values from both influences. IMO.

  371. Pfft…u dont know fitnah and tabayyun? xD

  372. Sakat says:

    @Gracey
    I support you ,i may be their or may not but my blessings will always with you ,Cheers !!!(don't be too much emotional be practical).

  373. Supriya says:

    coward narcole
    Speak English. Don't vomit Arabic here on this holy anti-islamic site.
    So you admitted that Muhammad raped his daughtr-in-law and had sex with his own aunt's deadbody. You bow your head in front of rapist and pedophile Muhammad. Don't you think that it is shameful to a woman like you.

  374. You are only talking fitnah and no tabayyun, my indian girl 🙂

  375. Agracean says:

    DR ALI SINA! PLEASE BE KIND AND INSTRUCT YOUR STUPID WEB ADMINISTRATOR, MR JONATHAN HARREL TO BE KIND TOO AND BAN ME FOREVER FROM YOUR WEBSITE, SO THAT I MAY FORGET YOU AND THAT STUPID MAN COMPLETELY AND MOVE ON WITH MY LIFE!

  376. Supriya says:

    Narcole
    You are right ,love is a part of spirituality. And lust for girls was most important part of Muhammad's daily routine.He raped not only women but child girl of age 9. He encouraged his followers to rape women and girls.
    Answer my question : What he had done with the deadbody of his own aunt? Didn't he rape his daughter-in-law? Don't you think that he must be trained to control his dirty emotions?

  377. Supriya says:

    Agracean
    You are a mature woman. You follow Jesus' teachings not Muhammad's teachings. Why are you behaving like the braindead zomby Narcole. You are insulting yourself.You are not going to be banned. Leave childish behavior.

  378. DR ALI SINA! PLEASE BE KIND AND INSTRUCT YOUR STUPID WEB ADMINISTRATOR, MR JONATHAN HARREL TO BE KIND TOO AND BAN ME FOREVER FROM YOUR WEBSITE, SO THAT I MAY FORGET YOU AND THAT STUPID MAN COMPLETELY AND MOVE ON WITH MY LIFE!

  379. Agracean says:

    DR ALI SINA! PLEASE BE KIND AND INSTRUCT YOUR STUPID WEB ADMINISTRATOR, MR JONATHAN HARREL TO BE KIND TOO AND BAN ME FOREVER FROM YOUR WEBSITE, SO THAT I MAY FORGET YOU AND THAT STUPID MAN COMPLETELY AND MOVE ON WITH MY LIFE!

  380. Are you single? Never got crazy cos of love yet? women lose control cos crazy of love. my female persian rival used to act the same cos of it. worse case i ever heard was a very handsome man cut his genital part and died cos of love. love is part of spirituality. but must train to control it. 

  381. Supriya says:

    Agracean
    Don't you know that this is public forum ? Everyone has right to express views. Dr. Sina can't ban anyone. Even Narcole is not banned. There is no need to ban you. Don't post your comment.

  382. Btw why not baning me…afraid me to jihad somewhere else? hmm i already started jihad in jews chatroom. but got banned in islam chatroom cos someone thought i was infidel with western name tsk tsk

  383. Wow 17 times asking to get banned. Mean guy

  384. Shhhh im resting. Have a nice weekend

  385. Whats with the banishment. Not solving. Better tell Jonathan to be responsible for what he has done.

  386. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,
    //All I can tell you is that is came from "something"//
    You can't tell what the nature of that is. That is all that matters.

    //Show me the scientific proof that everything magically popped uncaused into being out of literally nothing 13 billion years ago?//
    This is rhetoric. I gave you two starting premises which could lead us to a claim you made: "beginnings and ends do not apply to everything/existence/reality/the all/universe". Remember that we are talking about Causal Chain of events here. If you have made the claim, the burden of proof lies squarely on you.

    //And yes what I said was metaphysical and has nothing to do with any science. //
    :-). This is Special Pleading. If you want to exempt your opinions from scientific method isn't it unfair that you would grill a certain theory (the different reasonings behind which you haven't read thoroughly) of consciousness on alleged material evidences from Neuroscience.

    //If the universe is defined as existence/reality itself, then by definition it must have always existed//
    If the Big Bang Singularity is true then 'always' is a meaningless in the context of any Causal chain that ends up in an event that occurred only a finite time in the past.

    //Not if that is how I define time//
    Then you first have to define time. Go ahead and define it.

    //1) If causality remains true, then obviously the cause must have a cause. //
    Causality remains true only in the sense of material/physical contingent events. The God is assumed time-less and space-less, immaterial. The Law of Causality doesn't apply on it. That is the logical proposition of all philosophers, including Aquinas to break the inherent infinite regress otherwise.

    //2) Not logically possible.//
    This is in fact one scientific position. Show me the logical impossibility of an uncaused universe.

    //Here is a quote from 1 such article//
    Read the whole article, may be it also says something about 'time'. I would certainly love to see a link to the article. I did a search on google and it seems you picked up that quote from http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astro
    And if this is true, then I move to page 2 of this article: The big bang theory describes the development of the universe from the time just after it came into existence up to today. In the same article page 4 says: If you go back far enough, the universe would collapse into an area with infinite density, containing all the matter, energy, space and time of the universe.
    Same article page 5 reads : we can't make any guesses about the instant the universe came into being. Instead, we can look at the period immediately following the creation of the universe.

    Now if this needn't be the article that you read your stuff from, and it would be interesting to note what YOUR articles says about time in relation to Big Bang.

    //I don't care whether it was expanding or not, but whether it existed or not. //
    No. For Causality to hold time has to exist. The issue here is the availability of finite time for material causes to generate the effects.

    //" the Universe is all that is Real. " Yes that is how define it. //
    It only matters to you how you define it. As I said the supports of Immanence and the supporters of Transcendence define it in their own way that sustains their world view.

    //Reality is not dependent on any finite being, but finite beings are dependent on reality.//
    None of these philosophies say that the God is a finite being.

  387. knowTheEnemy says:

    Ban her Mr. Sina! She really does need to move on with her life and does not have the will power to stop visiting this site on her own.

  388. I already start doubting you as muslim. 90% from my instinct says you're disguising.  playing drama on the opposite side. demsci pointed that u agree with infidels. 

  389. slaveofprophet says:

    @Agracean
    Dear lady, please give a chance to this slave of prophet (PUBH). I assure you test of Muslim cock will give you eternal joy.

  390. Supriya says:

    Agracean
    Don't try to tarnish the reputation of Dr. Sina and his Web-administrator. It's you who teased me again and again. I was patient towards your irritating comments. But you kept on irritating me. Does Jesus teach you to act like this? Don't you find any fault in your behavior towards me? Your comments made me to reply in wrong manner.
    I would like to suggest you to introspect your behavior and dissolve ego. I know you are a kind-hearted and intelligent woman who wants to awaken muslims. Nobody including me wants you to be banned.

  391. Agracean says:

    Ms Supriya, all you have to do is to get straight to the point and ask Dr Ali Sina or that STUPID web administrator, Mr Jonathan Harrel, to ban me forever from his website! Please remind them that there are many people here who can't wait for me to disappear from the face of this website and that they are doing you a kind deed by banning me and also, helping me to move on with my life. DR ALI SINA! PLEASE BE KIND AND INSTRUCT YOUR STUPID WEB ADMINISTRATOR, MR JONATHAN HARREL TO BE KIND TOO AND BAN ME FOREVER FROM YOUR WEBSITE, SO THAT I MAY FORGET YOU AND THAT STUPID MAN COMPLETELY AND MOVE ON WITH MY LIFE!

  392. KLMNOP says:

    Muslims in India are not the products of the translations, but because of the sword of Mughals and most of the people who left Islam are because of the translations, thanks to Internet and the translations due to which everyone is knowing the truth. Thanks to people such as Ali Sina, and the Ex- Muslims posting articles in "islamwatch".

  393. Supriya says:

    steadyfriend
    Pedophile Muhammad is reincarnated as Agracean. You know that he used to think of sex and lust for girls. In the same way Porn Star Agracean lust for guys of Canada. Muslim Jihadists worship Agracean and they follow her as their role model. Dr. Sina is working hard to eliminate the cult of Jihadist and their role model.

  394. Agracean says:

    Ms Supriya, the fact that you adore Sai Baba or any other such charlatans proves that you are a very stupid girl and it is really pathetic that you can be fooled to such an extent by a con artist. This goes to show that your IQ must be around 30-50 and that's really pathetic. It's no wonder that your above comment is full of crap. By the way, I think that you're that insane, obnoxious, and 50+ old Indian prostitute who works in the most popular red light district in India. You're so famous for your professional sex service to all those braindead zombies from the Middle East that the whole world knows that you've been awarded by the world pornographic film industry as 'The Best and Most Outstanding Prostitute in India'. Don't worry, I think that everybody here, including yours truly, won't really pity on you but feel extremely honorable to know such a great whore like you but I don't know if anyone will ignore your babbling or not. By the way, you must be very glad to know that even if you worth $0.00 to my dear Ms Dr Ali Sina and everybody here, they will never ever neglect the great whore of India like you and your nonsense at all. Cheers. xD

  395. mysticalmind3 says:

    " By the same logic you shouldn't even be able to tell us that 'that something' which caused Big Bang ever existed or 'happened'!! So your Metaphysics simply has no answer to this problem. " All I can tell you is that is came from "something" and not "nothing" which cannot logically exist.

    "Why? This is just a claim without any logical scientific proof coming. Start with these 2 premises: 1. There was a Big Bang which was a Space time Singularity, b) The universe is everything." Show me the scientific proof that everything magically popped uncaused into being out of literally nothing 13 billion years ago? If the universe is defined as existence/reality itself,  then by definition it must have always existed and it cannot have begun to exist, as existence can only come from existence, this is a logical proof. And yes what I said was metaphysical and has nothing to do with any science. 

    "This non sense is in your understanding of Metaphysics because the notion of time might be wrong in your understanding." Not if that is how I define time.
     
    "1. Causality remains true: This implies that this cause can't be itself subjected to Causation, and hence must be non-material (because Universe is everything material that is being caused). Aquinas calls this God, the immaterial uncaused super-soul who set the 'thing' in motion. This is the Abrahamic Theistic view. 
    2. Causality breaks at Big Bang. Universe is uncaused." 

    1) If causality remains true, then obviously the cause must  have a cause. 
    2) Not logically possible. 

    "Don't half quote stuff, just go through any decent article on Big Bang. " Here is a quote from 1 such article . "A common misconception about the theory is that it describes the origin of the universe. That's not quite right. The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe."

    "Neither was the Universe expanding 'before' the Big Bang." I don't care whether it was expanding or not, but whether it existed or not.

    "That depends on what you define as Reality." Everything that exists.

    " the Universe is all that is Real. " Yes that is how define it.

    "On the other hand Christianity, Islam, Advaita Vedanta etc, which believe in Transcendence would Reality as the Transcendence God itself (the material Universe is dependent on it)" Reality is not dependent on any finite being, but finite beings are dependent on reality. 

  396. cchuckc says:

    //Q1) I have idea I wasn't there 13 billion years ago//
    You mean that since you were not there 13 bln years ago you can't tell me the nature of that something which could have initiated the Big Bang :-). By the same logic you shouldn't even be able to tell us that 'that something' which caused Big Bang ever existed or 'happened'!! So your Metaphysics simply has no answer to this problem.

    //Q2) Yes, the universe is infinite, it has no boundaries, or "beginnings and "ends",//
    I didn't ask you whether the universe is infinite in size or not. I asked whether infinity is physically realizable, and since we are talking about Causal chain of events in time, I meant the temporal infinity. Big Bang Theory limits that.

    //The universe is everything, and beginnings and ends do not apply to everything/existence/reality/the all/universe since starts and ends are just finite things. //
    Why? This is just a claim without any logical scientific proof coming. Start with these 2 premises: 1. There was a Big Bang which was a Space time Singularity, b) The universe is everything.

    //A shot being fired has a cause, which means they was time before it.//
    It may have a cause but it doesn't exist on the same clock that is measuring the sprinter's dash.

    //Time cannot begin if there was no time, this is pure nonsense and is an example of a metaphysical nonsense statement.//
    This non sense is in your understanding of Metaphysics because the notion of time might be wrong in your understanding. The occurrence of an event starts of a Causal chain and time is just an ordering of these causal events within the sphere of influence of that initial event. Since Big Bang is that event in the case of the Universe and its sphere of influence effects everything within the universe there can be no time (in fact there is no need of any time 'before' this event). So 'before' is meaningless.

    //Likewise the materials at the big bang didn't just expand from nothing, without cause.//
    That is what @Pheonix was saying. And that is what Aquinas also holds (Off course he didn't know about Big Bang but he rigorously proved that there will a beginning of time anyway). One of two mutually exclusive cases hold:
    1. Causality remains true: This implies that this cause can't be itself subjected to Causation, and hence must be non-material (because Universe is everything material that is being caused). Aquinas calls this God, the immaterial uncaused super-soul who set the 'thing' in motion. This is the Abrahamic Theistic view.
    2. Causality breaks at Big Bang. Universe is uncaused.

    //No, cause and effect is the how the process of change happens.//
    Which is another way of saying that the 'effect' is created because of the 'Cause'.
    //Causes do not come from nothing, but are themselves caused. //
    If Big Bang is true then Causality must break down as shown above:-) since the Big Bang is the ultimate 'physical' cause of every event in this Universe.

    //All you observe their is change, if we say something began then it is purely for practical purposes//
    This isn't just a question of practicality. The Causal relation only relates events as 'Effect' and 'caused by' the Cause.

    //It does say anything about how that mass got there.//
    You mean 'It doesn't say..'. The question is not about what it contained but the effect on 'time' because of GTR applicable in the Singularity. Don't half quote stuff, just go through any decent article on Big Bang.

    //The sprinter wasn't running "before" he started the dash, but he still existed and he did not just pop into being out of thin air.//
    Neither was the Universe expanding 'before' the Big Bang. Now the only difference between the sprinter and the Universe is that the Sprinter is an element on a predefined time line, and the Universe is the set of all such time lines which are themselves caused by that expansion. Also remember that while the Sprinter is running in space time, the Universe isn't expanding in space time but it is the expansion of space time. So, if you had understood Big Bang you wouldn't have had trouble deriving the sense of the Sprinter example.

    //Only in pantheism is "God" synonymous with reality (or nature or the all or everything or whatever you want to call it),//
    Wrong. That depends on what you define as Reality. Pantheism believes that the God is Immanent in nature and the Universe is all that is Real. On the other hand Christianity, Islam, Advaita Vedanta etc, which believe in Transcendence would Reality as the Transcendence God itself (the material Universe is dependent on it)

  397. mysticalmind3 says:

    " What would be the nature of that something? And there was a question just after, namely: Is infinity physically realizable? that you skipped. Answer these two." Q1) I have idea I wasn't there 13 billion years ago. Q2) Yes, the universe is infinite, it has no boundaries, or "beginnings and "ends", these are just things we draw up for our own purposes, they are not ultimately real. The universe is everything, and beginnings and ends do not apply to everything/existence/reality/the all/universe since starts and ends are just finite things.

     "However your question can be very easily answered away, time is measured starting with the Big Bang just like for a 100 m runner time before the shot doesn't exist, it is measured from the event of firing the shot. Same here time starts with this event called Big Bang."  A shot being fired has a cause, which means they was time before it. Likewise the materials at the big bang didn't just expand from nothing, without cause. Time cannot begin if there was no time, this is pure nonsense and is an example of a metaphysical nonsense statement. 

    "Now you say nothing is 'created', are you going against your own notion that due to Causation the Effect is created out of the Cause?" No, cause and effect is the how the process of change happens. Causes do not come from nothing, but are themselves caused.

    "Secondly suppose I add salt to plain water at time 't', then it is just as correct to say that the saltiness of the water begun at time 't' as saying that the plain water turned into or changed into salty water. It is just verbiage and thats all. " All you observe their is change, if we say something began then it is purely for practical purposes. 

    "This is illogical and not at all a proof. the underlying premise is that Big Bang is true." Big bang theory does not say our universe came from nothing, what it says is all the matter and energy in the observable universe was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across. It does say anything about how that mass got there.

    " If Big Bang Singularity is true, the question of 'before' is meaningless since time starts with the Big Bang." Again how did time start if it didn't exist? "It is even more meaningless than asking whether we should add the time a sprinter was preparing to the time he took for the just concluded 100 m dash." The sprinter wasn't running "before" he started the dash, but he still existed and he did not just pop into being out of thin air.

    "So what you wrote is meaningless simply because if Big Bang is true then 'before the Big Bang' has no physical sense." Did material (however small) exist at the time of the big bang? Yes it did. Another thing that can be said is that the singularity might be like the numbers if you trace back from one, you can get closer and closer to zero, but there is no point just above zero which is the last point you get to. 

    "All Theists would agree that God is the Reality. God is considered immaterial in other words you can't 'naturally' ascribe what you ascribe to a material thing." Only in pantheism is "God" synonymous with reality (or nature or the all or everything or whatever you want to call it), if God is defined as a being then it cannot be synonymous with reality, as reality is not a particular thing or being.

      

  398. mysticalmind3 says:

    "The word play was in equating surviving with working/functioning is nothing more than word play." Instead of beating round the bush answer the very simple question, do you believe the soul is conscious after death?

    "So far I haven't found a single logical explanation from you why we should stop looking for alternate explanations to any theory." My position consciousness is nothing but brain activity, if you think otherwise give me a better model to explain how consciousness works? You don't have any such model.

    "That however doesn't mean that: 1. They aren't historical, 2. They didn't teach what they are supposed to have taught and 3. Even if they didn't exist, these teachings are certainly present and thus must have been propounded by somebody who was then identified with persons like Aurobindo or Mahavira or Jesus or Buddha etc. Hence you are anyway casting aspersion against the teachings of these individuals who are very likely the historical Aurobindo or Mahavira or Jesus or Buddha etc." What matters is, if what they taught is true or not, if it isn't then they were ranters just like any other false prophet or charlatan guru. 

    "based on reason while you are prepared to exempt some 'Deterministic' Metaphysical answers though agreeing that some Metaphysical aspects are psedoscientific. " I did not say metaphysics (the study of reality) is pseudo science. Metaphysics is philosophy not science, and yes some metaphysical statements are nonsense. For example the claim that something can be uncaused is a nonsense metaphysical statement. Metaphysical claims need logical proof, while scientific claims need empirical evidence.

    " It is saying the same thing as I said that the putting up of two inverse properties on an object is an ability of the language and nothing else. It is logically incoherent. " Where Did Aristotle say "it is an ability of the language"?  

    " There is nothing that I didn't understand, logical impossibilities of this sort arise only because you put those two words together, not because that despite you understood the 'sense' of what you are defining, the logical impossibility arose." Not its not because "you put 2 words together", its because their identities contradict each other.  

     "if you had gained a certain 'sense', able to conceive it in a logically coherent manner then perhaps you could have said something about it." What I can say about it is, it cannot be both pink and invisible, because this breaks the law of identity – which is not about "use of language" but the logical truth that that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense. Truth is not self-contradictory. Which means that such a unicorn cannot logically exist.

    " Does the list of all lists which don't contain themself, contains itself?" Say this in a clear way.

    "They may well reach a zone where the mind isn't thinking or conscious of anything at all" If they were not conscious of anything at all, then that means that were not conscious of anything, not that they were conscious of not being conscious which is just nonsense.    

     

  399. mysticalmind3 says:

    "The material compositions of trees and rocks are not an issue,sure both consists of atoms but their anatomies are extremely vast.Why even bring this up? " Because "living things" are nothing but atoms arranged in a certain way, therefore their is nothing magical about life – its just a collection of atoms (just like with "non living things".)

    "People don't believe in God because of the limits of science or because its unable to account for life's origins." Then why was you claiming your God was responsible for the beginning of life then?

    " not because science's lack of explanatory power on certain issues. " Same answer as above.

    "Theists believe in non-physical realities such as consciousness,afterlife,free will/agency,telepathy,etc. which they can account for,rationally." No they cannot all those things are believed in based on blind faith not reason.

    "Intersting,I thought only Neuroscience has that authority but I'll take a look at Darwin's explanatory power on consciousness anyway." Darwinism explains how our brain came to exist, and how consciousness, intelligence etc came about through natural selection.

     

      

     

  400. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Secondly,your dice,coin flip analogy fails because we're discussing accurate predictions via measurements not randomization,which is an expectation of entropy." Our measurements cannot be 100% accurate therefore our predictions are just estimates as to what might happen in the future.

    "Let's see if your comparison works. 
    A car needs a human to operate.Okay,so far so good.Then what does a human need to operate?Its components?Those car components need an external influence (ie. person) or else it can't operate.I can't make this more clearer but I'll try." The components of a humans also need an "external influence" to operate, such as food, oxygen, water and so on.

    "This is also false because amnesiacs are still conscious,their conscious mind is only unable to access memories." If a person had no memories at all and they was unable to form any memories at all, they would not have a conscious mind as such a thing needs memories to function.

  401. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Except the heading says "Effect of mind on brain activity".The neuroscientist clearly makes a distinction between the mind and brain activity in which the mind exerts influence on the brain.It's right there in the heading. " Nowhere does the neuroscientist in that link say the mind is not just brain function.

    "Yes,the placebo effect is when the patients beliefs are able to cause a positive effect on the patient.if beliefs are able to cause an effect then it disproves determinism which states that all events are results of prior particle positions.Therefore an acausal occurence such as beliefs which are intangible cannot have any causal power. " You are talking nonsense again, if the mind is "non-physical" how can it change the state of the brain? And second of all how can those changes in the brain change the persons mind if the mind is "non-physical? It cannot and you are talking utter nonsense again, however if our thoughts are just chemicals in the brain then that makes perfect sense as to how psychological treatments can change behavior.  

    "The findings of the neuroimaging studies reviewed here strongly support the view that the subjective nature and the intentional content of mental processes significantly influence the various levels of brain functioning (e.g. molecular, cellular, neural circuit) and brain plasticity." Give me the proof that "mental processes" are nothing but physical processes in the brain? If you can't then you don't have a case.

    "How did you manage to interpret it any other way?" Because "mental processes" are nothing but brain processes. What I wrote was a rational interpretation of what was said. How I ask if they believe mental functions are "non physical" does it have an effect on the physical brain? And how does the change in the brain then change behavior? Depression for instance is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, if our thoughts are not chemical then how does a chemical change in the brain occur?   

  402. Supriya says:

    steadyfriend
    Agracean is half mad, ugly, 50+ old woman. Here, on this site, nobody including Dr. Sina pays attention to her. Everybody knows that she is prostitute who lives in red light district of Canada. Her profession is to satisfy the lust of Muslims( Arabian true muslims) for earning bread and butter. We really pity on her.
    Recently she is awarded by pornographic film industry of Canada as " The Best Porn Star of Canada".
    Ignore the prostitute Agracean. Let her petty babbling to continue. She worth 0 cents for Dr. Sina and everybody here. Neglect the nonsense old woman.

  403. Phoenix says:

    (continued from above)
    No they cannot, it is logically impossible to measure anything with 100% accuracy, its also impossible to know all the possible causes of something. So with anything we just make estimates. Furthermore their are things on the macro level which are unpredictable such as the result of a coin flip, the lottery draw, the throw of a dice or the roulette wheel. In your view do then do those things have free will? "

    Firstly,That's an astonishing concession:"we can't measure anything with 100% accuracy" because action can be measured by energy X time.You're rejecting Newtonian physics,the foundation of determinism.
    Secondly,your dice,coin flip analogy fails because we're discussing accurate predictions via measurements not randomization,which is an expectation of entropy.
    ===
    So a car also is an open system whats your point? Humans just like cars depend on their components and those components being in certain states – just like the car – to operate."
    Let's see if your comparison works.
    A car needs a human to operate.Okay,so far so good.Then what does a human need to operate?Its components?Those car components need an external influence (ie. person) or else it can't operate.I can't make this more clearer but I'll try.
    ===
    Extraordinary claim, okay if a person suffers memory loss then their personality will change, for example if they forget they were married with children then the person will be unrecognizable to their wife and children. And second of all a human with no memory (and no possibility of any kind of memory forming) would not be conscious, but just an empty shell.'
    This is also false because amnesiacs are still conscious,their conscious mind is only unable to access memories.

  404. Phoenix says:

    I am expected to read pages and pages? If their is anything in their that you think is important and supports your argument then you should be able to write it down in no more than a few sentences."

    At least it's not a blizzard of links.I'm sure you can find something to attack on even one of those pages,that would require you to do a little bit of reading.
    ==
    Metal functions and processes are nothing but brain activity. "

    Except the heading says "Effect of mind on brain activity".The neuroscientist clearly makes a distinction between the mind and brain activity in which the mind exerts influence on the brain.It's right there in the heading.
    ==
    All that suggests is placebo effect causes chemical changes in the brain (that is if this study found that placebo effect was effective at treating these disorders) -just like a drug used to treat these disorders would."

    Yes,the placebo effect is when the patients beliefs are able to cause a positive effect on the patient.if beliefs are able to cause an effect then it disproves determinism which states that all events are results of prior particle positions.Therefore an acausal occurence such as beliefs which are intangible cannot have any causal power.
    ===
    Yes that's all it says, psychological development correlates with physical states of the brain. Not that the mind changes the brain, which then changes the mind (or whatever it is you believe.)"

    I believe what the study actually says.There's no need for any extrapolation.So here is the part you quoted from the article:
    The findings of the neuroimaging studies reviewed here strongly support the view that the subjective nature and the intentional content of mental processes significantly influence the various levels of brain functioning (e.g. molecular, cellular, neural circuit) and brain plasticity.

    The study clearly implicates intentional mental processes as influencing brain activity.How did you manage to interpret it any other way?
    ==
    (continued)

  405. Phoenix says:

    My point is, is that a tree just like a rock is purely material (and I did not say that rocks are alive), DNA is not a magical substance.'

    The material compositions of trees and rocks are not an issue,sure both consists of atoms but their anatomies are extremely vast.Why even bring this up?

    God of the gaps is exactly what you are doing – We don't know how life began therefore God did it."
    People don't believe in God because of the limits of science or because its unable to account for life's origins.There's no gap wanting to be filled because a theist accepts God existence because of various reasons (usually personal experience),and not because science's lack of explanatory power on certain issues.
    Theists believe in non-physical realities such as consciousness,afterlife,free will/agency,telepathy,etc. which they can account for,rationally.Atheists can't account for them and simply dismiss them as illusions.BTW,illusion as a premise is poisoning the well because there cannot even be an attempt to investigate any phenomena outside the material.It will be discarded a priori.

    We are not talking about consciousness but the beginning of life (consciousness did not come till much later). Incidentally Darwinism does indeed explain how consciousness came into being."
    Intersting,I thought only Neuroscience has that authority but I'll take a look at Darwin's explanatory power on consciousness anyway.

  406. Agracean says:

    Mr/Ms steadyfriend, why are you so petty? My dear Ms Dr Ali Sina didn't even bother about my above truthful comment. So, why should you be angry about it? I'm just merely sharing my 2 cents and not insulting her at all. This is what human right and freedom of speech is all about. So, please do love and respect my opinion. Cheers. 🙂

  407. cchuckc says:

    //How? To take your example of adding another "A" that process of adding another "A" will go for ever, their is no impossibility their.//
    I see you avoided answering: What would be the nature of that something? And there was a question just after, namely: Is infinity physically realizable? that you skipped. Answer these two.

    //That is based on your interpretation of it, for instance they say "time began with the big bang" but how I ask can something begin if time did not exist?//
    That isn't based on my personal interpretation of Big Bang. That is what almost every Physicist who believes in Big Bang and understands its logical implication would say. Time doesn't exist at the point of Singularity. However your question can be very easily answered away, time is measured starting with the Big Bang just like for a 100 m runner time before the shot doesn't exist, it is measured from the event of firing the shot. Same here time starts with this event called Big Bang.

    //The universe is everything that exists, nothing is created or "begins" but simply changes, and change never begins.//
    You add onto your foolish propositions. Now you say nothing is 'created', are you going against your own notion that due to Causation the Effect is created out of the Cause? Secondly suppose I add salt to plain water at time 't', then it is just as correct to say that the saltiness of the water begun at time 't' as saying that the plain water turned into or changed into salty water. It is just verbiage and thats all.

    //So this is a logical proof that the universe can never have begun to exist. //
    Non sequitur. This is illogical and not at all a proof. the underlying premise is that Big Bang is true. If it is so then it has happened only a finite time ago, there are evidences to suggested that this event may have happened some 13.7 billions years back. So any causal change of event IN THIS UNIVERSE will necessarily go no further back than here. This is true also for Multiverses, which simply gives a mathematical possibility of non-interfering finite or infinite Universes or even Big Crunch Big Bang sequences. What this indicates that if Big Bang is true then infinite time is never available within the Universe, so infinite chain of Causation is both logically and physically untenable.

    //what came before the big bang,//
    :-). If Big Bang Singularity is true, the question of 'before' is meaningless since time starts with the Big Bang. It is even more meaningless than asking whether we should add the time a sprinter was preparing to the time he took for the just concluded 100 m dash.

    //so what you wrote was nonsense. we simply don't know what the physical state of the universe was before the big bang//
    So what you wrote is meaningless simply because if Big Bang is true then 'before the Big Bang' has no physical sense. Even if an endless sequence of Big Crunch and Big Bang is a possible physical reality, you can never spill over from one Big Bang 'backward' to a Big Crunch simply because both refer to the same Singularity , in such a scenario all causal chains have ended with the Big Crunch or started with the Big Bang, one can't logically make one from the other.

    //That would only make sense if "God" is synonymous with reality. If their God is a particular thing however then it makes no sense.//
    All Theists would agree that God is the Reality. God is considered immaterial in other words you can't 'naturally' ascribe what you ascribe to a material thing.

  408. cchuckc says:

    @mystical,

    And only a few posts back you were saying that: If their is no evidence of something it is fair to say it doesn't exist. So now you are sayin gthat osme Metaphysical answers are simply wrong:-)

    //All you ever say is "word play" while completely ignoring it, none of those religions believe in annihilation //
    The word play was in equating surviving with working/functioning is nothing more than word play. I have followed with the Theistic positions. I did say that the Immaterial Soul is indeed believed to be incorporeal. It doesn't mean that it can walk and talk like when it is using a body. If you move back a few comments, this was coming from your questioning why doesn't the dead talk. You were asking a silly question on a position which most of the believing schools doesn't posit as a fundamental aspecct of the incorporeal soul.

    //What is illogical about it? If you want specific details learn about neuroscience. //
    I explained what is illogical about it. I asked you to describe it because you said: "We know full well how consciousness works its no mystery." in response to my saying: "So far I haven't found a single logical explanation from you why we should stop looking for alternate explanations to any theory."

    //No I am saying no one knows if they existed or not, let alone what they taught. //
    :-). You are saying that YOU aren't sure that they ever existed or taught anything. It is just your opinion, tomorrow you will say you didn't know that Hitler ever existed. That however doesn't mean that: 1. They aren't historical, 2. They didn't teach what they are supposed to have taught and 3. Even if they didn't exist, these teachings are certainly present and thus must have been propounded by somebody who was then identified with persons like Aurobindo or Mahavira or Jesus or Buddha etc. Hence you are anyway casting aspersion against the teachings of these individuals who are very likely the historical Aurobindo or Mahavira or Jesus or Buddha etc.

    I am pretty sure now that you haven't read the reasons propounded by the Theological philosopher's, yet you want to pass it on as not based on reason while you are prepared to exempt some 'Deterministic' Metaphysical answers though agreeing that some Metaphysical aspects are psedoscientific.

    //Obviously you have never heard of Aristotle's law of non-contradiction //
    Really foolish. You prove that you aren't well read in Philosophy either:-). It is saying the same thing as I said that the putting up of two inverse properties on an object is an ability of the language and nothing else. It is logically incoherent.

    //What about that fact you do not understand? Learn about metaphysics before talking baloney.//
    The baloney is from you and I would expect you to brush up your studies of Philosophy. There is nothing that I didn't understand, logical impossibilities of this sort arise only because you put those two words together, not because that despite you understood the 'sense' of what you are defining, the logical impossibility arose. In other words it is the logical incoherent right there in the definition. In your example of invisible pink unicorn you still hadn't gained the 'sense' of how you wanted to visualize the said unicorn. And if you had gained a certain 'sense', able to conceive it in a logically coherent manner then perhaps you could have said something about it.
    In the course of discussions I had asked you a very simple question: Does the list of all lists which don't contain themself, contains itself?

    //But you did claim they can think of nothingness which means you believe they can break the law of non-contradiction and do the logically impossible.//
    It was based on your definition and I quote you: if you say "I am not thinking anything" we would say that person is thinking nothing. ". and I said that "They may well reach a zone where the mind isn't thinking or conscious of anything at all"

  409. steadyfriend says:

    Agracean, stop being insulting! Don't poke your nose into things you don't know. …… Peace.

  410. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Me thinks you have lost touch with reality.Trees are alive and rocks are not.Which branch in the phylogenetic tree do rocks occupy?This would also mean rocks are in posession of genomes and evolve due to changes in their dna and due to natural selection." My point is, is that a tree just like a rock is purely material (and I did not say that rocks are alive), DNA is not a magical substance.

    "There's no God of the Gaps argument here because I'm refering to a non-material cause prior to the big bang,which can be logically argued for but which you can't account for. " God of the gaps is exactly what you are doing – We don't know how life began therefore God did it.

    "ToE explains a physical process not consciousness." Consciousness? We are not talking about consciousness but the beginning of life (consciousness did not come till much later). Incidentally Darwinism does indeed explain how consciousness came into being.

  411. mysticalmind3 says:

    "If you want evidence from Neuroscience that conscious effects the material,then go here:  http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.pdf "
    I am expected to read pages and pages? If their is anything in their that you think is important and supports your argument then you should be able to write it down in no more than a few sentences.

    "and here:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19023697&quot;  "Mental functions and processes involved in diverse forms of psychotherapy exert a significant influence on brain activity. " Metal functions and processes are nothing but brain activity.

    "We also review neuroimaging studies of the placebo effect in healthy individuals (placebo analgesia, psychostimulant expectation) and patients with Parkinson's disease or unipolar major depressive disorder." All that suggests is placebo effect causes chemical changes in the brain (that is if this study found that placebo effect was effective at treating these disorders)  -just like a drug used to treat these disorders would.

    " The findings of the neuroimaging studies reviewed here strongly support the view that the subjective nature and the intentional content of mental processes significantly influence the various levels of brain functioning (e.g. molecular, cellular, neural circuit) and brain plasticity." Yes that's all it says, psychological development correlates with physical states of the brain. Not that the mind changes the brain, which then changes the mind (or whatever it is you believe.)

    !According to Classical Physics,the behavior of particles can be exactly predicted on the basis of its interactions with other particles and the forces acting on it.Knowing the position and velocity of a particle,then it's possible to predict with precision its every outcome or path." No they cannot, it is logically impossible to measure anything with 100% accuracy, its also impossible to know all the possible causes of something. So with anything we just make estimates. Furthermore their are things on the macro level which are unpredictable such as the result of a coin flip, the lottery draw, the throw of a dice or the roulette wheel. In your view do then do those things have free will?

    "Humans are not a closed system and cars need human interaction to operate." So a car also is an open system whats your point? Humans just like cars depend on their components and those components being in certain states – just like the car – to operate.

    "According to your theory then ,people who suffer memory loss or not conscious.Extraordinary claim rquiring extraordinary proof." Extraordinary claim, okay if a person suffers memory loss then their personality will change, for example if they forget they were married with children then the person will be unrecognizable to their wife and children. And second of all a human with no memory (and no possibility of any kind of memory forming)  would not be conscious, but just an empty shell.

      

      

      

      

  412. Agracean says:

    Ms Supriya, I can't help laughing away when you said that "I will support your project at the moment I start earning after my studies." I think that will be until the cow comes home.

  413. Phoenix says:

    Life is a function of matter, a tree does not have a magical property of "life" that say a rock doesn't. The tree just like a rock is purely a material thing."

    Me thinks you have lost touch with reality.Trees are alive and rocks are not.Which branch in the phylogenetic tree do rocks occupy?This would also mean rocks are in posession of genomes and evolve due to changes in their dna and due to natural selection.
    ==
    "God did it" which is what your saying is not logical its also called "God of the gaps".
    There's no God of the Gaps argument here because I'm refering to a non-material cause prior to the big bang,which can be logically argued for but which you can't account for.

    ===
    I don't believe in a self created universe its you who believes in a self created God. "
    So the universe did not create itself but neither did it erupt from nothing.I guess you're then left with an always existing universe.Correct me if I'm wrong before I attack this position.So I don't attack a strawman.

    ===
    That would explain life didn't begin by random chance but by mutation and selection acting on molecules. Or that's one theory anyway. But its logical and a lot more plausible that the belief "the sentient FirstCause bestowed life on earth".
    ToE explains a physical process not consciousness.Functional materialism is not the issue…philosophical materialism is.

  414. Pheonix says:

    Neuroscience"

    If you want evidence from Neuroscience that conscious effects the material,then go here:
    http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.pdf

    and here:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19023697

    =====
    Incorrect science cannot predict anything with 100% certainty, for instance can science perfectly predict the future behavior of your car? No it can't and for the same reason it cannot predict (or at least not perfectly) human behavior."
    According to Classical Physics,the behavior of particles can be exactly predicted on the basis of its interactions with other particles and the forces acting on it.Knowing the position and velocity of a particle,then it's possible to predict with precision its every outcome or path.If the task is too onerous to prove then don't make such exhaustive claims.
    You car analogy fails again on the basis of it begging the question.Humans are not a closed system and cars need human interaction to operate.
    ========
    I am referring to every single thing that exists, for example consciousness (purely on its own .."
    So consciousness is a thing?evidence

    and without speaking about what dependence (if any) it has on the physical world) depends logically on say memory and thought (which are some its component"
    According to your theory then ,people who suffer memory loss or not conscious.Extraordinary claim rquiring extraordinary proof.

  415. Supriya says:

    Namaste Dr. Sina
    I read the update of your ' Muhammad movie' last night. I share your belief that truth will set us free. I will support your project at the moment I start earning after my studies. I hope your movie will be super hit and blockbuster. I wish you in Hindi- Aapake Chitrapat ke lie Hridaypurn evem Hardik Shubh kamana !

  416. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy
    You are right. The meaning of Nishkam karma is desire-less actions.
    From where do you come to know that I worry about Prarabdha and Sanchit karma?
    I don't worry at all.

  417. knowTheEnemy says:

    I believe that worrying about 'past karmas' is unreasonable and only shows that the person does not trust whichever higher power s/he believes in. So there is only one thing that your Guru said that I completely agree with- "You keep on working without worrying of past karmas."

    I hope you are aware that the word 'karma' in the phrase 'Nishkam karma' means something completely different from when it is used in Karma philosophy or when talking about Prarabha karma or Sanchit karma. The word 'karma' in 'Nishkam karma' means 'action'. 'Nishkam karma' literally translates to 'desire-less action'. The phrase means- actions performed without any expectations of fruits for oneself.

    It is easier said than done. When one is doing Nishkam karma, s/he doesn't do it to 'dissolve' his/her karmas, because if one practices Nishkam karma with the desire to dissolve his/her karmas then those actions can not be called desire-less action. That is why, one should simply keep on working without worrying about past karmas.

    I hope you are starting to realize how useless and a waste of time and effort it is to worry about Prarabha or Sanchit Karmas.

  418. Agracean says:

    Ms Supriya, you're one of the very stupid people that I know who believe in Sai baba's tricks and nonsense. It is pathetic to see that you allow yourself to be fooled to such extent and also, tossed and turned by every winds of false teachings.

  419. mysticalmind3 says:

    "In other words you are saying (some) Metaphysical answers are simply pseudoscience since these won't conform to the scientific method of inquiry."  "Some" certainly are, but not all.

    ."This is nothing more than word play. Now if you ask the Theist position for the specific question: is the soul conscious after death? Some schools say Yes (Most Indic and Eastern schools), some say No (Abrahamic religions)."  All you ever say is "word play" while completely ignoring it, none of those religions believe in annihilation eastern schools believe you are reincarnated, while (some)abrahamic religions believe in a "soul sleeps" concept until the Resurrection – when you get a new body.  

    "Your answer is completely illogical." What is illogical about it? If you want specific details learn about neuroscience.

    "So now you are saying that Buddha or Confucius never existed."  No I am saying no one knows if they existed or not, let alone what they taught.

    " Your statement is an example of the linguistic ability to place two reciprocal phrases together in a single statement and nothing more than that." Obviously you have never heard of Aristotle's law of non-contradiction  "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". What about that fact you do not understand? Learn about metaphysics before talking baloney. 

    "Moreover you are lying. Your statement was indeed against my allegedly saying that some seers will think of an apple and not an apple simultaneously. Something which I challenged you to show me from my responses. You failed there too." I never said you claimed some seers,  can simultaneously think of an apple and not an apple simultaneously. But you did claim they can think of nothingness which means you believe they can break the law of non-contradiction and do the logically impossible.

    , 'A' must also have been caused by some 'AA' and which itself ought to be caused by some 'AAA'. Thats why I said "You will soon fall in an infinite regress. " How? To take your example of adding another "A" that process of adding another "A" will go for ever, their is no impossibility their.

    "Moreover if Big Bang is true then you only have a finite amount of time to go backward." That is based on your interpretation of it, for instance they say "time began with the big bang" but how I ask can something begin if time did not exist? 

    "So did you have infinite time anyway IN THIS UNIVERSE?"  The universe is everything that exists, nothing is created or "begins" but simply changes, and change never begins. So this is a logical proof that the universe can never have begun to exist. 

    "On the other hand, if the answer to my last question is 'No' then the conclusion is that the premise: "If nothing can happen without a cause" is wrong." The big bang does not attempt to to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang, so what you wrote was nonsense. we simply don't know what the physical state of the universe was before the big bang.

     

  420. mysticalmind3 says:

    A"nd both of them would say that the God is 'existing inherently', by definition!!" That would only make sense if "God" is synonymous with reality. If their God is a particular thing however then it makes no sense.

  421. cchuckc says:

    //"Define first what is 'existing inherently'". Something whose existence is not dependent on other things.//
    Well, again the Theist would say that the Immaterial Soul exist because of the God (Abrahamic). So it is dependent on 'that' thing. One of the Hindu belief is that the Immaterial Soul comes out of the Great Soul (Paramatma). So it depends on it. And both of them would say that the God is 'existing inherently', by definition!!

  422. cchuckc says:

    @mysticalmind3
    //Yes some things are simple beyond the realm of science – such as metaphysical questions which can never be answered by science. //
    In other words you are saying (some) Metaphysical answers are simply pseudoscience since these won't conform to the scientific method of inquiry.

    //I said that a belief not based not based on reason and evidence is blind, a *belief* (if you want to call it that) based on reason is by definition a *reasonable belief*. //
    You may define it whichever way, a belief can't be hold hostage by lack of evidence. I never said it can't have a reason going for it. The point come into being since you tried to posit that lack of evidence implies the belief is wrong. I quote back your response to my comment:
    "Belief is confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."
    In that case we should not believe in anything.
    Now I see you softening your stand from 'proof' to 'reasonableness':-).

    I also see you have decided not to answer the second part. This gives me sufficient reason to assume that you haven't gone through these works. In other words you haven't read the reasons they may have furnished in their works, but still are judgmental about their conclusions.

    //Or what you mean is your looking for ways of not answering my question, which is very clear, is the soul conscious after death?//
    No which is your way of joining two unrelated dots. My response was against your asserting that you can equate surviving with functioning/working from this you moved to saying that I implied that consciousness can survive death without being conscious. This is nothing more than word play. Now if you ask the Theist position for the specific question: is the soul conscious after death? Some schools say Yes (Most Indic and Eastern schools), some say No (Abrahamic religions).

    //The model that consciousness is just physical processes in the brain//
    I asked you to describe. Your answer is completely illogical. Q; Describe Gravity? A: It is a physical process involving two objects.

    // was speaking about Buddha, Jesus, Confucius etc when I said "I did not say anything about any of these people" not average Joe theist.//
    And this spiritual teachers were also believers in the immaterial soul. So you covered them.

    //Also do not say Jesus, Buddha or whoever taught mind-dualism or reincarnation and whatever you don't even know that those people even existed – let alone what they taught. //
    So now you are saying that Buddha or Confucius never existed. May I know what is the basis of this assertion? Moreover your second part is fallacious: If you think these people never existed then the question of 'what they taught' doesn't arise. And if they did teach/preach something then they obviously existed. Now you may have valid evidences in claiming that they never existed and I would certainly want to look into it. I always considered History as one of my strong points (What a shame!!).

    //So I gave you an example of a logical impossibility. //
    The statement is logically incoherent, just as your previous invisible pink unicorn was :-). Your statement is an example of the linguistic ability to place two reciprocal phrases together in a single statement and nothing more than that. It doesn't make it coherent. So your attempt goes in smoke. Again!!
    Moreover you are lying. Your statement was indeed against my allegedly saying that some seers will think of an apple and not an apple simultaneously. Something which I challenged you to show me from my responses. You failed there too.

    //Something cannot come from nothing this is a logical fact, so the material present at the big bang cannot have popped magically into being out of nothing.//
    I didn't ask you what that cause was. I asked you : What would be the nature of that something (Lets call it 'A')? And since you say every thing is caused, 'A' must also have been caused by some 'AA' and which itself ought to be caused by some 'AAA'. Thats why I said "You will soon fall in an infinite regress. ".

    //Give me a logical proof causes cannot go back forever?//
    Is infinity physically realizable? Moreover if Big Bang is true then you only have a finite amount of time to go backward. So did you have infinite time anyway IN THIS UNIVERSE? You don't have a 'forever':-) or you proof there is a physical evidence of infinite time for the causal chain to continue 'beyond' the Big Bang.

    //If nothing can happen without a cause then the causes must go back forever.//
    On the other hand, if the answer to my last question is 'No' then the conclusion is that the premise: "If nothing can happen without a cause" is wrong.

  423. mysticalmind3 says:

    @cchuckc
    "Third, in either case, you are saying that some 'facts' will escape science. That takes us to a gray area." Yes some things are simple beyond the realm of science – such as metaphysical questions which can never be answered by science.

    " But you just said that belief is blind faith, while I said that belief could be reasonable even if though it is not dependent on empirical evidence." I said that a belief not based not based on reason and evidence is blind, a *belief* (if you want to call it that) based on reason is by definition a *reasonable belief*.

    "And now reverting to a linguistic trap." Or what you mean is your looking for ways of not answering my question, which is very clear, is the soul conscious after death? 

    "The whole history of scientific developments is full of refinements and replacements of ideas with better models." Give me a better model then as to how consciousness works, if you believe its not a product of physical processes in the brain? You don't have any such model.

    "Describe and I will show you alternate theories including proper scientific ones and theological ones" The model that consciousness is just physical processes in the brain, also these *alternative theories* must be logical and evidence based, so that automatically rules out "theological ones" since they fulfill neither requirement.

    "//I did not say anything about any of these people// 
    I quote back: 
    I said: "It is just the way it is!! That is what a Theist will tell you. " 
    You said: Or in reality then know full well – like everyone else – that their consciousness is dependent on the brain. 
    This implies that the believers of the immaterial souls are either lying or are fools. " I was speaking about Buddha, Jesus, Confucius etc when I said "I did not say anything about any of these people" not average Joe theist. Also do not say Jesus, Buddha or whoever taught mind-dualism or reincarnation and whatever you don't even know that those people even existed – let alone what they taught.

    "Nobody claimed that they will think of an apple and not an apple simultaneously. Or else show me where I made that statement." Before you asked "And you haven't been able to coherently define a single example of what you call a logical impossibility" So I gave you an example of a logical impossibility.

    "Define first what is 'existing inherently'" Something whose existence is not dependent on other things.

    "Anyway taking your answer on its face value that there is no idea how it came around, how can you say that 'for a fact' it must have been caused by something? Also what would be the nature of that something and what would have caused that something? You will soon fall in an infinite regress. " Something cannot come from nothing this is a logical fact, so the material present at the big bang cannot have popped magically into being out of nothing.  "Also what would be the nature of that something" No idea, some have said multiverse, Big Crunch and so on.

    " You will soon fall in an infinite regress." Give me a logical proof causes cannot go back forever? If nothing can happen without a cause then the causes must go back forever.

  424. mysticalmind3 says:

    "The evidence is in near death experiences." Near death experiences by definition is not and cannot be evidence of an afterlife, since they did not actually die but only came close to it (or believed they were going to die). They are not after death experiences. 

    "And there is no other evidence for them. " A "near death experience" can be induced by ketamin, now how could ketamin (which is just chemicals) cause a "near death experience ", if those experiences are not produced by chemicals in the brain but by the immaterial soul separating from the body at the time of death?

  425. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Then which experts and what field of science has the authority on consciousness?" Neuroscience.

    "If determinism is to be true then science should predict with exactitude human behaviors,since it's controlled algorithmically,thereby leaving no room for chance or choice.Your evidence for this is exactly what?" Incorrect science cannot predict anything with 100% certainty, for instance can science perfectly predict the future behavior of your car? No it can't and for the same reason it cannot predict (or at least not perfectly) human behavior. 

    "Sorry,I'm unable to interpret this slop.When you say a "thing can't exist inherently" – are you refering to inanimate objects?,then I agree but not to humans because consciousness is essential and intrinsic to human life.It's kinda implied." I am referring to every single thing that exists, for example consciousness (purely on its own and without speaking about what dependence (if any) it has on the physical world) depends logically on say memory and thought (which are some its components) .

  426. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Secondly,There's no magic involved.Life bestows life and sentience bestows sentience.Minerals do not." Life is a function of matter, a tree does not have a magical property of "life" that say a rock doesn't. The tree just like a rock is purely a material thing.

    "So to infer a sentient FirstCause as bestowing life on earth is a logical conclusion with no contradictions as opposed to your self-created universe which is circular and therefore highly implausible." Its not a logical conclusion that a "sentient first cause" (whatever that is) bestowed life, because first of all its supernatural, which means its not falsifiable and even more than that it does not explain (or could even explain) how life begin on earth. "God did it" which is what your saying is not logical its also called "God of the gaps".

    "self-created universe which is circular and therefore highly implausible" I don't believe in a self created universe its you who believes in a self created God.

    "By naturalistic process,I assume you're refering to evolution.Well that is demostrably false because evolution does not deal with the origin of life but origin of species through random mutation and natural selection.Life is already assumed to exist as creatures evolve."  Yes the process that gave birth to life itself would be essentially the same process that happens to already existing life forms. That would explain life didn't begin by random chance but by mutation and selection acting on molecules. Or that's one theory anyway. But its logical and a lot more plausible that the belief  "the sentient FirstCause bestowed life on earth".

      

  427. Phoenix says:

    It is a theory we don't know yet how life began. But what is your theory then as to how life began? God and magic? I see 3 explanations.//

    First of all,It's a metaphysical hypothesis with zero proof and yet you claimed to only accept proven facts.This casts serious doubt on your honesty and credibility.Secondly,There's no magic involved.Life bestows life and sentience bestows sentience.Minerals do not.So to infer a sentient FirstCause as bestowing life on earth is a logical conclusion with no contradictions as opposed to your self-created universe which is circular and therefore highly implausible.I admit,there's no materialevidence either way for a sentient first cause or a self-created universe but the latter is simply false since material self-causation has never ever been observed.Unless of course you have empirical proof of self-causation.
    =========
    Only number 1 is a rational explanation, the others are not logical and scientific for I think obvious reasons. (Life began by a naturalistic process"

    By naturalistic process,I assume you're refering to evolution.Well that is demostrably false because evolution does not deal with the origin of life but origin of species through random mutation and natural selection.Life is already assumed to exist as creatures evolve.

  428. phoenix says:

    You did not provide any such thing, physics has nothing to do with consciousness"
    And the goal posts are moved once again.Then which experts and what field of science has the authority on consciousness?

    Determinism is a fact, its a logical fact all things depend on something other than themselves for their existence. Things don't come from nothing, and happen by magic, but depend on causes, this is a fact."
    If determinism is to be true then science should predict with exactitude human behaviors,since it's controlled algorithmically,thereby leaving no room for chance or choice.Your evidence for this is exactly what?

    Theses are just straw men, no one says the universe erupted from nothing, nor does life begin by magic but no doubt had causes.//
    These are not strawmen but the exact arguments formulated by materialists.I know,it seems absurd but hey,so is philosophical materialism the basis for those absurdities.

    The reason our self awareness must be a illusion is because it is impossible for a thing to exist inherently.//
    Sorry,I'm unable to interpret this slop.When you say a "thing can't exist inherently" – are you refering to inanimate objects?,then I agree but not to humans because consciousness is essential and intrinsic to human life.It's kinda implied.

  429. Supriya says:

    knowTheEnemy
    1] I didn't know that you are an Indian. I thought that you are a westerner.
    2] Prajapita Brahmakumaris say that – This is the time when Kali yug of current Srishti Chakra(the world cycle) is transforming into Satya yug of next Srishti chakra. It can be explained as – The world is heading towards a major catastrophe through over population, nuclear wars, civil strife , environmental pollution etc. But divine efforts are also going to sow the seeds of a divine world order by implanting divine qualities in the minds of those who are willing to listen to the divine call and to change their ways.
    Every soul is traveling towards the end of Kaliyug with his own speed. The time of Awakening of the soul is predestined according to his past karmas and sanskaras. So those souls or followers wish to meet Guru because they want the Guru should wash out their Prarabdha karmas are weak souls in comparison with the souls who don't need Guru to wash out their prarabdha karma. e. g. you are more stronger than other followers.Your speed is higher than other followers.

    People have various reasons to be with Guru. In my opinion reasons are :
    1] You wish to fulfill your wishes because it is more pleasurable
    2] There is misery in your life and you wish to get rid of misery
    3] You want to evolve and become enlighten ; you want to seek higher knowledge
    4] If your vision and mission resembles to that of Guru.
    5] You want to serve your Guru selflessly
    6] You are with Guru and believe in him because you belong to him. There is no alternative.

    You don't desire to go to Karma-absorber Guru. The Guru should be real . My Guru Sri Sri says : The best way to dissolve Karma is- You keep on working without worrying of past karmas ( Nishkam karma) . Knowledge, self-awareness, meditation, good deeds such as Seva can erase your past karmas.
    Prarabha karma can't be washed out . You need to face them as they are effects of your past causes or karma. But self- realisation of your spiritual existance helps you in reducing the implications of prarabdha karma. Sanchit karma can be washed out by spiritual practices.

  430. Ali Sina says:

    The evidence is in near death experiences. You need to watch a few hundreds of testimonies on youtube and gradually a common thread emerges. These testimonies cannot be dismissed as hallucination. And there is no other evidence for them. We can't have any other proof except those experiences, at least not yet.

  431. cchuckc says:

    //No, just that it can not tell us "everything". //
    Which is also a belief and hence blind:-). Second it goes against your assertion and I quote: "you would have to know everything and be able to measure with absolute 100% certainty – which is logically impossible". Third, in either case, you are saying that some 'facts' will escape science. That takes us to a gray area.

    //If I say God (or at least a certain conception of God) does not exist, this will be based on reasons not on "blind faith"//
    But you just said that belief is blind faith, while I said that belief could be reasonable even if though it is not dependent on empirical evidence. You are conveniently ascribing reasoning to your belief. But have you read (and understood) various religio-philosophical texts like Aquinas, which was based on Aristotle's philosophical works (the 'science' of his day) or the Madhyamika school of Nagarjuna or Sankara's works? I guess no.

    //Yeah that's how silly my logic is, how can consciousness survive death if its not conscious, yeah silly me//
    Yes it is silly. Equating two words is silly when they may only have an inter-relationship, at most. And now reverting to a linguistic trap.

    //Just admit you don't have a clue what your talking about.//
    Abuse won't work. You said what you said and you are trying to escape the foolish conclusion you drove out of it. The whole history of scientific developments is full of refinements and replacements of ideas with better models.

    //The facts about cars, brain, evolution etc are facts which we all know are never going to be overthrown. //
    I gave you an example of Geocentrisim. I am sure those pundits of yore had pretty similar feelings. They were dogmatic and by the same token you are also dogmatic. Even the common notion that the Earth rotates around the Sun is not so correct!!!

    //No of them "overthrow" any of the established facts about the brain.//
    I never tried doing that. I tried to show you that a good scientist, philosopher, mathematician or anybody arguing on these subjects can't steadfastly hold onto any particular notion for long. History has shown that again and again. In that context I showed you hypothesis which can alter our current understanding of brains as well.

    //We know full well how consciousness works its no mystery. //
    Describe and I will show you alternate theories including proper scientific ones and theological ones:-)

    //I did not say anything about any of these people//
    I quote back:
    I said: "It is just the way it is!! That is what a Theist will tell you. "
    You said: Or in reality then know full well – like everyone else – that their consciousness is dependent on the brain.
    This implies that the believers of the immaterial souls are either lying or are fools.

    //I also gave the proof about a self contradiction, for example your magical monks who you claim can think of non-existence itself, can not simultaneously be thinking of say an apple and not thinking of an apple that is logically impossible. //
    Nobody claimed that they will think of an apple and not an apple simultaneously. Or else show me where I made that statement.

    //Another example is you cannot predict any future event with 100% accuracy – you can only make estimates.//
    Again predicting future events with 100% accuracy isn't in the realm of Immaterial Soul or Spiritual persons. If somebody claims that he/she is a charlatan. This example has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

    //Another still is that a thing cannot exist inherently, but depends on its parts to exist and an external reality. //
    Define first what is 'existing inherently'. Remember that most Theists are saying that the soul is 'immaterial' in other words it would be wrong to ascribe material aspects onto them. Now go ahead.

    //Science has no idea where our universe came from – but that doesn't mean it popped magically into being from "nothing" //
    Then you aren't well read into all aspects of Big Bang. Science does have competing hypothesis. Anyway taking your answer on its face value that there is no idea how it came around, how can you say that 'for a fact' it must have been caused by something? Also what would be the nature of that something and what would have caused that something? You will soon fall in an infinite regress.

    //And that comes from a person who believes in metaphysical free will, reincarnation and soul and afterlife. //
    Foolish really. I haven't made any such claim. I am only saying that your hard-nosed stance is wrong and science and theology don't compete. Competent investigators in both fields have tried their best to understand certain realities. On the other hand you stand by a per-conceived notion of Determinism, and opinionated.

  432. mysticalmind3 says:

     "So from this one should infer that science can't provide answer to everything, right?" No, just that it can not tell us "everything".

    "Its a claim that you are making. I guess you have a suitable proof of this claim. However that wasn't the point. The point was you said belief is blind. Atheists believe there is no God (Abrahamic or otherwise). This two statement together imply: The belief that there is no God is also 'blind'. " If I say God (or at least a certain conception of God) does not exist, this will be based on reasons not on "blind faith".

    "That’s how silly your logic goes" Yeah that's how silly my logic is, how can consciousness survive death if its not conscious, yeah silly me. &nbsp;

    "The fine point that escaped you is that I am saying there is always scope to build upon a better solution no matter whether Penrose thinks so or something else. And when that happens what you know for a fact goes out for a toss. " Just admit you don't have a clue what your talking about.

    "I hoped you are well read on the subject. Read up the history of Geocentricism. Even if it evolved out of religious dogma, the theory was on good grounds, in agreement with most observations at that time, until some observations betrayed the theory. Until then it was as good a 'fact' as your mechanic's facts about the car and all the hallmarks of a good scientific theory like falsifiability and predictability. It could make reasonably accurate predictions and was ultimately falsified by certain observations." The facts about cars, brain, evolution etc are facts which we all know are never going to be overthrown.

    "I showed you examples of hypothesis which can refine the current knowledge we have about the brain. " No of them "overthrow" any of the established facts about the brain.

    "Another illogical statement. " Your invisible man does nothing, nor does it explain anything therefore it can be thrown out using Occam's razor because such a thing is not needed.

    "So far I haven't found a single logical explanation from you why we should stop looking for alternate explanations to any theory." So why do not we keep looking for evidence of Adam and eve? And the early humans that could live hundreds of years? We know full well how consciousness works its no mystery.

    "You have even gone ahead to hint that Buddha, Aurobindo, Christ, Zoraster, Confucious et al were misguided fools or liars. " I did not say anything about any of these people.

    "And you haven't been able to coherently define a single example of what you call a logical impossibility" I gave you my example of "nothingness". I also gave the proof about a self contradiction, for example your magical monks who you claim can think of non-existence itself, can not simultaneously be thinking of say an apple and not thinking of an apple that is logically impossible. Another example is you cannot predict any future event with 100% accuracy – you can only make estimates. Another still is that a thing cannot exist inherently, but depends on its parts to exist and an external reality.

    " How was it caused assuming it occurred?" How am I supposed to know? Science has no idea where our universe came from – but that doesn't mean it popped magically into being from "nothing"

  433. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Yes, he is dogmatic." And that comes from a person who believes in metaphysical free will, reincarnation and soul and afterlife. 

  434. cchuckc says:

    @phoenix
    //You're not skeptical but dogmatic about your certainty and you defend it vociferously.//
    Yes, he is dogmatic. And no more.

  435. cchuckc says:

    //You just gave some nonsense analogy which did not answer what I said. //
    Your idea that "to experience" => it must work was the non-sense. And that prompted me to give an example.

    //Science cannot do that, since to have 100% knowledge of everything, you would have to know everything and be able to measure with absolute 100% certainty – which is logically impossible.//
    So from this one should infer that science can't provide answer to everything, right?

    //God at least the way he is defined in the Abrahamic religions is a logically impossibility, so he is disproved.//
    Its a claim that you are making. I guess you have a suitable proof of this claim. However that wasn't the point. The point was you said belief is blind. Atheists believe there is no God (Abrahamic or otherwise). This two statement together imply: The belief that there is no God is also 'blind'.

    //That's why you do not answer it, a state of survival means being conscious so what you wrote their is foolish.//
    That’s how silly your logic goes:-) You said that:
    how else then is the soul going to survive death (if it depends on the body to function).

    In other words you were equating surviving with functioning/working (just as previously you were equating experiencing with working). So the proposition was foolish.

    //It nothing more than speculation but even if it were true//
    It’s a hypothesis. Some hypothesis develop into theories and may eventually graduate into Laws. That’s how science works.

    //Penrose does not believe that consciousness exists independent of the brain or of cause and effect so such a hypothesis is entirely meaningless to the context of what your speaking of. //
    Another example of Non sequitur. What Penrose believes about consciousness has nothing to do with how it actually works (he may or may not be correct, it is not a finality that you go ahead and make the next statement). The fine point that escaped you is that I am saying there is always scope to build upon a better solution no matter whether Penrose thinks so or something else. And when that happens what you know for a fact goes out for a toss.

    //Their belief was based on religious dogma – not fact.//
    I hoped you are well read on the subject. Read up the history of Geocentricism. Even if it evolved out of religious dogma, the theory was on good grounds, in agreement with most observations at that time, until some observations betrayed the theory. Until then it was as good a 'fact' as your mechanic's facts about the car and all the hallmarks of a good scientific theory like falsifiability and predictability. It could make reasonably accurate predictions and was ultimately falsified by certain observations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentricism

    //So its just an invisible ghost that does nothing, such an "immaterial soul" can be cut out purely by Occam's razor.//
    Another illogical statement.
    1. I said it doesn't interfere with the physical structure of the brain. You are simply jumping to a preconceived notion that non-interference to a structure => does nothing.
    2. Occam's razor isn't guaranteed to give the correct result. The simplest available theory needn't be most accurate. Anybody studying Philosophy, Science or mathematics should know this.

    //All these theories are just speculation, but I say again even if it were true it doesn't say their is anything more than the brain involved in consciousness so again is totally meaningless to the philosophical mind-body question.//
    You have lost the context. I showed you examples of hypothesis which can refine the current knowledge we have about the brain.

    So far I haven't found a single logical explanation from you why we should stop looking for alternate explanations to any theory. Or why an alternate mechanism to the scientific method of investigation shouldn't be pursued. You have even gone ahead to hint that Buddha, Aurobindo, Christ, Zoraster, Confucious et al were misguided fools or liars. You haven't even been able to sustain your original claim that if something is physically impossible then we can't be conscious of it. And you haven't been able to coherently define a single example of what you call a logical impossibility 🙂

    You have commented at another place: //Things don't come from nothing, and happen by magic, but depend on causes, this is a fact.//
    Have you heard of Big Bang? Do you accept there was Big Bang? How was it caused assuming it occurred?

  436. mysticalmind3 says:

    "I did give you an example of how you experience without 'working'." You just gave some nonsense analogy which did not answer what I said.

    "So the belief that science will furnish evidence for everything is also 'blind'." Science cannot do that, since to have 100% knowledge of everything, you would have to know everything and be able to measure with absolute 100% certainty – which is logically impossible. So that belief is indeed blind.

    "The belief that there is no God is also 'blind'. " God at least the way he is defined in the abrahamic religions is a logically impossibility, so he is disproved.

    "Thats another foolish proposition. survival is a state not a function. " That's why you do not answer it, a state of survival means being conscious so what you wrote their is foolish. 

    "Another foolish proposition. The "Quantum Brain" is a hypothesis." It nothing more than speculation but even if it were true, Penrose does not believe that consciousness exists independent of the brain or of cause and effect, so such a hypothesis is entirely meaningless to the context of what your speaking of.

    "In 1000 AD most people believed that the earth was the center of the universe. In those days it was the fact. Most of the astronomy was based on using this 'fact' and it served its purpose well enough until refinements came. The 'fact' didn't remain a 'fact' anymore. " Their belief was based on religious dogma – not fact.

    "Believe in "Immaterial Soul" doesn't interfere with the physical structure of brain. " So its just an invisible ghost that does nothing, such an "immaterial soul" can be cut out purely by Occam's razor. 

    "for example The holonomic brain theory." All these theories are just speculation, but I say again even if it were true it doesn't say their is anything more than the brain involved in consciousness so again is totally meaningless to the philosophical mind-body question.   

      

  437. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Well, Ali Sina always wrote that the ones with the extraordinary claims, like Muslims, have the burden of proof." Yes the believers in reincarnation need to present their extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims.

    "Human Behavior" With the causes of behavior their are only a limited number of categories of causes. So for example if your car does not start their are a finite number of categories to explain it, for example it could be an electrical fault or something wrong with the fuel system.You know however it is not due to a magical past life of the car.   Likewise with the humans the causes of our behavior must either be genetic, environmental or psychological. Invoking "past lives" as in the case of the car, is just delusional magical thinking which has nothing to do with reality.   

  438. mysticalmind3 says:

    "And about God; even mysticalmind3 cannot disprove HIS existence. So no shred of evidence is needed for accepting the possibility of HIS existence." You have even defined what you mean by "God" so first give me a logically coherent definition of it. Then we can talk about whether it exists or not.

    " I did choose Science and Darwinism over Christianity, you know."  My "gullible fool comment" was in response to this rather unintelligent statement,  "My reaction to "newly heard beliefs" is: To believe, unless." If you understand what you wrote their, you will understand why I called you a gullible fool. 

    "But I think your rejecting approach is throwing away many "babies" with much "bathwater"." The only reason you such thing is because I am talking about your beliefs. If I had the same about the virgin birth, Muhammad on his flying horse and the resurrection of the dead, you would not have a problem because you don't believe in those things.

     

  439. mysticalmind3 says:

    "You asked for experimental,falsifiable evidence published in a scientific journal for the efficacy of consciousness and beliefs by PHYSICISTS and I gave it but you reject them on the grounds of it being in conflict with your materialism." You did not provide any such thing, physics has nothing to do with consciousness. 

    "Do you question determinism?No" Determinism is a fact, its a logical fact all things depend on something other than themselves for their existence. Things don't come from nothing, and happen by magic, but depend on causes, this is a fact. 

    "Are skeptical of an immaculate universe spontaneously erupting from nothing?No 
    Are you skeptical of abiogenesis (life erupting magically from minerals)?No "
    Theses are just straw men, no one says the universe erupted from nothing, nor does life begin by magic but no doubt had causes.

    "Are you skeptical of the materialist's belief that consciousness is an illusion?No" The reason our self awareness must be a illusion is because it is impossible for a thing to exist inherently.  

  440. mysticalmind3 says:

    It is a theory we don't know yet how life began. But what is your theory then as to how life began? God and magic? I see 3 explanations.
    1) Life began by a naturalistic process. 
    2)Out of space aliens brought life to earth.
    3)It was created by magic by a God. (or some other supernatural gobbledygook like a magic consciousness). 
    Only number 1 is a rational explanation, the others are not logical and scientific for I think obvious reasons.

    Also note that quote was not even from me, but from the new age Hindu.

  441. Phoenix says:

    It's consciousness due to which living creature born out of primordial oceanic soup"

    That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordianry proof(atheist's criterion).Show me the replicable falsifiable,experimental evidence that life erupted accidentally from a chemical soup.

  442. phoenix says:

    Their is not one shred of evidence for reincarnation, afterlife, ghosts and gods"

    You asked for experimental,falsifiable evidence published in a scientific journal for the efficacy of consciousness and beliefs by PHYSICISTS and I gave it but you reject them on the grounds of it being in conflict with your materialism.
    You don't want evidence opposing materialsm,you want confirmation of your biased materialist beliefs.
    Do you question determinism?No
    Are skeptical of an immaculate universe spontaneously erupting from nothing?No
    Are you skeptical of abiogenesis (life erupting magically from minerals)?No
    Are you skeptical of the materialist's belief that consciousness is an illusion?No

    You're not skeptical but dogmatic about your certainty and you defend it vociferously.

  443. cchuckc says:

    //No you did not answer anything.//
    I did give you an example of how you experience without 'working'.

    //Yes that is why beliefs are blind//
    So the belief that science will furnish evidence for everything is also 'blind'. The belief that there is no God is also 'blind'.

    //Because how else then is the soul going to survive death (if it depends on the body to function)? //
    Thats another foolish proposition. survival is a state not a function.

    //Its nothing like that question, you are deliberately misinterpreting it. //
    No, you want to escape the conclusion. Your question can be easily reduced to : Why is X the way it is? Replace X by whichever phrase you want to.

    //Its just a fact about a car, not a "approximation to deeper reality". //
    Well it is.

    //In that case you just refuted your own nonsense about a "quantum brain", since QM has nothing to do with neuroscience.//
    Another foolish proposition. The "Quantum Brain" is a hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
    This no way refutes my assertion that your assertion that All Physicists know about evolutionary biology, is logically wrong.

    //I do not care about "refinements" all that matters is the facts. //
    The facts change due to refinements. In 1000 AD most people believed that the earth was the center of the universe. In those days it was the fact. Most of the astronomy was based on using this 'fact' and it served its purpose well enough until refinements came. The 'fact' didn't remain a 'fact' anymore.

    //Likewise we are not going to go back to "immaterial soul" because we know for a fact the brain is a neural network of electrical impulses.//
    :-). Believe in "Immaterial Soul" doesn't interfere with the physical structure of brain. You are just proposing another fallacy. Second, there are proper scientific proposals which may change the notion of the mind-body problem, for example The holonomic brain theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theo
    You may as well want to read The Understanding of the Brain by Eccles who was a 'proper', nobel awarded, neurophysiologist.

  444. Demsci says:

    //"Their is not one shred of evidence for reincarnation, afterlife, ghosts and gods"//
    In case of the Muslim; he was presented by us with evidence from the Quran-Hadiths-Sira to prove some of our points about Islamic theology, negative about Islam. And he answered, by denying, dismissing almost everything.

    And we can ask ourselves; Will Mysticalmind3 likewise deny, dismiss all evidence, on reincarnation, afterlife, we present him/ her?

    And about God; even mysticalmind3 cannot disprove HIS existence. So no shred of evidence is needed for accepting the possibility of HIS existence.

    //"My approach is the rational one, your approach the one of the ultimate gullible fool."//
    I like that response, and I will try to be better than a gullible fool. I did choose Science and Darwinism over Christianity, you know.

    But I think your rejecting approach is throwing away many "babies" with much "bathwater".

  445. Demsci says:

    Thanks for deep informative answers, mm3. 
    You: //"Their the ones that need to prove it,"//

    Well, Ali Sina always wrote that the ones with the extraordinary claims, like Muslims, have the burden of proof. 

    //"we have much better and simpler explanations for human behavior (I.e genetics and psychology). "//

    THIS for me indeed goes to the heart of the matter, now you too are into comparing explanations.

    We posit that there is a huge study-object; Human behavior,

    then we are presented with divers explanations of divers aspects of it.

    And now you tell me that for human behavior we have the COMPETING explanations, the, say,  "scientific" ones and the "supernatural" ones (maybe among others) and you compare the scientific and the supernatural and you declare the scientific ones as the superior explanations on SAME ISSUES.

    I confess I have to study so much more. If indeed the scientific explanations really compete on SAME ISSUES with supernatural ones I too want to choose the scientific explanations over the supernatural ones due to my desire for finding the highest truth I can find.

    But, isn't it possible somehow that some supernatural explanations of human behavior still really do NOT COMPETE with scientific explanations of SAME HUMAN BEHAVIOR? Isn't there also a huge field, terrain, about human behavior, that is still not covered by science well enough?

    Or, are there not some fields, terrains, about human behavior, on which rational people, searching for the highest truth they can find, give the supernatural explanations, THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT???

    Now you seem often to give the benefit of the doubt to REJECTION, EVEN without sufficient better competing  explanations on SAME ISSUES.

  446. mysticalmind3 says:

    @Demsci
    "But you know what: When some of us gave him "tons of evidence" he still rejected ALL of it. For some almost no evidence is enough, they can always argue against it. " Their is not one shred of evidence for reincarnation, afterlife, ghosts and gods

    "My reaction to "newly heard beliefs" is: To believe, unless. Yours seems to be: To "reject, unless". They call me naive, I call people like you paranoid (with all due respect, we have no REAL quarrel I think)." My approach is the rational one, your approach the one of the ultimate gullible fool. I heard of a case, where their was a cult leader who claimed aliens were going to come to the earth, when obviously that didn't happen the believers had given so much to this charlatan they could not admit they was wrong and had been fooled. You (and what you said there) reminds me very much of those brainwashed cultists. 

  447. mysticalmind3 says:

    @Demsci
    "In the movie about a Volcano-eruption in America, both politicians and experts rejected the opinion and dire warnings of the lone other expert Piers Brosnan who had seen early warning signs up close"  In reality if a scientist claimed he had evidence of a super volcano (or some similar impending disaster) eruption, the government would check the claim which would take about 2 minutes, for them to know if the claim is bull or not.

    " The Israeli's presumably were like you but changed after some devastating near-catastrophic "rejections". According to this reasoning then we should all join our nearest dooms day cult since we cannot be absolutely certain its not made up bulls***.   

  448. mysticalmind3 says:

    " Not an apt example but I hope this clears things up a bit. " No you did not answer anything.

    "By definition beliefs don't depend on evidences, facts do. " Yes that is why beliefs are blind.

    "How does a belief that the soul survives the death of the body imply that ALL religious people believe that the soul doesn't need the body?" Because how else then is the soul going to survive death (if it depends on the body to function)?

    "Which is exactly on the lines, Why the brain is a neural network of electric pulses? " Its nothing like that question, you are deliberately misinterpreting it.

    " But what he claims to be a fact is only an approximation to a deeper reality." Its just a fact about a car, not a "approximation to deeper reality".

    "You haven't been able to defend your position or refute mine that knowledge is refined over time." All I have been doing is defending my position, and if you read the comment below (the 1 about evolution) you will see I refuted you.

    "I simply said that Physicist, by definition, don't have anything to do with Evolutionary mechanisms." In that case you just refuted your own nonsense about a "quantum brain", since QM has nothing to do with neuroscience.

    " my comment was against your idea that what we claim facts aren't susceptible to refinements." I do not care about "refinements" all that matters is the facts.

    "However we know that Darwin wasn't acquainted with modern genetics, so his theory at that time didn't and couldn't account for genetic mutation. So the knowledge of evolution went through an evolution. What Darwin stated as fact went through further refinement." The basic fact of evolution (by natural selection) is not going to change because of certain knowledge that might be added to what we already know. We are not going to go back to creationism because we know Darwinian evolution is a fact. Likewise we are not going to go back to "immaterial soul" because we know for a fact the brain is a neural network of electrical impulses.

     

     

  449. mysticalmind3 says:

    "But nobody is capable to disprove it, Mysticalmind!" Their the ones that need to prove it, and no it is not possible either, given what we know about the brain and memory. Also its just superstition, we have much better and simpler explanations for human behavior (I.e genetics and psychology).

    "And together with beliefs in heaven and avoiding hell, belief in reincarnation and afterlife is something people love to cherish, take comfort from, including me." Now we are getting to the real reason people believe in the afterlife and gods – and its has nothing to with logic and evidence.

    "What gives your life meaning then? Is it perhaps wishing and doing the best for mankind's future existence as it is with me? (since you clearly can give up your ego totally for ever and ever)." A thing only has meaning if its finite. If our lives went on for eternity after death (like their could ever be such a thing), this would rob our worldly life of all meaning. Its the here and now that matters and the things we do in this world while we are alive – not some fantasy world beyond the grave.

  450. Demsci says:

    //"and no belief in "past lives" is needed to explain it."//
    But nobody is capable to disprove it, Mysticalmind! And together with beliefs in heaven and avoiding hell, belief in reincarnation and afterlife is something people love to cherish, take comfort from, including me.

    You are saying to believers; there is no soul and no heaven and no afterlife and your ego, consciousness dies, vanishes completely!! You are very brave to believe that!

    What gives your life meaning then? Is it perhaps wishing and doing the best for mankind's future existence as it is with me? (since you clearly can give up your ego totally for ever and ever).

  451. Demsci says:

    //"If someone claims there is a worldwide zombie epidemic its very easy to find out if its true or not"//
    OK, but the point was that it came up very rapidly, due to delayed manifestation in combination with the huge air-traffic, facilitating contagion worldwide.

    In the movie about a Volcano-eruption in America, both politicians and experts rejected the opinion and dire warnings of the lone other expert Piers Brosnan who had seen early warning signs up close

    and as a result, when the volcano erupted ,there were high casualties (the same could well have happened in Sumatra just now, with the Sinabung Volcano).

    The Israeli's presumably were like you but changed after some devastating near-catastrophic "rejections".

  452. Demsci says:

    &nbsp;//"You did not even name 1."//
    I meet people reasoning like you all the time, even a Muslim here on Alisina.org used your reasoning, AGAINST Ali Sina and posters, including me, in his reaction trying to destroy all our credibility, calling us liers, because of lack of evidence. But you know what: When some of us gave him "tons of evidence" he still rejected ALL of it. For some almost no evidence is enough, they can always argue against it.

    What to me is at stake is:
    A. A constant stream of information, through the media, then through what people one meets are saying in conversation, telling one what they believe.
    B. A proper reaction to that constant stream. In the context of searching for the highest truth.
    I can tell you tons of things people did not believe coming from that stream in the news, and presented opinions. Without specifying what some kind of better theory, or explanation was in relation to that which they rejected, disbelieved.&nbsp;

    Remember: in 2014, Big Data is exploding (we gain informationvolumes that took 1000's of years, now in a few days and tomorrow in a few minutes, so to speak). And this is the "Twitter-era", people desire to be concise and are anyway unable, because of lack of time and attentionspan and sheer masses of available data to tell yoy all facts with all precise logic.

    You and I are on the same page when we prefer the better evidenced and reasoned theory over the lesser one. And that is why I love the sites that debunk conspiracy theories and such.

    When told by writers and enthousiastic believers in them that it was highly probable that the Ancient Egyptians build the pyramids with secret techniques or it was done by ALIENS, I am helpless at first to understand the basics, but I am loath to reject the belief of the believers. Only when the debunkers come up with a better theory I choose that (most of the time anyway).

    My reaction to "newly heard beliefs" is: To believe, unless. Yours seems to be: To "reject, unless". They call me naive, I call people like you paranoid (with all due respect, we have no REAL quarrel I think).

  453. cchuckc says:

    //Well since you are going to be having experiences in that realm, it must work. //
    Is this some kind of employment scheme that one must work to gain experience? When you lay down in a sauna, you 'experience' the warmth even without actually working on any of the faucets etc. Not an apt example but I hope this clears things up a bit.

    //That is the definition of blind faith – belief which is not based on reason or evidence. //
    I didn't say that beliefs aren't based on reason, many do and many don't. I only said that it is wrong to hold a belief hostage to lack of empirical evidence. By definition beliefs don't depend on evidences, facts do.

    //I was referring to your analogy that the soul "needs" the weight of the car. This is not what religions believe about the soul, so your analogy is false and irrelevant.//
    You are half quoting. I said: the soul without body is somewhat 'inert' so this car needs 'those weights' to run in a particular manner (even if that particular manner isn't desirable or appealing in a particular Theological understanding). And that is the most common notion that the soul doesn't operate without the body. This was an addendum to the original position that your proposition itself was foolish because of the notion you yourself subscribed to (in the case of 'why the brain is a neural network), that it is the way it is.

    //All of them do, since they all believe it survives death//
    Non sequitur. How does a belief that the soul survives the death of the body imply that ALL religious people believe that the soul doesn't need the body?

    //Why does a incorporeal soul need a body to function? //
    Which is exactly on the lines, Why the brain is a neural network of electric pulses? Which you have yourself deemed to be a silly question:-).

    //Does a mechanic need to know anything about quantum mechanics to know facts about the car?//
    No. But what he claims to be a fact is only an approximation to a deeper reality. It doesn't depend on whether he knows anything about QM or not or what will be more correct in this case, the GTR/STR (If he saying some 'facts' about motion of the car). 'Need to know deeper' is in no way a hindrance to what he knows to be a fact, but again what he says is a 'fact' may only be a gross estimation.

    //No they are not, the only reason you say such a thing about the facts of the brain is because of your belief in mysticism. //
    You are making silly allegations. You haven't been able to defend your position or refute mine that knowledge is refined over time. By the way I was refuting your convenient belief that on one aspect (that the brain is a neural network) you deem the answer to my 'why' as a silly, but on another aspect (that the soul is incorporeal) you raised a similarly silly 'why' :-).

    //The fact is I refuted your nonsense,//
    As a matter of fact, and you can scroll back this long chain of exchanges, I found many of your 'refutations' non-sequitur and some Red Herrings. And for each of my refutations I have given counter examples and reasoning, some of which you skipped.

    //evolution operates by the laws of classical physics//
    Now you are talking about Emergence or may be you would like to explain what you mean by this!! I can only laugh at this. Emergence doesn't imply that every physicist worth his salt will become an expert in Evolutionary Biology.

    //I guess those physicists who say otherwise must also be the one's who don't know anything about evolutionary biology.//
    I simply said that Physicist, by definition, don't have anything to do with Evolutionary mechanisms. They may or may not have an opinion in favour of it. By the way this whole argument from you was fallacious because my comment was against your idea that what we claim facts aren't susceptible to refinements. For example consider the two statements below:
    1. You said: the brain is the product of Darwinian evolution.
    2. Darwinian Evolution: Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

    However we know that Darwin wasn't acquainted with modern genetics, so his theory at that time didn't and couldn't account for genetic mutation. So the knowledge of evolution went through an evolution. What Darwin stated as fact went through further refinement.

  454. knowTheEnemy says:

    I did grow up in India (as a Sikh). I heard and read lots of stories but was not told about Chitragupta's job. So thank you for telling me what he does.

    I will meet Sri Sri Ravi Shankar when it is in my destiny to meet him, but I have met two other very decent men who lots of people visit because they think they are karma-absorbing Gurus. One of them has a smaller following (Ishwar Puri: Watch sample video here). The other one has a much larger following (Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj). Both of them give very nice lectures on everything and you would think that their followers would be almost Jesus like from living their lives according to what they learn from the lectures.

    But that is not what I saw. The majority of the followers are only interested in getting a long eye-contact (called 'darshan') with the Gurus (The belief among followers is that the Guru absorbs Karma through the eyes). When the Guru is in town a large number of people show up at their centers for darshan, but when he is not in town only a few people show up even though the video-lectures are played on the projector there. It didn't take me long to figure out that the followers were only interested in somehow getting rid of their bad Karma. They are so selfish they don't even bother considering that the Guru might end up suffering from all the bad karma that they unload on to him.

    Since Ishwar Puri has a much smaller following, I was able to see how intensely dedicated the initiated followers were towards him. They would do almost EVERYTHING for him. When he gets in the car, some follower already has the door open for him. If it is raining some guy already has an umbrella open for him. If he wishes to eat at a restaurant, which he often does, within 10 minutes the followers not only find out which restaurant in the area offers high quality vegetarian food, they also reseve a table, and one of the guys goes to the restaurant ahead of time to make dead sure that the table is ready by the time the 'Master' gets there. The Guru does not have to do ANYTHING by himself. It was weird and mind-boggling.

    Needless to say, I was equally perpelexed at the Gurus. They were clearly nice, and decent fellows. Why don't they tell the followers that following the good teachings in the lectures is lot more important than worrying about Karma or acting like first-class servants. At first I thought they really were 'charlatans' and were taking selfish advantage of the believers…. until one day when I asked Ishwar Puri a question that made me realize that there is a lot of grey area involved. I remember asking him "How can you let people spend so much of their effort towards you? I am pretty sure you can open your own car door. Do you really need to have followers do all these little things for you?" He said "No I do not need any of this done for me. They (the followers) are the ones who need to do this. They can stop doing all this right now for all I care, but there is a need within them to do this. If they don't do this here they will go somewhere else and do it there." I soon realized that he was correct. The deficiency was in the followers… .the Guru may simply be providing them a band-aid solution to meet that deficiency.

    For this reason I refrain from calling the Karma-absorbing Gurus 'charlatans' even if they accept money from followers and even if they use their own name when that money is used for charity purposes (Actually it is the followers who fiercly insist that "All credit goes to my Master!").

    As for me, I do not feel the desire to go to any Karma-absorbers. As I said in a different comment, the real Guru is the one who helps one realize things that s/he didn't know before. So strictly speaking Ishwar Puri too is my Guru since there is at least one thing that I realized from talking to him that I didn't understand before.

  455. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Reborn in any realm doesn't mean the soul can 'work' or 'operate'." Well since you are going to be having experiences in that realm, it must work.

    "'Blind' or not is a personal opinion and isn't a logical fall-out. " That is the definition of blind faith – belief which is not based on reason or evidence.

    "The analogy of car for the soul and the extra weight for the body was your analogy not my." I was referring to your analogy that the soul "needs" the weight of the car. This is not what religions believe about the soul, so your analogy is false and irrelevant.   

    "Sweeping Generalisation that the religious people think the soul doesn't need the body, some might. But most don't."  All of them do, since they all believe it survives death.

    "As I said, the most common opinion is that the soul needs the body to function but is itself incorporeal." That is exactly why question, which you have not understood. Why does a incorporeal soul need a body to function?

    "My point is that our knowledge evolve all the time and your belief that it is a fact, remains valid only until a more refined theory takes over" The facts of evolution, the earth orbiting the sun, and the brain being a neural network of electrical impulses are facts they not going to be taken over by a new theory. Does a mechanic need to know anything about quantum mechanics to know facts about the car? Does a computer technician need to know about QM to know facts about computers? Does a physician need to know about QM to know facts about health and disease? Are the established facts about cars, computers and health going to be overturned? No they are not, the only reason you say such a thing about the facts of the brain is because of your belief in mysticism. 

    " By the way, your claim that every physicist will agree with a certain notion is a rhetoric. Neither have you interviewed all physicist nor do I have access to all of them (or the time or intent anyway). But I am certain there are many physicist who are Theist (I am personally acquainted with some) and very few would like to indulge in a subject that is not their own (Evolutionary Biology isn't a strong point among Physicists)." The fact is I refuted your nonsense, the brain is a product of Darwinian evolution, evolution operates by the laws of classical physics, this perfectly explains how consciousness came about. I guess those physicists who say otherwise must also be the one's who don't know anything about evolutionary biology.    

     

  456. cchuckc says:

    //for example Tibetan Buddhists believe that a persons mind can be reborn in to "realms of existence" (such as hell realms) and this is a "spiritual world". //
    Reborn in any realm doesn't mean the soul can 'work' or 'operate'.

    //Then by definition belief is blind and not based on proof. //
    By definition belief isn't dependent on evidence. 'Blind' or not is a personal opinion and isn't a logical fall-out.

    //Or in reality then know full well – like everyone else – that their consciousness is dependent on the brain. //
    Or in other words, they all are definite liars. By the way it is not a valid answer to my criticism. If you think that asking 'why' is silly, the Theist can say much the same.

    //The soul cannot be touched by the body, the religious people believe the soul doesn't need the body. So your analogy is false.//
    The analogy of car for the soul and the extra weight for the body was your analogy not my. If you think it is false then I will be happy to respond to another more appropriate analogy that you want to furnish now. By the way, it is a Sweeping Generalisation that the religious people think the soul doesn't need the body, some might. But most don't. As I said, the most common opinion is that the soul needs the body to function but is itself incorporeal.

    //Give me any physicist who says that humans are not biological machines and the brain is the NOT the product of Darwinian evolution?//
    Another Red Herring.
    You said: The fact that the brain is a neural network of electric pulses, is as much a fact as the earth is round, that it orbits the sun and that humans share a common ancestor with apes.
    This was in response to my comment: " Tomorrow suppose nerologists come with a more comprehensive Quantum Brain Dynamics driven structure, will it this knowledge become less obvious?"

    My point is that our knowledge evolve all the time and your belief that it is a fact, remains valid only until a more refined theory takes over. In the case of brain, for example, QBD is a hypothesis that extends Quantum Field Theory to understand brain functioning. It was in this context that your closed door notion of "this is fact" was begging the quip from me that Newtonian Physicists believed certain things ot be fact, but then further refinements came and what was a fact before only became a close approximation and nothing more!!
    By the way, your claim that every physicist will agree with a certain notion is a rhetoric. Neither have you interviewed all physicist nor do I have access to all of them (or the time or intent anyway). But I am certain there are many physicist who are Theist (I am personally acquainted with some) and very few would like to indulge in a subject that is not their own (Evolutionary Biology isn't a strong point among Physicists).

    I also note that you skip some of the central parts of my arguments. Like the point about method of investigation and non-equivalence of observation/empirical evidence vis a vis Mathematical notions which have profound physical and logical implications. Just saying.

  457. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Don't you know that an ordinary mass possesses consciousness. It's consciousness due to which living creature born out of primordial oceanic soup, crawled out of the sea to evolve into higher forms of life, having nervous system and ability to think. It is consciousness due to which human being evolved to such an extent that it starts exploring and developing theories of itself " Consciousness was not around in the "primordial oceanic soup", it came about through Darwinian evolution. Reality itself is primary, not consciousness, consciousness could not have come about without reality, nor can it function without it. So that view is false.

    "Such as Quantum entanglement which borders on spiritual field."  Quantum entanglement and other examples of "spooky" things happening in the quantum realm, has nothing to do with any "spiritual field".

    "Today Science is looking for solutions in spirituality, though making it more scientific in it's approach whilst embracing it." All what you mean is people like Deepak Chopra taking terminology from Quantum Mechanics and using it to make the gobbledygook he preaches look scientific. 

  458. Supriya says:

    mysticalmind3
    I don't want to argue with you. It's your fate that you are not ready to admit that you are not merely matter but an intelligent soul. You have spiritual existance. There is consciousness within you.
    Science and spirituality can't be divorced, as both are exploratory ,diving deeper into the realm of human existance.
    Albert Einstein has said – Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.
    Don't you know that an ordinary mass possesses consciousness. It's consciousness due to which living creature born out of primordial oceanic soup, crawled out of the sea to evolve into higher forms of life, having nervous system and ability to think. It is consciousness due to which human being evolved to such an extent that it starts exploring and developing theories of itself . A renowned Mathematician Kurt Godel has established that everything in Maths. can't be derived by pure computation and math.postulates. There is something deeper. Many scientists described it as" mind's I " and it is provoking them to explore the nature of consciousness. Scientists have now started looking at these principles which come under the domain of consciousness and spirituality. Such as Quantum entanglement which borders on spiritual field.
    Today Science is looking for solutions in spirituality, though making it more scientific in it's approach whilst embracing it.
    Here are some commentator who are not Indian but believe in Indian philosophy of spirituality. They are cchuckc, Demsci, knowTheEnemy. Even Dr. Sina believes in Buddha's teaching. Read his all articles of God and spirituality. Make search on google for New age movement, Neo vedantic movement, Neo hinduism movement , science in vedas, vedic maths. You will come to know that Science and spirituality are not two different fields but they are blended.
    And believe that it's your consciousness which makes you to think, question etc. not your materialistic body. Don't ask me silly questions.

  459. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Yes, tons of them if I make the effort." You did not even name 1.

    " Time and again new theories and ideas are REJECTED. Thomas Kuhn wrote about it in the 60ties, remember that?" I have not "rejected" anything, all I say is I not going to believe it, I need proof, that is fair enough, nothing dogmatic about that position.

    "So in the movie the Israeli's were the only ones who took the Zombie epidemic serious and as a result became a safe haven against it by means of a big wall." If someone claims there is a worldwide zombie epidemic its very easy to find out if its true or not. Its very easily falsifiable – unlike the "theories" given by the believers in the paranormal and supernatural. 

  460. Demsci says:

    //"You are confusing scientific theories – which can be tested and falsified – with supernatural natural nonsense which is illogical, unfalsifiable and often not even logically coherent. "//

    Well, you don't know me, and it may seem that way to you, but OH, NO! When scientific theories COMPETE with supernatural natural nonsense, I choose the former over the latter. Like you.

    //Can you give me any case where there is an absence of an alternative better and simpler explanation? "//

    Yes, tons of them if I make the effort. We can read the news and we can talk about people's beliefs when we meet and sooooooo very often not only beliefs get rejected out of hand, but also new ideas, even scientific theories because of this damned much too skeptical attitude of so many people.

    Remember how the steam machine was first encountered skepticaclly, as were the trains and their high speed, AND THE CAR! in the age of horse-and-buggy. And the computer in the age of the typewriter! Time and again new theories and ideas are REJECTED. Thomas Kuhn wrote about it in the 60ties, remember that?

    I also want to tell you something I heard in the Brad Pitt-movie "World War Z"

    In it, an Israeli security man explained to him the practice of "believing the Tenth Man". You see, Jews and Israel were in the past attacked, and early on there were warnings. But these were REJECTED, because of improbability. But the warnings were accurate and led to untold misery and great danger, the Israeli said.

    So, now when 9 people in a security-committee in Israel DISBELIEF an improbable threathening story, nevertheless the tenth (wo)man has the duty to BELIEVE the threathening story and act and advise upon it!
    And the nine others too must act upon HIS/ HER advice, in Israel, the Israeli said.

    So in the movie the Israeli's were the only ones who took the Zombie epidemic serious and as a result became a safe haven against it by means of a big wall.

    I hope you get the drift of my story that it can even be in future ridiculed and also dangerous TO REJECT improbable theories.

  461. mysticalmind3 says:

    "Or … Will they take note of all beliefs reported to them, intensively search for evidence and think reasoning about them and only then reject them?" You are confusing scientific theories – which can be tested and falsified – with supernatural natural nonsense which is illogical, unfalsifiable and often not even logically coherent. 

    "I don't know, I have to look into the evidence and think deep about it?" Did you have to think deeply about 2 headed dragons the tooth fairy and flying winged horses? 

    " If a DENIAL-DISMISSEL OF A BELIEF is not based in reason and evidence then the only thing it can be based on is blind SKEPTICISM? " If a belief is not based in reason and evidence then you are fully justified in rejecting that belief.

    "But in the absence of such an alternative better explanation I think it is no good and faulty to just dismiss/ deny a belief." Can you give me any case where there is an absence of an alternative better and simpler explanation?  

  462. mysticalmind3 says:

    "It's your opinion that belief in past life is not needed to explain present life." All of human behavior is caused by genes and environment, their is no reason to invoke reincarnation. 

    "From where do you come to know that I don't know about these philosophy?" You don't know that a person has had past lives, you don't know that the motions of the planets at a persons birth date and time determine their whole life and you don't know your Guru is able to predict future events in peoples lives based on those readings. You believe in all these based on blind faith, this I know.

    "They can predict that whether you will win lottery ticket or not ( Not lottery number. It is not needed)." Can they give you the exact date of the lottery draw? I thought not, as they just give very vague information that could apply to anything and anyone. Also how come none of them predicted 9-11 or the terrorist attack in Delhi in 2008? Got their horoscope reading wrong on those days I guess.

    "You explained the example" I explained it very clearly, what I said is exactly what Hindus and Buddhists believe.

    "but I don't think that you under